Trump’s New Religious Freedom Executive Order Is Little Short Of Awesome
-
Im already hearing about some satanists giggling hystericslly over this. This will come and bite some people in the ass. And when it does i cannot wait to read the blazing hypocricy here.
Im already hearing about some satanists giggling hystericslly over this. This will come and bite some people in the ass. And when it does i cannot wait to read the blazing hypocricy here.
Whatever the repercussions I don't see how it could get much worse than making a small bakery owner pay well over a hundred thousand dollars for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple. I remember a small pizza parlor the left tried to put out of business because a Christian employee said they could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding. There have been plenty of repercussions already against the rights of religious beliefs under the Obama administration.
-
As is happening frequently, and I have to believe with the blessing of the administration, draft executive orders are filtering their way out. To date, the leaks have been damned near carbon copies of the final order. Today a new one appeared. This one on religious freedom.
As you know, Obama was a big proponent of defining religious freedom as the freedom of worship. In other words you were permitted to believe whatever you wished for an hour or two on Sunday. But, if you brought your bizarre little beliefs out of that “safe space” you were just asking for trouble. Trump’s draft order is about 540-degrees away from that because 180-degrees just isn’t enough of a change.
Via Erick Erickson at The Resurgent:
Here are some of the things the religious freedom executive order would do:- It tells the entire federal government to respect federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions that make clear the free exercise of religion applies to all people, of all faiths, in all places, and at all times—that it is not merely the freedom to worship.
- It notes that religious organizations include all organizations operated by religious principles, not just houses of worship or charities. And it follows the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in saying that religious exercise “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice,” not just those absolutely required by a faith.
- It instructs all agencies of the federal government, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” to reasonably accommodate the religion of federal employees, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- It instructs the secretaries of health and human services, labor, and treasury to finally grant relief to the Little Sisters of the Poor and others who weren’t exempted from the Obamacare abortifacient and contraception mandate.
- It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that all citizens have the ability to purchase health care plans through Obamacare that do not cover abortion or subsidize plans that do.
- It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that the federal government does not discriminate against child-welfare providers, such as foster care and adoption services, based on the organization’s religious beliefs.
- It adopts the Russell Amendment and instructs all agencies of the federal government to provide protections and exemptions consistent with the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to all religious organizations that contract with the federal government or receive grants.
-
It instructs the secretary of the treasury to ensure that it does not revoke nonprofit tax status because a, or because it speaks or acts on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that a person’s sex is based on immutable biology, or that life begins at conception.
- It instructs all agencies of the federal government to refuse to recognize any decision by a federally recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to an organization because of such beliefs.
- It instructs all agencies that they may not take adverse action against federal employees, contractors, or grantees because of their speech about marriage outside of their employment, contract, or grant, and that agencies shall reasonably accommodate such beliefs inside of employment, contract, or grant.
What the opponents of this are bellyaching about is not “discrimination.” They are complaining because virtually no one will have the ability to force another to honor sexual perversion as the price of being allowed employment and people who don’t need birth control, like Catholic women religious, won’t have to buy insurance policies that covers them.As is happening frequently, and I have to believe with the blessing of the administration, draft executive orders are filtering their way out. To date, the leaks have been damned near carbon copies of the final order. Today a new one appeared. This one on religious freedom.
As you know, Obama was a big proponent of defining religious freedom as the freedom of worship. In other words you were permitted to believe whatever you wished for an hour or two on Sunday. But, if you brought your bizarre little beliefs out of that “safe space” you were just asking for trouble. Trump’s draft order is about 540-degrees away from that because 180-degrees just isn’t enough of a change.
Via Erick Erickson at The Resurgent:
Here are some of the things the religious freedom executive order would do:- It tells the entire federal government to respect federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions that make clear the free exercise of religion applies to all people, of all faiths, in all places, and at all times—that it is not merely the freedom to worship.
- It notes that religious organizations include all organizations operated by religious principles, not just houses of worship or charities. And it follows the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in saying that religious exercise “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice,” not just those absolutely required by a faith.
- It instructs all agencies of the federal government, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” to reasonably accommodate the religion of federal employees, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- It instructs the secretaries of health and human services, labor, and treasury to finally grant relief to the Little Sisters of the Poor and others who weren’t exempted from the Obamacare abortifacient and contraception mandate.
- It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that all citizens have the ability to purchase health care plans through Obamacare that do not cover abortion or subsidize plans that do.
- It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that the federal government does not discriminate against child-welfare providers, such as foster care and adoption services, based on the organization’s religious beliefs.
- It adopts the Russell Amendment and instructs all agencies of the federal government to provide protections and exemptions consistent with the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to all religious organizations that contract with the federal government or receive grants.
-
It instructs the secretary of the treasury to ensure that it does not revoke nonprofit tax status because a, or because it speaks or acts on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that a person’s sex is based on immutable biology, or that life begins at conception.
- It instructs all agencies of the federal government to refuse to recognize any decision by a federally recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to an organization because of such beliefs.
- It instructs all agencies that they may not take adverse action against federal employees, contractors, or grantees because of their speech about marriage outside of their employment, contract, or grant, and that agencies shall reasonably accommodate such beliefs inside of employment, contract, or grant.
What the opponents of this are bellyaching about is not “discrimination.” They are complaining because virtually no one will have the ability to force another to honor sexual perversion as the price of being allowed employment and people who don’t need birth control, like Catholic women religious, won’t have to buy insurance policies that covers them.The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
-
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
-
Im already hearing about some satanists giggling hystericslly over this. This will come and bite some people in the ass. And when it does i cannot wait to read the blazing hypocricy here.
Whatever the repercussions I don't see how it could get much worse than making a small bakery owner pay well over a hundred thousand dollars for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple. I remember a small pizza parlor the left tried to put out of business because a Christian employee said they could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding. There have been plenty of repercussions already against the rights of religious beliefs under the Obama administration.
Whatever the repercussions I don't see how it could get much worse than making a small bakery owner pay well over a hundred thousand dollars for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple. I remember a small pizza parlor the left tried to put out of business because a Christian employee said they could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding. There have been plenty of repercussions already against the rights of religious beliefs under the Obama administration.
It's funny how the bible never comes out when it's time to feed the poor, welcome the homeless and love your neighbours, but if gay people ask you to bake a cake all of a sudden it's super relevant.
-
As is happening frequently, and I have to believe with the blessing of the administration, draft executive orders are filtering their way out. To date, the leaks have been damned near carbon copies of the final order. Today a new one appeared. This one on religious freedom.
As you know, Obama was a big proponent of defining religious freedom as the freedom of worship. In other words you were permitted to believe whatever you wished for an hour or two on Sunday. But, if you brought your bizarre little beliefs out of that “safe space” you were just asking for trouble. Trump’s draft order is about 540-degrees away from that because 180-degrees just isn’t enough of a change.
Via Erick Erickson at The Resurgent:
Here are some of the things the religious freedom executive order would do:- It tells the entire federal government to respect federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions that make clear the free exercise of religion applies to all people, of all faiths, in all places, and at all times—that it is not merely the freedom to worship.
- It notes that religious organizations include all organizations operated by religious principles, not just houses of worship or charities. And it follows the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in saying that religious exercise “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice,” not just those absolutely required by a faith.
- It instructs all agencies of the federal government, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” to reasonably accommodate the religion of federal employees, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- It instructs the secretaries of health and human services, labor, and treasury to finally grant relief to the Little Sisters of the Poor and others who weren’t exempted from the Obamacare abortifacient and contraception mandate.
- It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that all citizens have the ability to purchase health care plans through Obamacare that do not cover abortion or subsidize plans that do.
- It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that the federal government does not discriminate against child-welfare providers, such as foster care and adoption services, based on the organization’s religious beliefs.
- It adopts the Russell Amendment and instructs all agencies of the federal government to provide protections and exemptions consistent with the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to all religious organizations that contract with the federal government or receive grants.
-
It instructs the secretary of the treasury to ensure that it does not revoke nonprofit tax status because a, or because it speaks or acts on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that a person’s sex is based on immutable biology, or that life begins at conception.
- It instructs all agencies of the federal government to refuse to recognize any decision by a federally recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to an organization because of such beliefs.
- It instructs all agencies that they may not take adverse action against federal employees, contractors, or grantees because of their speech about marriage outside of their employment, contract, or grant, and that agencies shall reasonably accommodate such beliefs inside of employment, contract, or grant.
What the opponents of this are bellyaching about is not “discrimination.” They are complaining because virtually no one will have the ability to force another to honor sexual perversion as the price of being allowed employment and people who don’t need birth control, like Catholic women religious, won’t have to buy insurance policies that covers them.The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
-
Whatever the repercussions I don't see how it could get much worse than making a small bakery owner pay well over a hundred thousand dollars for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple. I remember a small pizza parlor the left tried to put out of business because a Christian employee said they could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding. There have been plenty of repercussions already against the rights of religious beliefs under the Obama administration.
It's funny how the bible never comes out when it's time to feed the poor, welcome the homeless and love your neighbours, but if gay people ask you to bake a cake all of a sudden it's super relevant.
It's funny how the bible never comes out when it's time to feed the poor, welcome the homeless and love your neighbours, but if gay people ask you to bake a cake all of a sudden it's super relevant.
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
-
The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American societyand this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxationwas recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
-
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American societyand this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxationwas recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Which lasted until 1954 (well past the colonial days..it started with the colonial days). Johnson did not evolve or anything about this he just wanted to silence his political opponents.
-
The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
I think we may have found a statement more absurd than Cal's "gays can't get married because its science".
The day I let religious institutions that condoned slavery, promoted racial segregation, collaborated with Nazis, and that actively shields kid-fucking priests - to name a few - dictate to me what is morally conscious or not, is the day that I officially quit being a free-thinking human being and put a bullet into my brain.
Don't misunderstand me; the vast majority of religious people are decent people. But Christian religious institutions lost the right to be the arbiters of what is moral a long time ago.
-
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Which lasted until 1954 (well past the colonial days..it started with the colonial days). Johnson did not evolve or anything about this he just wanted to silence his political opponents.
Which lasted until 1954 (well past the colonial days..it started with the colonial days). Johnson did not evolve or anything about this he just wanted to silence his political opponents.
So what other old laws do you want to bring back from the good old days? Segregation? Marital rape?
-
"If you gave [Jerry] Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox". - Christopher Hitchens, 2007.
-
The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
You're absolutely right. Johnson introduced the amendment as a political bludgeon. He wanted to silence one of his opponents
who kept calling him a communist.
I would question the statement that churches are the conscience of society, given the rising number of people who list their religion as 'none'.
-
It's funny how the bible never comes out when it's time to feed the poor, welcome the homeless and love your neighbours, but if gay people ask you to bake a cake all of a sudden it's super relevant.
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
On this we are in full agreement. I'll never understand the logic of taking someone who is repulsed by your existence
to court in order to force them to bake you a cake, as well as the business being forced to pay thousands of dollars
for---what? Hurt feelings?
By the same token, I don't understand the argument that baking a cake for a gay couple is forcing you to
participate in the wedding. Unless you're being forced to attend the wedding and cut the cake and dance with
the groom, then you're just being paid to bake a fucking cake. Take the money and live well.
-
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
On this we are in full agreement. I'll never understand the logic of taking someone who is repulsed by your existence
to court in order to force them to bake you a cake, as well as the business being forced to pay thousands of dollars
for---what? Hurt feelings?
By the same token, I don't understand the argument that baking a cake for a gay couple is forcing you to
participate in the wedding. Unless you're being forced to attend the wedding and cut the cake and dance with
the groom, then you're just being paid to bake a fucking cake. Take the money and live well.
On this we are in full agreement. I'll never understand the logic of taking someone who is repulsed by your existence
to court in order to force them to bake you a cake, as well as the business being forced to pay thousands of dollars
for---what? Hurt feelings?
By the same token, I don't understand the argument that baking a cake for a gay couple is forcing you to
participate in the wedding. Unless you're being forced to attend the wedding and cut the cake and dance with
the groom, then you're just being paid to bake a fucking cake. Take the money and live well.
See now that's pretty sound thinking. Yet you still get people on both sides playing the victim and declaring the other side a monster.
-
Double standard? You bet:Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado DecidesA bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/#JBxlU4QAdmCuCFcq.99 -
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
The word "entertaining" dies not begin to encompass the level of gleeful giddiness i will exp if something like that goes down. I might have to fap to it is what im saying
-
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
The word "entertaining" dies not begin to encompass the level of gleeful giddiness i will exp if something like that goes down. I might have to fap to it is what im saying
The word "entertaining" dies not begin to encompass the level of gleeful giddiness i will exp if something like that goes down. I might have to fap to it is what im saying
We'll see. We've already seen the consequences of the loss of rights of religious beliefs.
-
Double standard? You bet:Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado DecidesA bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/#JBxlU4QAdmCuCFcq.99Obf, ur missing the full story...which isnt surprising given whete you guys go for ur news. That christian activist wanted more than bible verses on his cake. Early on he even admitted to it, now he changed his story. The baker even tried to accomodate him saying ill put bible shit on there but that other stuff you can put on urself and provided him the frosting tubes to do it. So per usual rhe cases are not equivalent.
Let me be clear im not all that keen to tell bakers what to do, but i do see the point that where does it end? Should restaurants or grocery stores or pharmacies be allowed deny service to gay people? I promise yoy the first time some muslim pharmacist decides this cross wearing customer doesnt get his/her meds....there will be hell.
Double standard? You bet:
Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado Decides
A bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
-
Double standard? You bet:Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado DecidesA bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/#JBxlU4QAdmCuCFcq.99Double standard? You bet:Sexuality: not a choice
Religion: a choice
That's the distinction being made. Frankly anyone who refuses to write stuff on a cake (I'm not talking about baking a penis shaped cake or whatever might 'offend') is an idiot, and anyone who gets bent out of shape about someone not wanting to write stuff they disagree with on a cake is just as much of an idiot. I'm not going to demand a bakery in Ann Arbor write 'Go Buckeyes! Michigan sucks!' or whatever on a cake, but they also should just do it because it's just a fucking cake. Also applies to t-shirts, posters, whatever. *maybe* not big banners to be used in demonstrations.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login