Unholy

[David Garner]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.

You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

[David Garner]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.

You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?

[Donald_Kirchner]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.

You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?

Perhaps, Brian, you saw that ruling in a western, not in the opinion.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.

You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?

State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. (p. 2)

Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion. (p. 4)

[Dan Fienen]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

Brian, Brian, you are being so far behind the times and woodenly literalistic to boot. In current jurisprudence, just about any expressive action can be considered Constitutionally protected "speech." That also includes words that are uttered, written, typed, dictated, broadcast, transmitted, recorded, or videoed, but it certainly is not limited to verbal speech. For many years, probably decades the burning of an American Flag has been considered to be legally protected speech. Flag burning may include the use of words, but it need not in order to be Constitutionally protected speech. Whether or not there are actual words formed of letters strung together placed amidst the decorations of a cake, confecting a cake for a specific occasion for specific people is an expression of some sort. Cake designs, whether they include words or not, can be copyrighted. A wedding cake, especially a custom crafted cake, is by its very nature and expression of celebration, congratulation, and commendation of the (two, usually for now, tomorrow, who knows?) persons being joined in marriage. That is expressive, hence speech, even if the expression is not spelled out in letters gathered into words. If the cake were not expressing meant to be an expression of something about the occasion, but merely a sweet treat after the wedding meal, no need for a special cake, a cake or cakes off the baker's rack would do the same.

[David Garner]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.

You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?

State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. (p. 2)

Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion. (p. 4)

Okay, that is the factual recitation of the case, not the holding of the Court.  Further, if you read that first paragraph you cite carefully, you'll note Justice Kennedy is rebuking the CCRC for not considering Phillips' case in the same light as prior cases involving gay bakers.

The holding, which I have cited for you upstream, says something completely different than your enumerated (a) sentence says.  Completely different.  As I noted above, it does not turn on whether cakes can convey messages, and certainly not on whether they contain writing, which you still have not cited a single sentence to support.  Obviously, I think they can convey messages without regard to what is written on them.  I doubt Jack Phillips would make a cake shaped like a phallus either, for example.  Rather, the holding of the Court turns on the disparate treatment of Phillips versus the gay bakers who refused to created custom cakes for Christian customers who requested them.  The Court, in essence, held that Colorado may find that baked goods convey no message (and thus force gay bakers to "bake the cake, bigot"), or that they convey messages (and thus allow the gay bakers to refuse to bake the cake).  But whatever Colorado does with regard to the gay bakers, Jack Phillips must be fed from the same spoon.  Since he wasn't, Colorado violated his First Amendment rights.

[Matt Hummel]

For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?

Still waiting, patiently and respectfully for an answer...

Still waiting... And I might add, I am curious about your exercise of Progressive privilege in castigating homeschooling.

I am being patient and respectful. But I notice a pattern. When someone challenges your bullying, you pick up the ball and go home.

[Charles Austin]

Mr. Hummel:
Still waiting... And I might add, I am curious about your exercise of Progressive privilege in castigating homeschooling.
I am being patient and respectful. But I notice a pattern. When someone challenges your bullying, you pick up the ball and go home.

Me:
No, you are not “curious.” You do not care about my opinion and you may not demand that I give one.I have consistently refrained from being drawn into the set where you get to define all the words and smugly splatter your favorite slogans and “data” on the wall. I am not trying to change your opinion and I don’t care what you think of mine. That’s not bullying; if I were a bully, I would not find you a target worth the effort. It is just ignoring you and the “pattern” I notice in your reactions.
But guess what? We progressives do have privilege (and so do you whatever you want to call yourselves). 
We get to say “Don’t care for homeschooling. Think it’s a bad idea. But it’s legal, so do it of you wish.”
It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

[Coach-Rev]

It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

Charles:  an observation and a comment.  First, you "threaten" to ignore/not comment all the time, and then you repeatedly do that which you threaten not to.

Second, it's fascinating that in all the warnings Pr. Speckhard has given over the past few days, there is one common thread between them all, and it is you.

[Brian Stoffregen]

It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

Charles:  an observation and a comment.  First, you "threaten" to ignore/not comment all the time, and then you repeatedly do that which you threaten not to.

Second, it's fascinating that in all the warnings Pr. Speckhard has given over the past few days, there is one common thread between them all, and it is you.

You don't think that those who goad Charles into responding is not a common thread?

[MaddogLutheran]

You don't think that those who goad Charles into responding is not a common thread?

Oh yes, thanks for the correction.  Our collective ignorance is what makes Pr. Austin insult everyone he interacts with here.  We definitely deserve it.

[Matt Hummel]

Mr. Hummel:
Still waiting... And I might add, I am curious about your exercise of Progressive privilege in castigating homeschooling.
I am being patient and respectful. But I notice a pattern. When someone challenges your bullying, you pick up the ball and go home.

Me:
No, you are not “curious.” You do not care about my opinion and you may not demand that I give one.I have consistently refrained from being drawn into the set where you get to define all the words and smugly splatter your favorite slogans and “data” on the wall. I am not trying to change your opinion and I don’t care what you think of mine. That’s not bullying; if I were a bully, I would not find you a target worth the effort. It is just ignoring you and the “pattern” I notice in your reactions.
But guess what? We progressives do have privilege (and so do you whatever you want to call yourselves). 
We get to say “Don’t care for homeschooling. Think it’s a bad idea. But it’s legal, so do it of you wish.”
It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

Charles- Well golly. I am taken aback. You have chastised others, myself, included, for reading motive into other people's words, and yet here you are doing it.

You have chastised others, myself included, for not exercising Luther's admonition with regard to the Eighth Commandment. And yet here you are doing it.

So what do you call someone who imposes demands on others that he sees no need to follow himself. [Besides "President Trump." Beat you to it.  ]?

Why do you get to say "homeschooling is a bad idea? On what grounds do you make your claims. This is the Progressive Privileging about which I wrote. I saw it consistently in the ELCA. There are any number of unchallenged assumptions that, when one asks, "Why?," one is met with reprimand. As for issues of the sanctity of human life, ask yourself why is ok that we have to take time out to listen to the message that [born] Black Lives Matter but it is so tiringly churlish for mouthbreathers such as myself to bring up the topic of abortion? You cannot have it both ways.

Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day!

[Brian Stoffregen]

You don't think that those who goad Charles into responding is not a common thread?

Oh yes, thanks for the correction.  Our collective ignorance is what makes Pr. Austin insult everyone he interacts with here.  We definitely deserve it.

As the saying goes: It takes two to tango.

[David Garner]

Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day!

For some reason, I never knew you were a priest.  My apologies for those, likely numerous, times I failed to address you as such.