The Difference between Libertarian and Conservative.

[ok doser]

heading down to the shop, got a submerged chainsaw apart on the workbench, and thanks to kat, i know what I'll be listening to on the headphones:

thanks kat!

 

[The Barbarian]

Here is a test. Think about it. I wonder if a Christian baker refused to make wedding cakes, for Nero marrying his horse, if Nero would have him martyred for that. What do you think?

Nero did what he wanted. There was no law but his whim.

But more to the point, it's an almost perfectly poised dilemma. No one should be unjustly discriminated against for his/her/its sexual orientation. But no one should be obligated to do something expressly forbidden by his faith.

I liked TomO's solution. Sell "celebration cakes" with kits you could use to decorate them. Then everyone's rights are preserved.

 

[annabenedetti]

But no one should be obligated to do something expressly forbidden by his faith.

However, baking a cake isn't expressly forbidden by the Christian faith, even if for an occasion which is forbidden.

 

[ok doser]

However, baking a cake isn't expressly forbidden by the Christian faith, even if for an occasion which is forbidden.

iirc, the bakers in question had baked cakes for the homos before, and were happy to bake plain cakes for them in the future

 

[Gary K]

As usual Barbie can't get his facts right. It was the Southern Democrats, including Woodrow Wilson, who opposed the anti-lynching laws. And it was the Republicans who sponsored the anti-lynching laws as they did the civil rights bills of the 1960s.

 

[The Barbarian]

However, baking a cake isn't expressly forbidden by the Christian faith, even if for an occasion which is forbidden.

I get that, but I understand why someone wouldn't want to take part in such a celebration. I still think TomO's idea is one that balances out everyone's rights.

 

[Idolater]

it strikes me that we (in america) live in such a different environment than the early Christians

i wonder how the letters from Paul would read if they were written to an early Christian church forming in modern america, an america where we are expected to participate in government

I think our Constitution is Christian and Paul would have written glowingly about it. It doesn't force anybody to be Christian, and I think he would have gushed about that too. I don't think the Apostles wished that monarchs would force people to convert.

Ours is the government where you abstractly dissect the monarch into parts, three parts, the executive, the lawmaker, and the judge. Then you build institutions up around these three parts, they each act independently of the other two, and within narrow specifications, they are each absolutely powerful, just as the monarch is absolutely powerful all in one man.

Our monarch is our written Constitution. We conservatives want Republican jurists in the courts, because we understand them to be the "referees" or "umpires" that make sure we are all playing by the rules set out in the Constitution. And their absolute power of judicial review means that they judge even the lawmaker so that he is not a law unto himself and his cronies.

In the 1860s Paul would have written the American Church to vote Republican.

 

[Right Divider]

In the 1860s Paul would have written the American Church to vote Republican.

You sure like to speak for Paul. Let me try...

If Paul were here now, he would say "don't be a Roman Catholic".