Where did it go?

[Youkilledkenny]

With the exception of the occasional "wedding cake issue" or the like, it seems that the 'Christian vs. Gay" argument has died down a lot in the USA since gay marriage has become legal.
Have Christians given up on the complaining about how bad gay people are, are Christians re-grouping, have Christians that complained about gay people gone on holiday or have Christians all of a sudden, become "OK" with gay people?
Or, perhaps, the media has found other causes to accost us with these days?
Or are there other reasons (sinister or benign)?

[JP Cusick]

Why would you think this isn't about religion in the first place? Why would pornography being protected "free speech" mean the case can not argue against a pornographic cake? You are not making any sense.

Makes simply perfect sense.

Of course it has something to do with religion - and rightly so - I would never deny that.

The cake is the thing being set aside as if the cake makes no difference - and that was the missing ingredient.

[Bust Nak]

Makes simply perfect sense.

Of course it has something to do with religion - and rightly so - I would never deny that.

This is what you stated: "and so the fake News is that this is just a case of religion when it is not." Explain what you meant, if you didn't mean the case wasn't about religion.

The cake is the thing being set aside as if the cake makes no difference - and that was the missing ingredient.

I don't understand what you are saying at all.

[JP Cusick]

Makes simply perfect sense.

Of course it has something to do with religion - and rightly so - I would never deny that.

This is what you stated: "and so the fake News is that this is just a case of religion when it is not." Explain what you meant, if you didn't mean the case wasn't about religion.

That means that there are more aspects to the case then just one (1) thing.

It is not an all-or-nothing equation, because the case is not just about religion as the Fake News paints the case.

The cake is the thing being set aside as if the cake makes no difference - and that was the missing ingredient.

I don't understand what you are saying at all.

The Fake News has been saying it was just a case about religion as if the cake itself was not a factor, and now we see that is not the case.

If anyone just wanted a wedding cake then they just buy a wedding cake, and there would not even be a question as to who or what was getting married because a cake is just a cake, and the only thing that takes the dispute outside of a normal business transaction of selling a wedding cake is that they were requesting a specific kind of cake which had relevance to homosex - because otherwise they would just buy the cake and no one knows who or what is to be married.

The requested style of cake is what made the distinction and created the hostility - and that was the bait to draw in the religion.

[Bust Nak]

That means that there are more aspects to the case then just one (1) thing.

It is not an all-or-nothing equation, because the case is not just about religion as the Fake News paints the case.

But no news have painted it as just about religion, they have all reported to be something more than just religion, it is about same sex marriage.

The Fake News has been saying it was just a case about religion as if the cake itself was not a factor, and now we see that is not the case.

You say "see," how? What are you seeing other than an internet rumour?

If anyone just wanted a wedding cake then they just buy a wedding cake, and there would not even be a question as to who or what was getting married because a cake is just a cake, and the only thing that takes the dispute outside of a normal business transaction of selling a wedding cake is that they were requesting a specific kind of cake which had relevance to homosex - because otherwise they would just buy the cake and no one knows who or what is to be married.

They told the baker the cake is for there wedding, that's all there is to it.

The requested style of cake is what made the distinction and created the hostility - and that was the bait to draw in the religion.

What requested style? Again, you are taking an internet rumour and running with it. If it was about the style of the cake, why didn't the baker say anything about it?

[shnarkle]

Why would you think this isn't about religion in the first place? Why would pornography being protected "free speech" mean the case can not argue against a pornographic cake? You are not making any sense.

Makes simply perfect sense.

Of course it has something to do with religion - and rightly so - I would never deny that.

The cake is the thing being set aside as if the cake makes no difference - and that was the missing ingredient.

The reason it shouldn't be about religion is because it creates a privileged class, i.e. the religious who now can discrinimate based upon their religious convictions. Anyone in business should be free to make idiotic business decisions if they so choose. No one should be forced to work for anyone against their will. Working against one's will is a cornerstone of slavery. It may not be popular, but I don't care what reason a person gives. I don't care if they're a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, etc. If they don't want to work, they shouldn't have to. I would only draw the line at someone articulating why. The baker shouldn't have to give any reasons why he doesn't want to bake a cake, and he shouldn't put any forward either.

[shnarkle]

With the exception of the occasional "wedding cake issue" or the like, it seems that the 'Christian vs. Gay" argument has died down a lot in the USA since gay marriage has become legal.
Have Christians given up on the complaining about how bad gay people are, are Christians re-grouping, have Christians that complained about gay people gone on holiday or have Christians all of a sudden, become "OK" with gay people?
Or, perhaps, the media has found other causes to accost us with these days?
Or are there other reasons (sinister or benign)?

I think a lot of people are starting to see that theiridentity isn't really wrapped up in a group. People are starting to think of themselves more as individuals than as Christians, or Liberals, or any other group label. Part of the reason is people are finding out that those who want to be the spokesman for a particular group oftentimes say things that don't agree with some of the other groups that people belong to, sometimes even the same group. Take for example, gay Christians. Obviously they're not going to be able to stick with one group over the other if they're committed to Christianity as well as their sexual orientation. They aren't going to want to pick sides so they just remain gay Christians.

The other reason why this may be simmering down is because Christians are wising up to how to behave around gay people. They follow the advice of Bill Clinton and "don't ask, don't tell". They stop advertising their brand of Christianity and cease to be targets for those who are looking to make an example of them.

[Bust Nak]

Looks like the US Supreme Courts have made their decision in favor of the bakery, saying the Colorado commissioner who made the original ruling was inappropriate hostile towards religion, perhaps more importantly without outlining a constitutional view on whether the freedom of religious belief trumps state laws barring businesses from discriminating.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli ... index.html

[shnarkle]

Looks like the US Supreme Courts have made their decision in favor of the bakery, saying the Colorado commissioner who made the original ruling was inappropriate hostile towards religion, perhaps more importantly without outlining a constitutional view on whether the freedom of religious belief trumps state laws barring businesses from discriminating.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli ... index.html

I haven't followed any of this so I appreciate the link you provided and after watching it, it seems that the undue hostility towards religion wasn't the only reason, and it really shouldn't be a religious issue at all. The baker's defense was one of freedom of expression. He viewed his talent for cake decorating as an art, and pointd out that an artist shouldn't be forced to create something that violates their right to create what they want. We wouldn't force a Jewish author to write a novel extolling the benefits of the haulocaust would we?

The media and this gay couple wants to make this a religious issue when it really isn't, and the supreme court basically threw it out on those grounds as well they should. Anyone should be able to have that right. We don't need to be giving special priviledges to people based upon their religious convictions. Everyone should be able to have the freedom of expression simply as individuals.

[Bust Nak]

We wouldn't force a Jewish author to write a novel extolling the benefits of the haulocaust would we?

I would, given that the same author has already fulfilled commissions to write novels extolling the benefits of the haulocaust for other people.

The media and this gay couple wants to make this a religious issue when it really isn't, and the supreme court basically threw it out on those grounds as well they should. Anyone should be able to have that right. We don't need to be giving special priviledges to people based upon their religious convictions. Everyone should be able to have the freedom of expression simply as individuals.

Being above laws against discrimination sounds very much like special priviledges to people based upon their religious convictions to me.

[shnarkle]

We wouldn't force a Jewish author to write a novel extolling the benefits of the haulocaust would we?

I would, given that the same author has already fulfilled commissions to write novels extolling the benefits of the haulocaust for other people.

False dichotomy. No, he's fullfilled commissions to write novels condemning the holocaust. That's what he believes, therefore he should be under no compulsion to contradict what he's already written. The real issue isn't so much the content, but his ability to express it the way he chooses. He's being told how to express his art, and he shouldn't have to follow anyone else's expression but his own. The consumer shouldn't be telling the artist how to do his job. If the consumer doesn't like what they see, they should find an artist that produces what they want. That's what's so great about a free market. They have choices, and there's no reason why their choices should impinge upon the choices of others.

The media and this gay couple wants to make this a religious issue when it really isn't, and the supreme court basically threw it out on those grounds as well they should. Anyone should be able to have that right. We don't need to be giving special priviledges to people based upon their religious convictions. Everyone should be able to have the freedom of expression simply as individuals.

Being above laws against discrimination sounds very much like special priviledges to people based upon their religious convictions to me.

Sounds like? That's not an argument. Given that it wasn't based upon religious convictions, the judges ruled correctly noting that this baker was discriminated against based upon his religious convictions when the baker's position wasn't based upon his religious convictions,but his freedom of expression. Did you watch the link you provided? That's what was reported. Pretending it's an act of discrimination because that's what it sounds like to you doesn't negate the fact that his defense was based upon his right of freedom of expression.