For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[SassyIrishLass]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

Christians paid it, $180,000 raised on ContinueTo Give

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Your thread title shouldn't be limited to the axis of evil you cited.

There are plenty of 'religious' people out there who happily deny employment to gays, housing to gays, and any number of other denials that aren't coming to mind this moment,

and defend their biases as 'religious' beliefs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

 

[Freewill]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I am glad that I don't need to find a gay florist, I hear there are few. And gay bakers, unheard of. So since there is neither, there is no other option then forced compliance.

Oh my, the bald headed noseless freaks are on to me.

 

[Freewill]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

 

[PratchettFan]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So basically "go in the closet"?

It's all about revenge for people like you.

NO, revenge would be roving bands of gays beating up CHristians and firing Christians from their jobs.

Which no one is calling for or doing.

We are just saying, "If you provide a service, you have to provide it to everyone like the law says."

And if you are going to claim a "religious" exemption, you'd better be following ALL the rules of htat religion, not just the ones you like.

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Yep, it was always about vengence. Despicable.

 

[martybegan]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

I don't recall saying they were

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

Do we allow 'religious'people the legal right dodge tax laws?

 

[martybegan]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

In one case the losing side has hurt feelings and has to spend an hour or so finding another baker. In the other the losing side either has to go against their morals, or pay a fine or go out of business.

For a person with any sort of spine, only one side loses here, and it's not the side with the hurt feelings.

 

[Freewill]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

Do we allow 'religious'people the legal right dodge tax laws?

No, why do you keep implying that we do?

 

[martybegan]

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

Do we allow 'religious'people the legal right dodge tax laws?

No, why do you keep implying that we do?

He's trying to get a gotcha moment, and keeps swinging and missing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

 

[PratchettFan]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

True. But that doesn't change what is or is not bigotry. As we have seen most recently, bigotry is not a useful argument in a court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But your beliefs are not a get out of the law free card. We don't allow religious people to avoid paying taxes, no matter how deep a religious belief they might profess that taxes going to something like war violates their conscience.

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

Do we allow 'religious'people the legal right dodge tax laws?

No, why do you keep implying that we do?

I did no such thing. If religious rights were as comprehensive as some of you seem to believe,

a 'religious' person could exempt himself from, say, the income tax, by claiming his religious beliefs oppose war,

and taxes are spent on war, therefore he has the right not to pay them.

 

[ChrisL]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

In one case the losing side has hurt feelings and has to spend an hour or so finding another baker. In the other the losing side either has to go against their morals, or pay a fine or go out of business.

For a person with any sort of spine, only one side loses here, and it's not the side with the hurt feelings.

Exactly. If your morals prevent you from following the law, then don't go into business. You are FREE to open a business and operate it in accordance with the law. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you blatantly break the law.

 

[bodecea]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

The validity of their belief is what they suddenly say it is? With no biblical basis? Ok.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

True. But that doesn't change what is or is not bigotry. As we have seen most recently, bigotry is not a useful argument in a court.

You're entitled to bigoted beliefs; you're not necessarily entitled to act on them.