What is the scope of your religious freedom as a business?

[Statistikhengst]

I can't seem to find the part of the constitution that only gives protection to churches themselves.

Plus we know you assholes are going to go after Churches next, you can't help yourself. You just can't deal with people believing in things different than your views.

And I think we now see the utter paranoia that is driving some crazies to act the way they do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

(patiently)

Many religions consider homosexuality immoral.

And also forbid people to encourage immorality.

Their not encouraging it if the people are gay before they come into the bakery.

Isn't divorce considered immoral in a lot of religions too?

I bet these so pious bakers have no problem baking a wedding cake for some divorced sinners second marriage

Do you see the problem yet?

The greater problem is thinking fining or forcing these people out of business via government action is the proper response.

I have no problem with these "pious" people refusing to serve anyone as long as it applies to ALL sinners.

Let's see how their business does then

Its not up to government to decide how a person follows or interprets their religion. You can do it, via boycott or a media campaign against said business, but leave government out of it.

Basically you can be a petty twat all you want, just do it yourself and don't get some bullshit "Equal Opportunity Commission" to do your dirty work for you.

I don't believe this issue is about religion at all.

You are absolutely right.

This is not about religion.

This is about hate of gays and anyone else that the extreme-religious-right finds undesirable.

 

[rightwinger]

I fail to see how baking a cake is participating in a wedding anyway. The baker who made my cake did not attend the wedding

Exactly.

My mother used to bake cakes and I used to help her deliver them and set them up at the reception hall usually hours before the reception

Maybe you're not participating but you are directly contributing to the wedding are you not?

No more than someone selling a tux or printing invitations

 

[Statistikhengst]

Exactly, Marty. And that's what my moved thread on the donkey was intended to get at. Jesus, Rosa Parks and Mandela all stood up nonviolently and without the power of the state to show the INJUSTICE of the state's actions should offend us all.

Yet, the response by Indiana and Arkansas was to legally justify the right to discriminate against gays. Hardly what Christ was about.

how are they doing that...? the law says nothing about gays...

the law is simply to provide a way to court for people who do not want to be forced against their religious beliefs...

Forced to do what?

How does baking a cake violate the tenets of any religion?

And will these oh so holy people apply this refusal to all people who sin or just some people who sin?

IDGAF if people refuse to serve someone I just want them to be honest and consistent.

That frames it incorrectly. Participating in a gay wedding violates the tenets of some people's religion.
FWIW in the Oregon case the lesbian couple were patrons of the bakery. The bakery had no issue with lesbians. IT did have an issue with a lesbian marriage.

They are not participating in the wedding they are baking a cake.
The baker does not generally attend or participate in the wedding ceremony and the cake is for the party after not the ceremony before.

Does this baker deny gays birthday cakes because there will be other gay people at the birthday party?

The bakers' actual objection was they felt they were participating. Perhaps they had to deliver it or whatever. But that is a given here.

"felt" is not the same as "fact".

 

[rightwinger]

Their not encouraging it if the people are gay before they come into the bakery.

Isn't divorce considered immoral in a lot of religions too?

I bet these so pious bakers have no problem baking a wedding cake for some divorced sinners second marriage

Do you see the problem yet?

The greater problem is thinking fining or forcing these people out of business via government action is the proper response.

I have no problem with these "pious" people refusing to serve anyone as long as it applies to ALL sinners.

Let's see how their business does then

Its not up to government to decide how a person follows or interprets their religion. You can do it, via boycott or a media campaign against said business, but leave government out of it.

Basically you can be a petty twat all you want, just do it yourself and don't get some bullshit "Equal Opportunity Commission" to do your dirty work for you.

I don't believe this issue is about religion at all.

You are absolutely right.

This is not about religion.

This is about hate of gays and anyone else that the extreme-religious-right finds undesirable.

It has nothing to do with the exercise of religion and everything to do with them being butt hurt over gay rights

If their religion was paramount to their business practice, they would apply equally to all they consider to be "sinners" ..... adulterers, atheists, mixed religions, divorced

Yet, for some reason, only gays get singled out

 

[Statistikhengst]

Exactly, Marty. And that's what my moved thread on the donkey was intended to get at. Jesus, Rosa Parks and Mandela all stood up nonviolently and without the power of the state to show the INJUSTICE of the state's actions should offend us all.

Yet, the response by Indiana and Arkansas was to legally justify the right to discriminate against gays. Hardly what Christ was about.

how are they doing that...? the law says nothing about gays...

the law is simply to provide a way to court for people who do not want to be forced against their religious beliefs...

Forced to do what?

How does baking a cake violate the tenets of any religion?

And will these oh so holy people apply this refusal to all people who sin or just some people who sin?

IDGAF if people refuse to serve someone I just want them to be honest and consistent.

The problem contained in your question is that religions aren't 'official' or based on specific identiable sets of beliefs.

Your religion, essentially, is whatever you want to call your religion.

Not entirely. Usually there has to be some consistent tenets etc.

and the oh so holy people can't pick and choose the tenets they follow right?

Surely if baking a cake for a gay person is a sin then baking one for an adulterer is a sin, a thief? a murderer?

Seems to me with all the sinners that baker sells to his soul is already damned to hell so why not make a little money on a gay wedding cake

This is because whackadoodle extreme Right-Wing fundie Christians have decided that one sin is far worse than the others, namely, being gay. For hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, Christians did business with non-believers all over the place and felt no compunction about it.

Now, in the 21st century, whackadoodle Right-Wing fundie Christians think that it is a sin to even do business with some people. They are radical freaks whose hate is much more important to them than any God in heaven.

 

[Statistikhengst]

how are they doing that...? the law says nothing about gays...

the law is simply to provide a way to court for people who do not want to be forced against their religious beliefs...

Forced to do what?

How does baking a cake violate the tenets of any religion?

And will these oh so holy people apply this refusal to all people who sin or just some people who sin?

IDGAF if people refuse to serve someone I just want them to be honest and consistent.

The problem contained in your question is that religions aren't 'official' or based on specific identiable sets of beliefs.

Your religion, essentially, is whatever you want to call your religion.

Not entirely. Usually there has to be some consistent tenets etc.

and the oh so holy people can't pick and choose the tenets they follow right?

Surely if baking a cake for a gay person is a sin then baking one for an adulterer is a sin, a thief? a murderer?

Seems to me with all the sinners that baker sells to his soul is already damned to hell so why not make a little money on a gay wedding cake

I believe a person is free to decide what is morally acceptable to them.

The law does not regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You also believe in jesus, mary, the holy ghost and various angels. Thats not monotheism.

Bzzzt wrong. Jesus and the holy spirit are aspects of the same deity. Mary is a saint, and angels are angels.

BS. Show me where they were described as the same in the bible. If you pray to something its a god. People pray to mary and jesus. Some even pray to angels. Christianity is about the same as Greek mythology.

Your ignorance on the matter is apparent, and your opinion is pretty much worthless.

You get angry when you are called on your BS everytime.

I get angry when neo-fascists such as yourself use government to force their morality on others.

explain to me how baking a cake for one person is not immoral and baking a cake for another is.

And if it's immoral to bake a cake for people you judge to be immoral how do you justify baking a cake for a shoplifter, a rapist, a greedy person, a fat gluttonous person, a person who takes the lord's name in vain etc ad nauseum?

That's why I say this isn't about religion because it certainly isn't about morality

 

[Statistikhengst]

Forced to do what?

How does baking a cake violate the tenets of any religion?

And will these oh so holy people apply this refusal to all people who sin or just some people who sin?

IDGAF if people refuse to serve someone I just want them to be honest and consistent.

The problem contained in your question is that religions aren't 'official' or based on specific identiable sets of beliefs.

Your religion, essentially, is whatever you want to call your religion.

Not entirely. Usually there has to be some consistent tenets etc.

and the oh so holy people can't pick and choose the tenets they follow right?

Surely if baking a cake for a gay person is a sin then baking one for an adulterer is a sin, a thief? a murderer?

Seems to me with all the sinners that baker sells to his soul is already damned to hell so why not make a little money on a gay wedding cake

I believe a person is free to decide what is morally acceptable to them.

IOW to be a hypocrite.

Like I said if you want to push for right to refuse service laws I'm all for it. I think anyone should have the right t refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. I think people who do it are stupid but they have that right I guess. If they do it though they lose their right to whine when public action and outcry runs them out of business

I don't buy this religion argument.

It's disingenuous.

It is VERY disingenuous.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

Obviously the doctor was wrong and can be sued for discrimination. What is there to debate?

How can the doctor be discriminating when these are hard held religious beliefs?

What religion tells you can't treat a gay patient? Answer: no religion

Slippery slope fallacy

What religion tells you that you can't bake a cake for a gay wedding?

False equivalence

The baker is being asked to contribute to an unholy ceremony that is in conflict with his/her religion. The doctor treating a gay person isn't comparable.

the cake is for the party after the unholy ceremony.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, you do
You start a business and you have to comply with applicable laws

Is this law not applicable, virus?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Religion is still subject to complying with the laws of the land

In fact, Jesus himself said "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto G-d what is G-d's".

 

[Statistikhengst]

Has our country reached a point where business can now serve moral judgement on its customers?

From your perspective as a totalitarian thug, dedicated to eradicating all individual rights and freedom, let me ask you;

Say there is a very talented cake decorator who is unemployed and looking for a job. A gay baker hears of this person, and orders him to come work at his bakery. The decorator refuses, stating that he won't work for a queer.

Should the law force the decorator to work for the baker? Should the baker be able to sue the decorator for refusing to work for him?

Back when

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

was the law of the land, this was simple - now that you have repealed that law, it is murky.You democrats have always promoted slavery. You have shown that involuntary servitude is now a part of our nation, that homosexuals are a superior segment that own all others who must serve them without question. So given that the baker is gay, then should he be required to pay his slave?

How many different threads are you going to post this same ignorant crap on? Your slavery reference is still stupid.

Perhaps that is all he has to argue with?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Then you should be penalized for your obvious anti-religious bias.

Would you support the right of a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake for a christian wedding?

the bolded: that was some outstanding fascism. Bravo.

The last sentence: no, the gay baker should also serve all of his customers. But why in the world do you even make the comparison? "Gay" is not a religion, just as "straight" is not a religion. You do understand this, right?

 

[Statistikhengst]

It is not a viable option, you horse-fucker.

Its a viable option. You just dont happen to like it. Tough.

It shouldn't be an "option" at all. The government should just leave them the hell alone.

Horse fucker.

Well it is an option. Not interested in your interpretation of the facts.

Kind of like death by firing squad or injection is an "option" in Utah?

Horse fucker.

Why are you signing your posts? I always think that is a weird behavior.

LOL!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Forced to do what?

How does baking a cake violate the tenets of any religion?

And will these oh so holy people apply this refusal to all people who sin or just some people who sin?

IDGAF if people refuse to serve someone I just want them to be honest and consistent.

The problem contained in your question is that religions aren't 'official' or based on specific identiable sets of beliefs.

Your religion, essentially, is whatever you want to call your religion.

Not entirely. Usually there has to be some consistent tenets etc.

and the oh so holy people can't pick and choose the tenets they follow right?

Surely if baking a cake for a gay person is a sin then baking one for an adulterer is a sin, a thief? a murderer?

Seems to me with all the sinners that baker sells to his soul is already damned to hell so why not make a little money on a gay wedding cake

I believe a person is free to decide what is morally acceptable to them.

The law does not regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

The Constitution protects religious freedom, does it not?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The problem contained in your question is that religions aren't 'official' or based on specific identiable sets of beliefs.

Your religion, essentially, is whatever you want to call your religion.

Not entirely. Usually there has to be some consistent tenets etc.

and the oh so holy people can't pick and choose the tenets they follow right?

Surely if baking a cake for a gay person is a sin then baking one for an adulterer is a sin, a thief? a murderer?

Seems to me with all the sinners that baker sells to his soul is already damned to hell so why not make a little money on a gay wedding cake

I believe a person is free to decide what is morally acceptable to them.

The law does not regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

The Constitution protects religious freedom, does it not?

This is exactly what the 1st amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not allow people to use or misuse their "religion" to discriminate against other people.

See how that works?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not entirely. Usually there has to be some consistent tenets etc.

and the oh so holy people can't pick and choose the tenets they follow right?

Surely if baking a cake for a gay person is a sin then baking one for an adulterer is a sin, a thief? a murderer?

Seems to me with all the sinners that baker sells to his soul is already damned to hell so why not make a little money on a gay wedding cake

I believe a person is free to decide what is morally acceptable to them.

The law does not regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

The Constitution protects religious freedom, does it not?

This is exactly what the 1st amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not allow people to use or misuse their "religion" to discriminate against other people.

See how that works?

Exercising one's religious right is not misuse.

You have a right to ask a baker to bake you a cake, the baker has a right to refuse to bake you a cake.

See how that works?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So Red states are clamoring to pass laws allowing business to refuse to serve those who their religious beliefs say are sinners

- Can a doctor cite his religious objection to adultery and refuse to deliver a baby to a woman who is not married?

- Can businesses in a community refuse to serve a couple who are unmarried and live together?

- Can a business refuse to serve at a wedding among atheists?



.

Your new avatar is Eddie Haskell?

 

[BULLDOG]

Has our country reached a point where business can now serve moral judgement on its customers?

From your perspective as a totalitarian thug, dedicated to eradicating all individual rights and freedom, let me ask you;

Say there is a very talented cake decorator who is unemployed and looking for a job. A gay baker hears of this person, and orders him to come work at his bakery. The decorator refuses, stating that he won't work for a queer.

Should the law force the decorator to work for the baker? Should the baker be able to sue the decorator for refusing to work for him?

Back when

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

was the law of the land, this was simple - now that you have repealed that law, it is murky.You democrats have always promoted slavery. You have shown that involuntary servitude is now a part of our nation, that homosexuals are a superior segment that own all others who must serve them without question. So given that the baker is gay, then should he be required to pay his slave?

How many different threads are you going to post this same ignorant crap on? Your slavery reference is still stupid.

Perhaps that is all he has to argue with?

No, he's got a lot of other stuff, but it's all crazy too.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There's a cake-baking religion? Is there one for beer-making and scotch? Fuck me, Praise the Lord, of Hops and Barley! I'm a convert, I've seen the light, and it is aged to perfection.

When liberals lose the argument, they frequently lapse into hysterical ranting like this.

It's been happening more and more in the last few years.