What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Statistikhengst]

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

Because the nature of the discrimination is to perceive gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, where heterosexuals are perceived in a context having nothing to do with their sexuality.

Bullshit, how would we know they are gay if they were not wearing it like a pin of PRIDE. Why must Homosexuals advertise the type of Sex they practice? If they never said anything nobody would ever know and their would be no controversy.

Why not? I'm hetero, I like vaginas. Fantastic! I love watching women get all dressed up to make sure they get noticed by dudes who are vagina lovers. We str8s are advertisting our sexual preference ALL THE TIME. So, why shouldn't gays as well?

Yo, if you get much more uptight, you may break something. you know, when my gal is all uptight, usually a really hard, knock-down, drag out, scream until the neighbors are holding their ears shagging does the trick. Just sayin...

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was tolerant of homosexuality and could have continued being so until they decided that anyone who did not do their bidding should be forced out of business........now it is obvious that we have uncovered a threat to our freedoms that must be resisted........

Oh, fer chrissakes, Zander......

 

[elektra]

Because the nature of the discrimination is to perceive gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, where heterosexuals are perceived in a context having nothing to do with their sexuality.

Bullshit, how would we know they are gay if they were not wearing it like a pin of PRIDE. Why must Homosexuals advertise the type of Sex they practice? If they never said anything nobody would ever know and their would be no controversy.

First of all, not all gays are "noticeable". Second, there's nothing wrong with having pride in who you are. Now you know.

Thats right, not all gays are noticeable, like me, and I said nothing of pride, I said something of humility, humbleness.

If you really want to have a real life discussion, maybe we can get the moderators to ignore this thread so we can discuss the details and facts that will automatically be deleted by the mods. Much of this debate people can not discuss openly because its simply a bit gross for you and the rest of the people and definitely not for the young or the sensible.

 

[elektra]

Because the nature of the discrimination is to perceive gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, where heterosexuals are perceived in a context having nothing to do with their sexuality.

Bullshit, how would we know they are gay if they were not wearing it like a pin of PRIDE. Why must Homosexuals advertise the type of Sex they practice? If they never said anything nobody would ever know and their would be no controversy.

Why not? I'm hetero, I like vaginas. Fantastic! I love watching women get all dressed up to make sure they get noticed by dudes who are vagina lovers. We str8s are advertisting our sexual preference ALL THE TIME. So, why shouldn't gays as well?

Yo, if you get much more uptight, you may break something. you know, when my gal is all uptight, usually a really hard, knock-down, drag out, scream until the neighbors are holding their ears shagging does the trick. Just sayin...

what an idiotic response, So when your woman gets all dressed up, somehow people know she likes to get on her knees in front of ten men, what kind of outfit does she wear that tells men she is for everyone?

Hope your not so uptight that you do not answer, hope nobody is so uptight that the response to your question gets deleted, I agree my response should be deleted, because the truth of this subject is just not proper for this kind of a forum, hence us with the truth on our side are at an extreme disadvantage.

And what about the Fisters? Should they dress so that People where your having dinner with your children know they are Fisters.

What about the pumpers?

How about the homosexul people who only like $@^# licking, should they advertise that as well?

 

[elektra]

A truthful, factual response to all of your posts, I will be astonished if they stand, but you folks really have no idea of how far this can go, what needs to be discussed so that you understand the error of your opinion.

You really have no idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As I have said before. . As long as I can be refused service for exercising my 2 nd amendment rights because the owner is scared of or hates guns, then anyone can be refused service for any reason. You can't say they can abridge my rights but not someone else's rights.

Molon Labe

And you were wrong before and you continue to be wrong.

You’re comparing two completely different things, and your argument fails accordingly. Second Amendment rights don’t apply to private businesses, only the government, a private business or individual can’t ‘violate’ your Second Amendment rights.

Refusing service to someone with a firearm is no different than refusing service to someone with an offensive image on a shirt, where private citizens, businesses, or organizations aren’t subject to First or Second Amendment restrictions; again, First or Second Amendment restrictions apply only public sector governmental entities, not the private sector.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where government is authorized by the Constitution to regulate markets and ensure their integrity, where to deny service to someone because of his race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation can be disruptive to both the local market and all interrelated markets.

A private business can't violate my right to not be offended either, what's you point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

Slavery was appropriate and constitutional too, that didn't make it right.

 

[daws101]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

Fuck, I do not know why they would do this, hell, why would they go in the out door?

I know this is wrong but you asked for the image so here it is, I will have to flag this myself for removal, I am laughing my ass off at the ignorance and the simple lack of your knowledge. Yes, why?

I can't do it, I can not risk being banned by posting the photos.

Have you ever seen a bear shit in the woods? Must not happen, right?

here you go

the above is for a strait wedding
below is for the dreaded gay cake

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the government mandates how a Mom and Pop gas tation precisely how to store their inventory of gasoline, are Mom and Pop 'enslaved'? When he government mandates how much of that gasoline a Chevy Malibu burns in one mile's travel, is GM 'enslaved'?

When the government mandated all segregated public drinking fountains be removed, were cities and towns all through the south 'enslved'? When the government mandated service could not be refused on race, was that 'enslvement' too?

What 'freedoms' are being repressed? The 'freedom' to hate, not on a personal, one to one basis, but on the basis of fear? That's one hell of a 'freedom' to go to bat for! Is it the 'right' to dismiss e pluribus unum that has Social Conservatives banking fires on the breast works?

You chide me as intolerant. But by perverting scripture to continue to be intolerant is so obvious, it makes your chiding impossibly incredulous.

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

As the topic of the thread is about providing services for weddings as a vendor and not merely attending them, I'm on firm ground. You want this thread to be about attending weddings, which it ain't.

Now, if you want to decline the RSVP to your nephew's wedding, that's all you. It's your responsibility to make amends at the family reunion, or to shun him altogether, adding to the drama.

But the question on the table is: What's so Christian about denying services to same sex weddings.

Are you ready, willing and able to participate in that debate, or do you want to move the goal posts to suit your own agenda?

No, the topic of this thread is one jerk trying to tell other Christians that he is the final arbiter of their beliefs. I bitch slapped him on that, using an appropriate, and in context, Scripture and all the atheists jumped in to whinge about how they are offended by religion. I am treating them with the respect they deserve, and still waiting for the pretend Christians, ie you, to actually read the Scripture I posted and admit that they are wrong.

There is absolutely no way for any Christian that actually reads 1 Corinthians 8 and prays about the meaning of the passage to stand up and tell another Christian they are wrong. The fact is that Paul, even though he actually had a direct line to Jesus, never once forced another Christian to do something simply because he knew it was right because he knew that doing so would be morally wrong.

 

[daws101]

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

As the topic of the thread is about providing services for weddings as a vendor and not merely attending them, I'm on firm ground. You want this thread to be about attending weddings, which it ain't.

Now, if you want to decline the RSVP to your nephew's wedding, that's all you. It's your responsibility to make amends at the family reunion, or to shun him altogether, adding to the drama.

But the question on the table is: What's so Christian about denying services to same sex weddings.

Are you ready, willing and able to participate in that debate, or do you want to move the goal posts to suit your own agenda?

No, the topic of this thread is one jerk trying to tell other Christians that he is the final arbiter of their beliefs. I bitch slapped him on that, using an appropriate, and in context, Scripture and all the atheists jumped in to whinge about how they are offended by religion. I am treating them with the respect they deserve, and still waiting for the pretend Christians, ie you, to actually read the Scripture I posted and admit that they are wrong.

There is absolutely no way for any Christian that actually reads 1 Corinthians 8 and prays about the meaning of the passage to stand up and tell another Christian they are wrong. The fact is that Paul, even though he actually had a direct line to Jesus, never once forced another Christian to do something simply because he knew it was right because he knew that doing so would be morally wrong.

who did you supposedly bitch slap?
btw paul never knew jesus the two men never once met.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

Why would a sane person insist that someone that hates them bake them a cake? Being that I just provided fairly conclusive proof that the people we are discussing are not right in the head, can you explain why these same insane nuts that want the only preson in town that hates them to bake their cake wouldn't want it decorated in a crazy way?

For the record, I have seen heterosexual wedding cakes decorated in ways that would make you run out of the room screaming.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

so traffic laws ,food safety laws, flight regulation, pollution laws are by your reasoning slavery?

Yep, that is exactly what I said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the government mandates how a Mom and Pop gas tation precisely how to store their inventory of gasoline, are Mom and Pop 'enslaved'? When he government mandates how much of that gasoline a Chevy Malibu burns in one mile's travel, is GM 'enslaved'?

When the government mandated all segregated public drinking fountains be removed, were cities and towns all through the south 'enslved'? When the government mandated service could not be refused on race, was that 'enslvement' too?

What 'freedoms' are being repressed? The 'freedom' to hate, not on a personal, one to one basis, but on the basis of fear? That's one hell of a 'freedom' to go to bat for! Is it the 'right' to dismiss e pluribus unum that has Social Conservatives banking fires on the breast works?

You chide me as intolerant. But by perverting scripture to continue to be intolerant is so obvious, it makes your chiding impossibly incredulous.

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

the baker was required to attend....why was that?

The photographer was. By defending public accommodation laws you are defending slavery, just like the US Marshals during the Civil War.

 

[daws101]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

so traffic laws ,food safety laws, flight regulation, pollution laws are by your reasoning slavery?

Yep, that is exactly what I said.

I feel a hair splitting coming on.
As long as they are doing it at their own choice
being the operative phrase.

 

[daws101]

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

the baker was required to attend....why was that?

The photographer was. By defending public accommodation laws you are defending slavery, just like the US Marshals during the Civil War.

was he or she paid a retainer or an advance?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I doubt that, it was the outrage of the more enlightened community members that did.
vitriol implies "they" hated her for no legitimate reason.
the baker was the one who started the hate ball rolling .
imo they both share equal blame for the vitriol.
not for the consequences...

She closed her business because of the death threats and the attacks against her family. If you consider that the work of enlightened people I can understand why you have no problem with tyranny.

If the implied violence and death threats actually happened, then she can bring civil claims for damages.

She, though, is not the one who decides with impunity what public accommodation laws she will follow or not.

She can? Seriously? I am so glad to hear that, that proves that the system is completely fucked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

The law of We the People is not slavery.

Requiring the population to follow such law is not slavery.

To suggest such reveals the poster is either mentally feeble, truly ignorant, malignantly motivated, or a combination of them.

You The People used to tell the rest of us that slaves were born that way.

You were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As the topic of the thread is about providing services for weddings as a vendor and not merely attending them, I'm on firm ground. You want this thread to be about attending weddings, which it ain't.

Now, if you want to decline the RSVP to your nephew's wedding, that's all you. It's your responsibility to make amends at the family reunion, or to shun him altogether, adding to the drama.

But the question on the table is: What's so Christian about denying services to same sex weddings.

Are you ready, willing and able to participate in that debate, or do you want to move the goal posts to suit your own agenda?

No, the topic of this thread is one jerk trying to tell other Christians that he is the final arbiter of their beliefs. I bitch slapped him on that, using an appropriate, and in context, Scripture and all the atheists jumped in to whinge about how they are offended by religion. I am treating them with the respect they deserve, and still waiting for the pretend Christians, ie you, to actually read the Scripture I posted and admit that they are wrong.

There is absolutely no way for any Christian that actually reads 1 Corinthians 8 and prays about the meaning of the passage to stand up and tell another Christian they are wrong. The fact is that Paul, even though he actually had a direct line to Jesus, never once forced another Christian to do something simply because he knew it was right because he knew that doing so would be morally wrong.

who did you supposedly bitch slap?
btw paul never knew jesus the two men never once met.

It wasn't you, you aren't smart enough to notice something like that.

BTW, they did meet. Also, since Paul was an Apostle, he, by definition, had Jesus on speed dial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so traffic laws ,food safety laws, flight regulation, pollution laws are by your reasoning slavery?

Yep, that is exactly what I said.

I feel a hair splitting coming on.
As long as they are doing it at their own choice
being the operative phrase.

You can feel the hair, but you can't feel the gun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the baker was required to attend....why was that?

The photographer was. By defending public accommodation laws you are defending slavery, just like the US Marshals during the Civil War.

was he or she paid a retainer or an advance?

She refused the commission outright, and got sued.