What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Quantum Windbag]

I can accept every word of that holiness so long as you guys also refuse to associate with:

smokers
drinkers
the obese
the lazy
anyone who has had an affair
anyone who walks for more than 15 paces on the Sabbath once it begins to rain
anyone who writes or uses any kind of machine on the Sabbath
anyone who has masturbated - even one single solitary time

and the list goes on and one.

For those are also "evil" sins, clearly laid out as such in the Pentateuch. And most of them are even in with the seven deadly sins. And those sins have been referred to and enumerated far many more times in the Bible than the sin of homosexuality, by a longshot.

So, as soon as you refuse to associate or do any kind of business with all of those people, I will gladly accept your position and know that you are not being hypocritical about it.

Show me:

Thou shalt not smoke.
Thou shalt not drink alcohol.

It's not there.

Now there is a don't be drunk. Dunk, and drinking are not the same. Again, Jesus very first miracle, was making wine..... as in.... WINE..... as in alcoholic wine.

Drinking is not a sin. Being a drunkard.... is a sin. Huge difference. Massive difference.

As for affairs and masturbation, yeah. The key is repentance. If you repent, no problem. We serve a forgiving G-d, provided you repent.

If you are trying to tell me that everyone who has ever sinned, can't be in church, you are crazy. You don't know the Bible. Paul was a murderer. He repented.

As for the other fruity claims. Unless you are Jewish, that really isn't relevant. If you want to debate that, I got other things to do. I'm not Jewish, and I don't care.

No, I am telling you that if a business owned by a Christian should be able to deny service to a gay person because of his/her beliefs, then he should also be denying service to all of those on the list I provided you with, and more, even.

You also very nicely backed up my argument (thanks!) stating that repentance is always possible, so if you are using the (chuckle, chuckle) logic that Christians can grant service to others who have also commiteed far more egregious sins because they think that some day that person will repent, why not the same with gays.

I am laughing every day when I see this stuff. Really, I am. It makes Christians look crazy, which is a shame, for most of them are not.

The government already declared that discrimination against drinkers and smokers is legal. In fact, they have mandated that all businesses are required to deny service to people that smoke, and that they cannot serve people once they are drunk.

I guess that makes you look about as consistent as you think I am.

 

[Nosmo King]

Show me:

Thou shalt not smoke.
Thou shalt not drink alcohol.

It's not there.

Now there is a don't be drunk. Dunk, and drinking are not the same. Again, Jesus very first miracle, was making wine..... as in.... WINE..... as in alcoholic wine.

Drinking is not a sin. Being a drunkard.... is a sin. Huge difference. Massive difference.

As for affairs and masturbation, yeah. The key is repentance. If you repent, no problem. We serve a forgiving G-d, provided you repent.

If you are trying to tell me that everyone who has ever sinned, can't be in church, you are crazy. You don't know the Bible. Paul was a murderer. He repented.

As for the other fruity claims. Unless you are Jewish, that really isn't relevant. If you want to debate that, I got other things to do. I'm not Jewish, and I don't care.

No, I am telling you that if a business owned by a Christian should be able to deny service to a gay person because of his/her beliefs, then he should also be denying service to all of those on the list I provided you with, and more, even.

You also very nicely backed up my argument (thanks!) stating that repentance is always possible, so if you are using the (chuckle, chuckle) logic that Christians can grant service to others who have also commiteed far more egregious sins because they think that some day that person will repent, why not the same with gays.

I am laughing every day when I see this stuff. Really, I am. It makes Christians look crazy, which is a shame, for most of them are not.

The government already declared that discrimination against drinkers and smokers is legal. In fact, they have mandated that all businesses are required to deny service to people that smoke, and that they cannot serve people once they are drunk.

I guess that makes you look about as consistent as you think I am.

Smokers and drunks provide a public safety risk. Second hand smoke and the odor it imparts to people and goods exposed to it create an unnecessary hazard. Drunks are refused service as a public safety concern. The liability of a drunk driving accident can be assigned to the irresponsible tavern owner who let the drunk leave without safe, alternative transportation.

Now, what public safety concerns are faced by a wedding photographer or baker solicited to provide services at a wedding?

 

[Andylusion]

What, aside from possibly a cake topper featuring two brides or two grooms, would make a same sex wedding cake so radically difficult for a supposed Christian baker to provide?

Or are these bakers asked to decorate erotic cakes? Cakes with a distinctively adult, sexual theme? If a bachelorette party orders a cake featuring male genitalia or otherwise erotic themes, would the baker still refuse service? Is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the clientele that makes same sex wedding cakes so troublesome for the "Christian" bakers?

If it's the nature of the cake itself, I can understand bakers refusing service. But that refusal must be universal, no matter the client.

But if the refusal is simply because the client is homosexual, then the baker should provide the exact same service he would provide every other client.

No. Sorry. My business... is mine. Not yours. We're not slaves, owned by the dictator, forced to do whatever the dictator wishes.

To that end... if the baker wants to deny service to someone... that's his right. It's his labor. He owns his own labor. You can't force him to work for you. At least not constitutionally, which I know many on the left want to eliminate, in favor of a dictatorship.

If I'm the baker, it's my right to not work for anyone I choose to not work for. For *ANY* reason. You don't have a right to my work.

If you walk in with a mohawk, I can choose to not work for you, because I don't like your hair. Person freedom is either the law of the land, or it is not. Are we slaves, or free? You can't dictate who I work for.

What's ironic is, you would grasp this in any other situation. If you were working at my company, and I was CEO, and I walked around all day spouting Bible verses, and having prayer meetings, and handing out Bible tracts. You may not want to work there.... right? Especially if you hate Christianity? (not saying you do, but if you did)

Well technically speaking... what's the difference between you and the baker? Both of you, are selling your labor to a customer. The baker is selling his labor to a cake buyer, and you are selling your labor to me the customer, the owner of the business you are selling your labor to.

Should you be forced to keep working for me, like you demand the baker be forced to work for the cake buyer? There's no difference.

So should the baker not work for X, or not work for Y, or not work for Z? I don't know. Not my business. It's his business. If he feels that he should not, that's his deal.

Remember, like I said in the prior post, there are grey ambiguous areas in the Bible. Things not spelled out. This is one of them.

Does the Bible say that a Christian is prohibited from serving someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Does the Bible say that a Christian must serve someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Thus it's up to the individual. Two Christian guys, each running a motel, and one serves everyone, and the other only serves those who are not violating G-d's law. Both can do what they do, and be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Just like one can drink alcohol in moderation, and the other can abstain from alcohol complete, and both be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

 

[Nosmo King]

What, aside from possibly a cake topper featuring two brides or two grooms, would make a same sex wedding cake so radically difficult for a supposed Christian baker to provide?

Or are these bakers asked to decorate erotic cakes? Cakes with a distinctively adult, sexual theme? If a bachelorette party orders a cake featuring male genitalia or otherwise erotic themes, would the baker still refuse service? Is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the clientele that makes same sex wedding cakes so troublesome for the "Christian" bakers?

If it's the nature of the cake itself, I can understand bakers refusing service. But that refusal must be universal, no matter the client.

But if the refusal is simply because the client is homosexual, then the baker should provide the exact same service he would provide every other client.

No. Sorry. My business... is mine. Not yours. We're not slaves, owned by the dictator, forced to do whatever the dictator wishes.

To that end... if the baker wants to deny service to someone... that's his right. It's his labor. He owns his own labor. You can't force him to work for you. At least not constitutionally, which I know many on the left want to eliminate, in favor of a dictatorship.

If I'm the baker, it's my right to not work for anyone I choose to not work for. For *ANY* reason. You don't have a right to my work.

If you walk in with a mohawk, I can choose to not work for you, because I don't like your hair. Person freedom is either the law of the land, or it is not. Are we slaves, or free? You can't dictate who I work for.

What's ironic is, you would grasp this in any other situation. If you were working at my company, and I was CEO, and I walked around all day spouting Bible verses, and having prayer meetings, and handing out Bible tracts. You may not want to work there.... right? Especially if you hate Christianity? (not saying you do, but if you did)

Well technically speaking... what's the difference between you and the baker? Both of you, are selling your labor to a customer. The baker is selling his labor to a cake buyer, and you are selling your labor to me the customer, the owner of the business you are selling your labor to.

Should you be forced to keep working for me, like you demand the baker be forced to work for the cake buyer? There's no difference.

So should the baker not work for X, or not work for Y, or not work for Z? I don't know. Not my business. It's his business. If he feels that he should not, that's his deal.

Remember, like I said in the prior post, there are grey ambiguous areas in the Bible. Things not spelled out. This is one of them.

Does the Bible say that a Christian is prohibited from serving someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Does the Bible say that a Christian must serve someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Thus it's up to the individual. Two Christian guys, each running a motel, and one serves everyone, and the other only serves those who are not violating G-d's law. Both can do what they do, and be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Just like one can drink alcohol in moderation, and the other can abstain from alcohol complete, and both be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Here in the United States there are licenses issued to businesses. These licenses provide, among other considerations, certain tax advantages, provisions for safety (especially food safety), and standards of work designed to assure quality and fairness in business practice. As the license is state issued and as the business is open to the public, the license holder must adhere to the provisions of the license agreement. That includes public accommodation.

Simply put, if a business is open to the public, that business must ACCOMODATE the public. Your rationale is the same rationale used by businesses in the old Jim Crow south. A public business cannot discriminate against a group if that group is asking for the same services normally provided by the business. Fortunately here in the United States, we enjoy secular law, not a Christian version of Sharia. While a business can refuse service to an individual, that business cannot, by law refuse service to a group.

Furthermore, you are not being enslaved. When you stoop to such hyperbole you do two bad rhetorically things. First, you are resorting to the last refuge for bad arguments. Hyperbole does not provide the moral cover you think you are seeking. Secondly, you are diluting the meaning and the tragedy of slavery. If you are providing the exact same services for one group, yet refuse that service to another, a requirement that you stop your discrimination is not slavery. Slavery is a horrible condition imposed by others whereby the labor of the repressed is taken without compensation. Slavery is owning another human being. Getting the exact same fee for providing the exact same service is no where near slavery.

 

[PostmodernProph]

For those are also "evil" sins, clearly laid out as such in the Pentateuch.

and yet, they aren't among the five that are linked by the Hebrew word they have in common.....idolatry, human sacrifice, incest, bestiality and homosexual sex....

homosexuality is not one of the 7 deadly sins, no.

Nice try.

didn't say it was.....I merely pointed out that the Hebrew word translated into English as "abomination" is only used to describe five acts......you can ignore that, but you cannot deny that.....

 

[Andylusion]

What, aside from possibly a cake topper featuring two brides or two grooms, would make a same sex wedding cake so radically difficult for a supposed Christian baker to provide?

Or are these bakers asked to decorate erotic cakes? Cakes with a distinctively adult, sexual theme? If a bachelorette party orders a cake featuring male genitalia or otherwise erotic themes, would the baker still refuse service? Is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the clientele that makes same sex wedding cakes so troublesome for the "Christian" bakers?

If it's the nature of the cake itself, I can understand bakers refusing service. But that refusal must be universal, no matter the client.

But if the refusal is simply because the client is homosexual, then the baker should provide the exact same service he would provide every other client.

No. Sorry. My business... is mine. Not yours. We're not slaves, owned by the dictator, forced to do whatever the dictator wishes.

To that end... if the baker wants to deny service to someone... that's his right. It's his labor. He owns his own labor. You can't force him to work for you. At least not constitutionally, which I know many on the left want to eliminate, in favor of a dictatorship.

If I'm the baker, it's my right to not work for anyone I choose to not work for. For *ANY* reason. You don't have a right to my work.

If you walk in with a mohawk, I can choose to not work for you, because I don't like your hair. Person freedom is either the law of the land, or it is not. Are we slaves, or free? You can't dictate who I work for.

What's ironic is, you would grasp this in any other situation. If you were working at my company, and I was CEO, and I walked around all day spouting Bible verses, and having prayer meetings, and handing out Bible tracts. You may not want to work there.... right? Especially if you hate Christianity? (not saying you do, but if you did)

Well technically speaking... what's the difference between you and the baker? Both of you, are selling your labor to a customer. The baker is selling his labor to a cake buyer, and you are selling your labor to me the customer, the owner of the business you are selling your labor to.

Should you be forced to keep working for me, like you demand the baker be forced to work for the cake buyer? There's no difference.

So should the baker not work for X, or not work for Y, or not work for Z? I don't know. Not my business. It's his business. If he feels that he should not, that's his deal.

Remember, like I said in the prior post, there are grey ambiguous areas in the Bible. Things not spelled out. This is one of them.

Does the Bible say that a Christian is prohibited from serving someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Does the Bible say that a Christian must serve someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Thus it's up to the individual. Two Christian guys, each running a motel, and one serves everyone, and the other only serves those who are not violating G-d's law. Both can do what they do, and be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Just like one can drink alcohol in moderation, and the other can abstain from alcohol complete, and both be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Here in the United States there are licenses issued to businesses. These licenses provide, among other considerations, certain tax advantages, provisions for safety (especially food safety), and standards of work designed to assure quality and fairness in business practice. As the license is state issued and as the business is open to the public, the license holder must adhere to the provisions of the license agreement. That includes public accommodation.

Simply put, if a business is open to the public, that business must ACCOMODATE the public. Your rationale is the same rationale used by businesses in the old Jim Crow south. A public business cannot discriminate against a group if that group is asking for the same services normally provided by the business. Fortunately here in the United States, we enjoy secular law, not a Christian version of Sharia. While a business can refuse service to an individual, that business cannot, by law refuse service to a group.

Furthermore, you are not being enslaved. When you stoop to such hyperbole you do two bad rhetorically things. First, you are resorting to the last refuge for bad arguments. Hyperbole does not provide the moral cover you think you are seeking. Secondly, you are diluting the meaning and the tragedy of slavery. If you are providing the exact same services for one group, yet refuse that service to another, a requirement that you stop your discrimination is not slavery. Slavery is a horrible condition imposed by others whereby the labor of the repressed is taken without compensation. Slavery is owning another human being. Getting the exact same fee for providing the exact same service is no where near slavery.

Understand, that licensing of business, is not in the constitution. Freedom of Religion, *IS*. You can't use a state law, to over-ride a constitutional right.

And you are wrong, business do refuse service, and they are allowed to under religious freedom. And ultimately if you push this, we'll go jail over it. I will gladly be sent to prison, to uphold my religious freedom. You can't force me to work for you. You can send me to jail, that's fine, but I'm not going to violate my convictions because you think you can dictate how I run my business. Period.

When you say that you can dictate how I run my business, my property, my stuff, that is a form of slavery. Yes it is. When you deny that, you are just being ignorant. You can mock it, you can go into your logical twists and contortions, that's fine... you are wrong. When you can dictate what and how other people function with their own property... it's a form of enslavement.

You have the freedom to do anything you want with your own legal property.... provided you do it this way, and follow our dictates.

No sorry. Fail.

 

[Nosmo King]

No. Sorry. My business... is mine. Not yours. We're not slaves, owned by the dictator, forced to do whatever the dictator wishes.

To that end... if the baker wants to deny service to someone... that's his right. It's his labor. He owns his own labor. You can't force him to work for you. At least not constitutionally, which I know many on the left want to eliminate, in favor of a dictatorship.

If I'm the baker, it's my right to not work for anyone I choose to not work for. For *ANY* reason. You don't have a right to my work.

If you walk in with a mohawk, I can choose to not work for you, because I don't like your hair. Person freedom is either the law of the land, or it is not. Are we slaves, or free? You can't dictate who I work for.

What's ironic is, you would grasp this in any other situation. If you were working at my company, and I was CEO, and I walked around all day spouting Bible verses, and having prayer meetings, and handing out Bible tracts. You may not want to work there.... right? Especially if you hate Christianity? (not saying you do, but if you did)

Well technically speaking... what's the difference between you and the baker? Both of you, are selling your labor to a customer. The baker is selling his labor to a cake buyer, and you are selling your labor to me the customer, the owner of the business you are selling your labor to.

Should you be forced to keep working for me, like you demand the baker be forced to work for the cake buyer? There's no difference.

So should the baker not work for X, or not work for Y, or not work for Z? I don't know. Not my business. It's his business. If he feels that he should not, that's his deal.

Remember, like I said in the prior post, there are grey ambiguous areas in the Bible. Things not spelled out. This is one of them.

Does the Bible say that a Christian is prohibited from serving someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Does the Bible say that a Christian must serve someone openly violating G-d's laws? No.

Thus it's up to the individual. Two Christian guys, each running a motel, and one serves everyone, and the other only serves those who are not violating G-d's law. Both can do what they do, and be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Just like one can drink alcohol in moderation, and the other can abstain from alcohol complete, and both be perfectly honest and true to their faith.

Here in the United States there are licenses issued to businesses. These licenses provide, among other considerations, certain tax advantages, provisions for safety (especially food safety), and standards of work designed to assure quality and fairness in business practice. As the license is state issued and as the business is open to the public, the license holder must adhere to the provisions of the license agreement. That includes public accommodation.

Simply put, if a business is open to the public, that business must ACCOMODATE the public. Your rationale is the same rationale used by businesses in the old Jim Crow south. A public business cannot discriminate against a group if that group is asking for the same services normally provided by the business. Fortunately here in the United States, we enjoy secular law, not a Christian version of Sharia. While a business can refuse service to an individual, that business cannot, by law refuse service to a group.

Furthermore, you are not being enslaved. When you stoop to such hyperbole you do two bad rhetorically things. First, you are resorting to the last refuge for bad arguments. Hyperbole does not provide the moral cover you think you are seeking. Secondly, you are diluting the meaning and the tragedy of slavery. If you are providing the exact same services for one group, yet refuse that service to another, a requirement that you stop your discrimination is not slavery. Slavery is a horrible condition imposed by others whereby the labor of the repressed is taken without compensation. Slavery is owning another human being. Getting the exact same fee for providing the exact same service is no where near slavery.

Understand, that licensing of business, is not in the constitution. Freedom of Religion, *IS*. You can't use a state law, to over-ride a constitutional right.

And you are wrong, business do refuse service, and they are allowed to under religious freedom. And ultimately if you push this, we'll go jail over it. I will gladly be sent to prison, to uphold my religious freedom. You can't force me to work for you. You can send me to jail, that's fine, but I'm not going to violate my convictions because you think you can dictate how I run my business. Period.

When you say that you can dictate how I run my business, my property, my stuff, that is a form of slavery. Yes it is. When you deny that, you are just being ignorant. You can mock it, you can go into your logical twists and contortions, that's fine... you are wrong. When you can dictate what and how other people function with their own property... it's a form of enslavement.

You have the freedom to do anything you want with your own legal property.... provided you do it this way, and follow our dictates.

No sorry. Fail.

Hiding behind your religion in order to discriminate is not, in any way, practicing religion, It's the exact same rationale southerners used to hold human beings in perpetual bondage.

There are public accommodation laws on the books to assure that businesses open to the public are, indeed, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Religious dogma cannot be used as an aegis to further discrimination against any group here in the United States of America, unlike countries under repressive Sharia law.

And I'm sorry you never learned the definition of "HYPERBOLE". You employ it so freely, one might assume that you knew its meaning.

 

[Andylusion]

Here in the United States there are licenses issued to businesses. These licenses provide, among other considerations, certain tax advantages, provisions for safety (especially food safety), and standards of work designed to assure quality and fairness in business practice. As the license is state issued and as the business is open to the public, the license holder must adhere to the provisions of the license agreement. That includes public accommodation.

Simply put, if a business is open to the public, that business must ACCOMODATE the public. Your rationale is the same rationale used by businesses in the old Jim Crow south. A public business cannot discriminate against a group if that group is asking for the same services normally provided by the business. Fortunately here in the United States, we enjoy secular law, not a Christian version of Sharia. While a business can refuse service to an individual, that business cannot, by law refuse service to a group.

Furthermore, you are not being enslaved. When you stoop to such hyperbole you do two bad rhetorically things. First, you are resorting to the last refuge for bad arguments. Hyperbole does not provide the moral cover you think you are seeking. Secondly, you are diluting the meaning and the tragedy of slavery. If you are providing the exact same services for one group, yet refuse that service to another, a requirement that you stop your discrimination is not slavery. Slavery is a horrible condition imposed by others whereby the labor of the repressed is taken without compensation. Slavery is owning another human being. Getting the exact same fee for providing the exact same service is no where near slavery.

Understand, that licensing of business, is not in the constitution. Freedom of Religion, *IS*. You can't use a state law, to over-ride a constitutional right.

And you are wrong, business do refuse service, and they are allowed to under religious freedom. And ultimately if you push this, we'll go jail over it. I will gladly be sent to prison, to uphold my religious freedom. You can't force me to work for you. You can send me to jail, that's fine, but I'm not going to violate my convictions because you think you can dictate how I run my business. Period.

When you say that you can dictate how I run my business, my property, my stuff, that is a form of slavery. Yes it is. When you deny that, you are just being ignorant. You can mock it, you can go into your logical twists and contortions, that's fine... you are wrong. When you can dictate what and how other people function with their own property... it's a form of enslavement.

You have the freedom to do anything you want with your own legal property.... provided you do it this way, and follow our dictates.

No sorry. Fail.

Hiding behind your religion in order to discriminate is not, in any way, practicing religion, It's the exact same rationale southerners used to hold human beings in perpetual bondage.

There are public accommodation laws on the books to assure that businesses open to the public are, indeed, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Religious dogma cannot be used as an aegis to further discrimination against any group here in the United States of America, unlike countries under repressive Sharia law.

And I'm sorry you never learned the definition of "HYPERBOLE". You employ it so freely, one might assume that you knew its meaning.

You have a right to be wrong. Open to the public, doesn't mean I now can't run my business according to my views.

You are wasting your time. I don't care what you think on this matter. I simply don't. Religious freedom is a constitutional right. You don't have a 'right' to use my business or services. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote huh?

 

[Nosmo King]

Understand, that licensing of business, is not in the constitution. Freedom of Religion, *IS*. You can't use a state law, to over-ride a constitutional right.

And you are wrong, business do refuse service, and they are allowed to under religious freedom. And ultimately if you push this, we'll go jail over it. I will gladly be sent to prison, to uphold my religious freedom. You can't force me to work for you. You can send me to jail, that's fine, but I'm not going to violate my convictions because you think you can dictate how I run my business. Period.

When you say that you can dictate how I run my business, my property, my stuff, that is a form of slavery. Yes it is. When you deny that, you are just being ignorant. You can mock it, you can go into your logical twists and contortions, that's fine... you are wrong. When you can dictate what and how other people function with their own property... it's a form of enslavement.

You have the freedom to do anything you want with your own legal property.... provided you do it this way, and follow our dictates.

No sorry. Fail.

Hiding behind your religion in order to discriminate is not, in any way, practicing religion, It's the exact same rationale southerners used to hold human beings in perpetual bondage.

There are public accommodation laws on the books to assure that businesses open to the public are, indeed, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Religious dogma cannot be used as an aegis to further discrimination against any group here in the United States of America, unlike countries under repressive Sharia law.

And I'm sorry you never learned the definition of "HYPERBOLE". You employ it so freely, one might assume that you knew its meaning.

You have a right to be wrong. Open to the public, doesn't mean I now can't run my business according to my views.

You are wasting your time. I don't care what you think on this matter. I simply don't. Religious freedom is a constitutional right. You don't have a 'right' to use my business or services. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote huh?

Please at least answer this part of the question: If a homosexual couple asks you to prepare a cake that for all the world looks like any other wedding cake other than the cake top, do you feel your religious beliefs could prevent you from decorating such a cake? Provided that the cake is not of an erotic nature, features nothing out of the ordinary, no depictions of anything perverse or obscene, does your faith preclude serving that customer?

In other words, is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the customer you8r faith finds so revolting as to discriminated against?

I want to know how far and how deep your religion can endorse hatred. Customer or cake?

 

[Andylusion]

Hiding behind your religion in order to discriminate is not, in any way, practicing religion, It's the exact same rationale southerners used to hold human beings in perpetual bondage.

There are public accommodation laws on the books to assure that businesses open to the public are, indeed, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Religious dogma cannot be used as an aegis to further discrimination against any group here in the United States of America, unlike countries under repressive Sharia law.

And I'm sorry you never learned the definition of "HYPERBOLE". You employ it so freely, one might assume that you knew its meaning.

You have a right to be wrong. Open to the public, doesn't mean I now can't run my business according to my views.

You are wasting your time. I don't care what you think on this matter. I simply don't. Religious freedom is a constitutional right. You don't have a 'right' to use my business or services. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote huh?

Please at least answer this part of the question: If a homosexual couple asks you to prepare a cake that for all the world looks like any other wedding cake other than the cake top, do you feel your religious beliefs could prevent you from decorating such a cake? Provided that the cake is not of an erotic nature, features nothing out of the ordinary, no depictions of anything perverse or obscene, does your faith preclude serving that customer?

In other words, is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the customer you8r faith finds so revolting as to discriminated against?

I want to know how far and how deep your religion can endorse hatred. Customer or cake?

Me personally? I would not care at all. That doesn't matter though. My convictions are neutral on this, but that's beside the point.

If I did have such convictions, I have the right to, and should be allowed to, and WILL follow those convictions, regardless of you, or the law.

I'm in FAVOR of Freedom.... Freedom of association. Freedom of Religion. Freedom Period. You have no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nosmo King]

You have a right to be wrong. Open to the public, doesn't mean I now can't run my business according to my views.

You are wasting your time. I don't care what you think on this matter. I simply don't. Religious freedom is a constitutional right. You don't have a 'right' to use my business or services. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote huh?

Please at least answer this part of the question: If a homosexual couple asks you to prepare a cake that for all the world looks like any other wedding cake other than the cake top, do you feel your religious beliefs could prevent you from decorating such a cake? Provided that the cake is not of an erotic nature, features nothing out of the ordinary, no depictions of anything perverse or obscene, does your faith preclude serving that customer?

In other words, is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the customer you8r faith finds so revolting as to discriminated against?

I want to know how far and how deep your religion can endorse hatred. Customer or cake?

Me personally? I would not care at all. That doesn't matter though. My convictions are neutral on this, but that's beside the point.

If I did have such convictions, I have the right to, and should be allowed to, and WILL follow those convictions, regardless of you, or the law.

I'm in FAVOR of Freedom.... Freedom of association. Freedom of Religion. Freedom Period. You have no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned.

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

 

[MarcATL]

If someone wants to hire you as a prostitute, are you seriously suggesting a Christian would have to provide said service?

Le sigh...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I am telling you that if a business owned by a Christian should be able to deny service to a gay person because of his/her beliefs, then he should also be denying service to all of those on the list I provided you with, and more, even.

You also very nicely backed up my argument (thanks!) stating that repentance is always possible, so if you are using the (chuckle, chuckle) logic that Christians can grant service to others who have also commiteed far more egregious sins because they think that some day that person will repent, why not the same with gays.

I am laughing every day when I see this stuff. Really, I am. It makes Christians look crazy, which is a shame, for most of them are not.

The government already declared that discrimination against drinkers and smokers is legal. In fact, they have mandated that all businesses are required to deny service to people that smoke, and that they cannot serve people once they are drunk.

I guess that makes you look about as consistent as you think I am.

Smokers and drunks provide a public safety risk. Second hand smoke and the odor it imparts to people and goods exposed to it create an unnecessary hazard. Drunks are refused service as a public safety concern. The liability of a drunk driving accident can be assigned to the irresponsible tavern owner who let the drunk leave without safe, alternative transportation.

Now, what public safety concerns are faced by a wedding photographer or baker solicited to provide services at a wedding?

How does any of that make Statist any less stupid?

 

[Andylusion]

Please at least answer this part of the question: If a homosexual couple asks you to prepare a cake that for all the world looks like any other wedding cake other than the cake top, do you feel your religious beliefs could prevent you from decorating such a cake? Provided that the cake is not of an erotic nature, features nothing out of the ordinary, no depictions of anything perverse or obscene, does your faith preclude serving that customer?

In other words, is it the nature of the cake, or the nature of the customer you8r faith finds so revolting as to discriminated against?

I want to know how far and how deep your religion can endorse hatred. Customer or cake?

Me personally? I would not care at all. That doesn't matter though. My convictions are neutral on this, but that's beside the point.

If I did have such convictions, I have the right to, and should be allowed to, and WILL follow those convictions, regardless of you, or the law.

I'm in FAVOR of Freedom.... Freedom of association. Freedom of Religion. Freedom Period. You have no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned.

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

Where do you find the "freedom to have the same cake they saw at another wedding" in the constitution? Where do you see freedom of religion? Slight difference?

Are we just going to make up rights? Customers have the same right to refuse to trade with anyone they see fit, as anyone else does.

Why does a merchant not have a right to refuse to trade, but a customer does?

And everyone discriminates. You discriminate. You are lying if you say otherwise. Everyone discriminates. The only difference is, the majority claims their discrimination is ok, and all other discrimination is bad.

Remember Chic-fil-a? Boycott them right? Why? Those people were discriminating. But that was good discrimination apparently. While the CEO saying he supported traditional marriage.... well that was bad discrimination. In practice, only one of those two groups, actually acted on their discrimination.

Don't make excuses. It doesn't fly with me.

 

[Nosmo King]

Me personally? I would not care at all. That doesn't matter though. My convictions are neutral on this, but that's beside the point.

If I did have such convictions, I have the right to, and should be allowed to, and WILL follow those convictions, regardless of you, or the law.

I'm in FAVOR of Freedom.... Freedom of association. Freedom of Religion. Freedom Period. You have no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned.

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

Where do you find the "freedom to have the same cake they saw at another wedding" in the constitution? Where do you see freedom of religion? Slight difference?

Are we just going to make up rights? Customers have the same right to refuse to trade with anyone they see fit, as anyone else does.

Why does a merchant not have a right to refuse to trade, but a customer does?

And everyone discriminates. You discriminate. You are lying if you say otherwise. Everyone discriminates. The only difference is, the majority claims their discrimination is ok, and all other discrimination is bad.

Remember Chic-fil-a? Boycott them right? Why? Those people were discriminating. But that was good discrimination apparently. While the CEO saying he supported traditional marriage.... well that was bad discrimination. In practice, only one of those two groups, actually acted on their discrimination.

Don't make excuses. It doesn't fly with me.

You do realize that the rights enumerated in the constitution aren't the only rights enjoyed by Americans, don't you? The constitution is not restrictive in that way. And discrimination is not practicing religion, is it? You cannot hide behind religion as cover for hatred and discrimination. That 'right to practice religion' is against the law.

And that's what these restrictive laws considered in Arizona and Kansas are all about. Legal cover under the aegis of religion to discriminate. Discrimination conforms to neither law nor religion.

And there's a definite difference between a boycott and discrimination. Under a boycott, the public calling for the boycott voices specific grievances against a business, institution or locale. Under discrimination, individuals are refused services normally available to the public for reasons amounting to the creation of second class citizens. Discrimination occurs against groups for the immutable facts of their race or sex, not because those groups offer policies that my harm the business itself.

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically. The same way a lousy restaurant will wither on the vine fro lack of customers, discriminatory businesses will fail for lack of true public accommodation.

 

[Andylusion]

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

Where do you find the "freedom to have the same cake they saw at another wedding" in the constitution? Where do you see freedom of religion? Slight difference?

Are we just going to make up rights? Customers have the same right to refuse to trade with anyone they see fit, as anyone else does.

Why does a merchant not have a right to refuse to trade, but a customer does?

And everyone discriminates. You discriminate. You are lying if you say otherwise. Everyone discriminates. The only difference is, the majority claims their discrimination is ok, and all other discrimination is bad.

Remember Chic-fil-a? Boycott them right? Why? Those people were discriminating. But that was good discrimination apparently. While the CEO saying he supported traditional marriage.... well that was bad discrimination. In practice, only one of those two groups, actually acted on their discrimination.

Don't make excuses. It doesn't fly with me.

You do realize that the rights enumerated in the constitution aren't the only rights enjoyed by Americans, don't you? The constitution is not restrictive in that way. And discrimination is not practicing religion, is it? You cannot hide behind religion as cover for hatred and discrimination. That 'right to practice religion' is against the law.

And that's what these restrictive laws considered in Arizona and Kansas are all about. Legal cover under the aegis of religion to discriminate. Discrimination conforms to neither law nor religion.

And there's a definite difference between a boycott and discrimination. Under a boycott, the public calling for the boycott voices specific grievances against a business, institution or locale. Under discrimination, individuals are refused services normally available to the public for reasons amounting to the creation of second class citizens. Discrimination occurs against groups for the immutable facts of their race or sex, not because those groups offer policies that my harm the business itself.

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically. The same way a lousy restaurant will wither on the vine fro lack of customers, discriminatory businesses will fail for lack of true public accommodation.

Yes, and most of those are wrong. And yes, the constitution is restrictive. That's the whole point of a constitution, is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, where someone whips up 51% of the people, to oppress the 49%.

One example of where the constitution restricts, is by not allowing one side to simply 'declare' everything they want a "right". It's not a right. I don't care what the court says. It's not. That's why it says in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty and Happiness" right? No, it says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Pursuit. Working on your own to achieve. Not demanding it from others.

"That 'right to practice religion' is against the law."

What part of "I don't care" do you not grasp? Did I not tell you before, that I would be more than happy to go to prison for my beliefs? I don't care! This isn't a hard concept. What you say is or is not, lawful, doesn't matter to me on this issue.

I am a Christian. I will *DIE* a Christian, and following, and practicing my beliefs. You can threaten me. You can jail me. You can imprison me. You can attack me, mock me, insult me, whatever else you wish to do. Feel free.

I am going to practice being a Christian whether you like it, whether it is lawful, whether you think I'm hateful... none of that matters to me.

Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote, eh?

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically

You don't even realize the irony of this do you?

You are against someone boycotting the customers, but have no problem with customers boycotting the business?

You realizes both of those are two sides of the same coin. Why do you have no problem with one group of people hating the Christian, but the Christian refusing to service some customers, that's bad?

They are both the same thing. If two groups hate each other, you are ok with one group boycotting the other. But it drives you nuts if the other does it?

AND ABOUT THIS HATE THING....

You people seem to bring up 'hate' like that in itself is an argument. As if you made some grand point.

I was talking with this other doofus about the Federal Budget, and that we didn't have money to fund X program. He responded with "You hate the poor!" as if, 1 + 1 = 11, if only I didn't hate. It's only because I hate, that math didn't work out for these programs.

Here we are talking about constitutional rights, and up comes "you hate" as if hating changes your constitutional rights. You do understand that this isn't a valid argument, right?

It may not even be a true argument. At least in some parts of the world, where they are tossing grenades into Christian Churches, there is a case to be made for hate.

But no one I know is advocating dragging gay people out of their homes, and stringing them up in town. Short of some fruit cake borrower church or something, that's not being advocated by anyone.

The whole "you hate" argument is crazy. If you just flipped it around, you would see how dumb it is.

You ask if I hate someone so much that I won't bake them a cake. Right?

Here's your question. Do you hate Christians so much, that you'll through them in jail for not baking a cake?

My question to you, is just a valid, just as much an argument, as your own. Both are irrelevant. It's not a argument. You don't have right to demand I service you, anymore than I have the right to demand you use my service. Freedom. Welcome to Freedom. Constitutionally protected freedom.

 

[Nosmo King]

Where do you find the "freedom to have the same cake they saw at another wedding" in the constitution? Where do you see freedom of religion? Slight difference?

Are we just going to make up rights? Customers have the same right to refuse to trade with anyone they see fit, as anyone else does.

Why does a merchant not have a right to refuse to trade, but a customer does?

And everyone discriminates. You discriminate. You are lying if you say otherwise. Everyone discriminates. The only difference is, the majority claims their discrimination is ok, and all other discrimination is bad.

Remember Chic-fil-a? Boycott them right? Why? Those people were discriminating. But that was good discrimination apparently. While the CEO saying he supported traditional marriage.... well that was bad discrimination. In practice, only one of those two groups, actually acted on their discrimination.

Don't make excuses. It doesn't fly with me.

You do realize that the rights enumerated in the constitution aren't the only rights enjoyed by Americans, don't you? The constitution is not restrictive in that way. And discrimination is not practicing religion, is it? You cannot hide behind religion as cover for hatred and discrimination. That 'right to practice religion' is against the law.

And that's what these restrictive laws considered in Arizona and Kansas are all about. Legal cover under the aegis of religion to discriminate. Discrimination conforms to neither law nor religion.

And there's a definite difference between a boycott and discrimination. Under a boycott, the public calling for the boycott voices specific grievances against a business, institution or locale. Under discrimination, individuals are refused services normally available to the public for reasons amounting to the creation of second class citizens. Discrimination occurs against groups for the immutable facts of their race or sex, not because those groups offer policies that my harm the business itself.

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically. The same way a lousy restaurant will wither on the vine fro lack of customers, discriminatory businesses will fail for lack of true public accommodation.

Yes, and most of those are wrong. And yes, the constitution is restrictive. That's the whole point of a constitution, is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, where someone whips up 51% of the people, to oppress the 49%.

One example of where the constitution restricts, is by not allowing one side to simply 'declare' everything they want a "right". It's not a right. I don't care what the court says. It's not. That's why it says in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty and Happiness" right? No, it says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Pursuit. Working on your own to achieve. Not demanding it from others.

"That 'right to practice religion' is against the law."

What part of "I don't care" do you not grasp? Did I not tell you before, that I would be more than happy to go to prison for my beliefs? I don't care! This isn't a hard concept. What you say is or is not, lawful, doesn't matter to me on this issue.

I am a Christian. I will *DIE* a Christian, and following, and practicing my beliefs. You can threaten me. You can jail me. You can imprison me. You can attack me, mock me, insult me, whatever else you wish to do. Feel free.

I am going to practice being a Christian whether you like it, whether it is lawful, whether you think I'm hateful... none of that matters to me.

Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote, eh?

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically

You don't even realize the irony of this do you?

You are against someone boycotting the customers, but have no problem with customers boycotting the business?

You realizes both of those are two sides of the same coin. Why do you have no problem with one group of people hating the Christian, but the Christian refusing to service some customers, that's bad?

They are both the same thing. If two groups hate each other, you are ok with one group boycotting the other. But it drives you nuts if the other does it?

AND ABOUT THIS HATE THING....

You people seem to bring up 'hate' like that in itself is an argument. As if you made some grand point.

I was talking with this other doofus about the Federal Budget, and that we didn't have money to fund X program. He responded with "You hate the poor!" as if, 1 + 1 = 11, if only I didn't hate. It's only because I hate, that math didn't work out for these programs.

Here we are talking about constitutional rights, and up comes "you hate" as if hating changes your constitutional rights. You do understand that this isn't a valid argument, right?

It may not even be a true argument. At least in some parts of the world, where they are tossing grenades into Christian Churches, there is a case to be made for hate.

But no one I know is advocating dragging gay people out of their homes, and stringing them up in town. Short of some fruit cake borrower church or something, that's not being advocated by anyone.

The whole "you hate" argument is crazy. If you just flipped it around, you would see how dumb it is.

You ask if I hate someone so much that I won't bake them a cake. Right?

Here's your question. Do you hate Christians so much, that you'll through them in jail for not baking a cake?

My question to you, is just a valid, just as much an argument, as your own. Both are irrelevant. It's not a argument. You don't have right to demand I service you, anymore than I have the right to demand you use my service. Freedom. Welcome to Freedom. Constitutionally protected freedom.

You are saying that companies have the right to practice religion. Doing business as (DBA) is what is on a business license. That means a public entity, a company, is 'doing business', not an individual. Are companies people, or are they an entity created by state fiat?

If the individual hates gays, that individual will refuse service. But if that individual represents a public entity DBA Jones Bakery, the responsibility falls to Jones Bakery. And Jones Bakery is prohibited from discriminating as much as Woolworth's as much as a city bus line, as much as any other business entity.

And it's really hatred that drives that decision to discriminate, isn't it? If there was no hatred there, why bother discriminating, why bother showing open derision, why bother making someone feel as a second class citizen?

The freedom to practice religion is not an unlimited right. Some Native American cultures use peyote in their worship services, but that use is prohibited. Some Haitian religions use live animal sacrifice in their rites, but that practice is prohibited by law.

Claiming religion as a means of discrimination was used by slave holders and the bigoted Jim Crow south. There is no undue burden on one's PRACTICE OF RELGION in providing the exact same services for the exact same fee.

 

[Avatar4321]

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

You don't have the freedom to force people to work for you. We a small conflict in the 1860s over that. And we also have a Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits forcing others to work for you.

If you have a particular cake you want, you are quite free to ask whomever you want to make it and find someone who will. Perhaps someone will take you up on your offer. Or you can simply make it yourself. You do not have the freedom to compel someone to work for you. Period.

It just goes to show that the left still wants slaves.

 

[Avatar4321]

If someone wants to hire you as a prostitute, are you seriously suggesting a Christian would have to provide said service?

Le sigh...

Im not terribly shocked that you dodged the question. It completely undermines your argument that it's unChristian to deny someone service.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one has refused service to anyone. What has been refused is the labor of one individual in service to another individual when they object to performing that service.