Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[dblack]

This issue doesn’t concern rights or civil liberties – there are no First Amendment issues in play, save that of the fact that public accommodations laws do not violate religious liberty as protected by the Free Exercise Clause.

Indeed, there are no issues in play with regard to any of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights; nor are there any 14th Amendment issues in play concerning state laws and local measures.

Unsurprisingly, you forgot the Ninth.

Forced association, forced labor - this is not freedom, no matter how you rationalize it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You don't get it. You can't make up a religion to hide discrimination behind. Christianity believes marriage is a male and female because Scripture states marriage is a male and female.

Ahh...

So it's OK for the government to sit in judgement of a persons individual religious beliefs as long as you don't agree with those beliefs. But if something aligns with your beliefs then it's "hands off".

There are a number of Christian denominations that don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.

The Metropolitan Community Church was providing religious services to same-sex couples as far back as the 1960's.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

All of these cases are because the Christian businesses are targeted to test the new laws pertaining to same-sex marriage. You may not be aware of this. These aren't just coincidences.

I know sneaky bastards. Having the Mom of one of the brides getting divorced years before so that two years prior to the incident they could use the baker to make the wedding cake for the Mom's wedding two years prior. The bakers fell into the trap by doing a good job on the Mom's wedding cake so that the lesbian couple would return years later to order their own cake.

The prior planning involved to "target" Aaron and Melissa Klein was brilliant.


>>>>

 

[BS Filter]

You don't get it. You can't make up a religion to hide discrimination behind. Christianity believes marriage is a male and female because Scripture states marriage is a male and female.

Ahh...

So it's OK for the government to sit in judgement of a persons individual religious beliefs as long as you don't agree with those beliefs. But if something aligns with your beliefs then it's "hands off".

There are a number of Christian denominations that don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.

The Metropolitan Community Church was providing religious services to same-sex couples as far back as the 1960's.


>>>>

Yes, a number of Christian denominations are false churches that don't believe the Scriptures. The Bible talks about that.

 

[BS Filter]

All of these cases are because the Christian businesses are targeted to test the new laws pertaining to same-sex marriage. You may not be aware of this. These aren't just coincidences.

I know sneaky bastards. Having the Mom of one of the brides getting divorced years before so that two years prior to the incident they could use the baker to make the wedding cake for the Mom's wedding two years prior. The bakers fell into the trap by doing a good job on the Mom's wedding cake so that the lesbian couple would return years later to order their own cake.

The prior planning involved to "target" Aaron and Melissa Klein was brilliant.


>>>>

I agree, they are sneaky and hateful. Either submit to the Sodomites or they will destroy you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look up "civil disobedience", dimwit.

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Civil disobedience, you mean like in Ferguson?

What part of the word "civil" did you need explained, dimwit?

If you insist it will be "civil", you might want to speak to one of your cohorts who posted "Y'all need to remember that conservative Christians are well armed". That doesn't sound particularly civil. Civil war maybe.

He's not my responsibility.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look up "civil disobedience", dimwit.

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Ok then, when you get a big fine, just pay it and keep going. Or work on changing the law, bitch.

Uh, dumb shit, working on changing the law is exactly what we're doing, which you are mischaracterizing as "whining".

Oh? It seems to me like you are on a message board calling people names if they don't agree with you. Silly me. I didn't realize that would change state and local laws.

And thus do leftists demonstrate that they really have nothing to say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Civil disobedience, you mean like in Ferguson?

What part of the word "civil" did you need explained, dimwit?

So it's civil to be openly anti-gay?

As long as you do it without violence.

So as long as my sign is nice, I can hang one in my store window that says "we don't serve blacks"?

At the moment, you can't. Do I think you should be able to, if that's your pleasure? Sure. I feel no compulsion to keep fools in business if they're too dumb to manage it themselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

Why? Why do they have to have their reasons straight? Is it the job of government to make sure we are reasoning properly?

No, but if you don't want to look like a fool, you should have a real reason. Ya, I know, they're too stupid to know how stupid they are. Same old, same old...

It's really beyond you to understand that many people don't actually CARE about the opinions of others.

You care about what I think, that much is clear.

Not even a little bit. Conversing with people doesn't equate to giving a shit about what they think.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

Do you really think there's an equivalent to be drawn between "I don't want to bake you a cake" and "I want to own you as property"? I mean, can you POSSIBLY conceive of where the dividing line might be between those two things?

If people are going to insist on trying to debate in analogies, it would be nice if they would get a clue about doing it effectively.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

Of course there's a difference. I purposefully used an extreme to make my point. My question would be what do you feel would be an acceptable amount of discriminating against people because of your religious beliefs?

No, you used an extreme to TRY to make your point. You ended up making the opposite point. Good job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

Of course there's a difference. I purposefully used an extreme to make my point. My question would be what do you feel would be an acceptable amount of discriminating against people because of your religious beliefs?

Well, discrimination has nothing to do with slavery, so I'm not sure I see your point. I don't believe discrimination should be regulated by the government at all. Our personal preferenActuces on who we associate with should never be dictated by law.

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination. I feel you are not equal to me so I have a RIGHT to keep you in bondage. Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

And what do you call it when someone says, "I have decided your beliefs are wrong, so I have a RIGHT to force you to perform labor for me against your will"? Is that not slavery?

And there's a difference between finding discrimination acceptable and acknowledging that people have a right to be unacceptable to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is anyone surprised that religious people hate other people so much as to not serve them? Religion is all about division into separate sects who all hate each other.

Whatever. I'm not interested in the pissing match between gay activists and fundies. I just don't want to see them screw up our legal framework in the process.

I can't equate the two sides. It seems more that these fundie religious sects want to stalk LGBTs or at least single them specifically for ill-treatment. The religious sects seem to be on some sort of aggressive offensive against LGBTs and the LGBTs seem to be in a defensive posture.

Yeah, those religious folks are always out there, shouting, "We're here, we're queer, and we're in your face . . ." Oh, wait a minute. That's not the religious people, is it?

I can't offhand think of a single time it's been religious people in the US who have started one of these little skirmishes in the culture war, but I suppose I can see where one would think so if one considered "daring to exist and disagree with me" as picking a fight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory

I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery.

You do realize the irony of accusing someone of equivocating if these are the next 2 sentences???
Btw you said discrimination had nothing to do with slavery.

You DO realize, don't you, that the vast majority of slavery that has taken place in human history happened between people of the same race?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The reason I've brought up slavery is to establish that there are precedents for society not allowing acts of discrimination stand.

Slavery isn't illegal because it's discriminatory. It's illegal because it's a fundamental violation of human liberty.

This brings me to my original question. How much discrimination should be allowed?

All. Discriminating with regard to who we associate with is a fundamental human right. Government should never dictate it.

Really? Even when this is the result?

This isn't a fundamental violation of human liberty?

Depends on whether or not the government is causing it. If it's just individual assholes, then no. It just sucks, which isn't the same as "violating of human liberty".

 

[Cecilie1200]

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

Queers don't like Christians and deliberately target Christian businesses and deliberately try to destroy them. That doesn't seem to bother you.

Well my Christian friend I think in the NT there are several passages of Jesus accepting sinners. Mary Magdalene for one. In fact the parable of the Good Samaritan is about judging people by their actions, not their piety. But I guess you feel Jesus was mistaken there?

But notice that He accepted SINNERS, not their sins. Does the phrase, "Go and sin no more" ring any bells? In other words, the bakers are doing the same thing Jesus did: looking at the behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

Queers don't like Christians and deliberately target Christian businesses and deliberately try to destroy them. That doesn't seem to bother you.

Well my Christian friend I think in the NT there are several passages of Jesus accepting sinners. Mary Magdalene for one. In fact the parable of the Good Samaritan is about judging people by their actions, not their piety. But I guess you feel Jesus was mistaken there?

Jesus accepted sinners, but show me where he accepted sin. Go ahead.

I don't think the couple was asking their help to have sex, so they weren't asking them to accept their behavior. They just were asking them to accept them.

If your position is going to be "homosexuality is just about the sex", I think you're going to find that the gays themselves object to that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Queers don't like Christians and deliberately target Christian businesses and deliberately try to destroy them. That doesn't seem to bother you.

Well my Christian friend I think in the NT there are several passages of Jesus accepting sinners. Mary Magdalene for one. In fact the parable of the Good Samaritan is about judging people by their actions, not their piety. But I guess you feel Jesus was mistaken there?

Jesus accepted sinners, but show me where he accepted sin. Go ahead.

I don't think the couple was asking their help to have sex, so they weren't asking them to accept their behavior. They just were asking them to accept them.

The business owners were being forced to accept same-sex marriage. That's a sin according to God.

Nope baking a cake doesn't signal acceptance, it signals sugar rush,if you're my daughter. they weren't asked to perform the ceremony, or to join the couple in the bedroom. They were asked to bake pastry. By the way, if God is all powerful, wouldn't he be able to judge someone fairly who baked a cake but didn't agree with the lifestyle?

It doesn't signal acceptance to YOU, but no one is asking you about YOUR beliefs. And how do YOU know that God WOULDN'T judge the baker as being wrong, as he believes, to bake the cake? Simply because YOU have decided it's right? That's called "hubris".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus accepted sinners, but show me where he accepted sin. Go ahead.

I don't think the couple was asking their help to have sex, so they weren't asking them to accept their behavior. They just were asking them to accept them.

The business owners were being forced to accept same-sex marriage. That's a sin according to God.

Nope baking a cake doesn't signal acceptance, it signals sugar rush,if you're my daughter. they weren't asked to perform the ceremony, or to join the couple in the bedroom. They were asked to bake pastry. By the way, if God is all powerful, wouldn't he be able to judge someone fairly who baked a cake but didn't agree with the lifestyle?

I know one bakery was asked to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and they refused, then they were sued for discrimination. That's all I know. That should be their right.

And I'm saying that they went against one of the central tenets of their professed religion. I argued the merit of the refusal based on secular morality with Black. You seem to be more interested in talking about the religious morality of it. I find it interesting that when confronted by someone who has an inkling of the NT you seem to want to shut the line of argumentation down.

Who are YOU to say what is and isn't the central tenets of THEIR religious beliefs, and what does and doesn't violate them? Are you God? Are you their pastor? Are you psychic and reading their minds? No? Then it's not for you to decide.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The business owners were being forced to accept same-sex marriage. That's a sin according to God.

Nope baking a cake doesn't signal acceptance, it signals sugar rush,if you're my daughter. they weren't asked to perform the ceremony, or to join the couple in the bedroom. They were asked to bake pastry. By the way, if God is all powerful, wouldn't he be able to judge someone fairly who baked a cake but didn't agree with the lifestyle?

I know one bakery was asked to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and they refused, then they were sued for discrimination. That's all I know. That should be their right.

And I'm saying that they went against one of the central tenets of their professed religion. I argued the merit of the refusal based on secular morality with Black. You seem to be more interested in talking about the religious morality of it. I find it interesting that when confronted by someone who has an inkling of the NT you seem to want to shut the line of argumentation down.

What is "central tenet" you're referring to?

Forgiveness

This has nothing to do with "forgiving" anyone anything. What a silly, out-of-left-field (literally) notion.