Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[TemplarKormac]

Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
like ChickFilA did. And call people nationwide to support their business in the face of opposition. They even served free food to people protesting in the heat. Answered by "speaking the truth with love" and won more support than anything said in anger.

I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.

The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.

Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.

Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.

Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman who were not married to anybody else, who were at least a certain age, and who were not too closely related. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.

Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.

Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.

And about marriage, whatever your opinions or beliefs are, as long as they differ from other people's beliefs or values they should be kept in private under religious or community organizations that represent you or them or whoever has differences.

that is just constitutional to keep beliefs separate and out from under the state.

the only part the state has any business in is contracts, for shared custody, estates, etc.
not for the personal relationship which is private. both sides are hypocrites for trying to force their beliefs through the state. they should be pulling the other way toward privitazation and make all sides happy, equally included under the same Constitution.

Aahh, another piss-ignorant quadrant heard from. I swear, I can almost FEEL my IQ drop a couple of points every time this font of duuuhhh talks.

Good thing I'm here as the lightning rod.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People don't talk or leave messages at playgrounds?

Where do you get off saying no one can have fun on this board?

See sections of this board on Humor, Hobbies, and The Taunting Arena.

And yes, you do appear to have a stick up you butt today.

He seems to be missing a sense of humor, doesn't he?

Yeah some folks take their gay bashing pretty seriously.

Talk to us about a lacking sense of humor when WE start running to the government to beat down anyone who dares to disagree with us.

 

[Kondor3]

The Freak Show is still goin' full-tilt, I see...

 

[WorldWatcher]

So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.

Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.

No the analogy is not flawed it is based on what you said: "Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche."

In each case above it was the individual God (or Gods) that they believed told them, based on a direct communication from God (or their Gods) and their interpretation of their faith (or other convictions) that they were not to do the things asked.

Who are you to decide for them what the teachings of their faith are? Are you assuming that each of them is a Christian? Are you then saying the government should tell them what their individual and personal faith and convictions are?

"A persons religious (or otherwise) convictions" are their personal beliefs.

As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.

So who gets to define whether their beliefs are "a religious objection based on reality"?

What you are saying very clearly, and I'm not trying to twist things, is that "my views" needs special exceptions to the law because my views are based on reality. However I support others persons views not having the same validity as my views and therefore it's OK to usurp their beliefs (or other convictions) and allow the government to then exercise control over whether that private business should be allowed to discriminate.

So if we have these Public Accommodation laws and they apply equally to all business except now there are "special privileges" to exempt religious views. But wait, it's only certain religius views (ones you agree with) that qualify for an exemption. If the owner of an Auto Repair shop says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough. A plumber says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough. A Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough. A hotel owner says his faith says that God (or Gods) don't allow him to rent to people from Ireland - that's not good enough. But if a Christian Bakery says that they won't sell a wedding cake to two people of the same gender - OH, that's OK - I agree with that one.

See that's the problem. By calling for a religious exemption you actually have two problems:

#1 - Anyone can say any act of discrimination is based on their ""religious (or otherwise) convictions" and be exempt from the law. Otherwise you have the government deciding what is and is not a valid religious exemption and according to the Constitution the government is not to "respect" one religion over another.

#2 - Secondly is cedes to the government that it is proper for them to set the conditions under which a private business owner can or cannot refuse service based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, marital statue, veterans status, parental status, etc. The fundamental issue is the usurping of property rights and if those are respected then religion isn't a factor under any conditions and no "special privileges" for faith (or other convictions) are needed.​

As I said previously, what I'm seeing from some is that Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing.


>>>>

I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.

11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Mark 8:11-13

Respectfully of your beliefs, that would be irrelevant. Any claim by an individual of their "person's religious (or otherwise) conviction" was the standard.

Just because your belief is that God (or Gods) wouldn't speak to them or influence their perspective or interpretation doesn't matter. Based on the standard of "A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction" necessitating an "special privilege" under the law would have to apply (if special exemptions are written into the law) unless the government then starts getting to decide what is a valid "religious (or otherwise) conviction that qualifies.


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:

In this instance of this bakery, do you think it was okay for others of your mindset to drive them out of business as they did? What if these bakers were gay? And what if Christians decided to mount such a ruckus that they were driven out of business?

Are you getting me here?

(Inhaled deeply through his nose)

Ahh, the smell of hypocrisy is on the air.

Not gay, but now I see the problem here.

You actually think 2% of the population drove this baker out of business. ROFL OMG that's funny. No dude. The business was abandoned by the other 98% because this business refused to serve the 2%. Duh.

Actually, we think LESS than 2% of the population drove this baker out of business, since I expect more than 98% of the population JUST IN HIS TOWN knew nothing about what was going on, and wouldn't have given a damn if they had.

It doesn't really take very many vitriolic, hate-filled, hypocritical bigots to write threatening letters and making intimidating phone calls, after all.

The business was closed because you and your ilk quite clearly showed us EXACTLY what sort of "tolerance" you deserve from now on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not caring is not bigotry it is apathy.

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




I don't care what their beliefs are.

If they took a stand on their beliefs then good for them. Now they can deal with the fallout.

Seems to me no too many of their fellow Christians stepped up to support them so maybe you should be castigating them.

In the context of the question, you would act regardless of their religious beliefs. That is called intolerance, bigotry and insensitivity.

Intolerant-

adj (foll by of )

1. lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own

You are as guilty of this as you claim we are. Game. Set. Match.

I admit to being a bigot against homophobes and racists of all religions.

Really? I admit to being a bigot against bigots and hypocrites of all persuasions. Probably why YOU make me want to vomit.

Was this supposed to be clever? "I'm a bigot, but only against bigots. Of course, I define that as anyone to disagrees with me, so that means I only have to tolerate people who agree with me!" Yeah, and the Pope "tolerates" Catholics.

Like virtually everything you say, this doesn't pass the laugh test for anyone intelligent . . . which is probably why you thought it was brilliant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No the analogy is not flawed it is based on what you said: "Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche."

In each case above it was the individual God (or Gods) that they believed told them, based on a direct communication from God (or their Gods) and their interpretation of their faith (or other convictions) that they were not to do the things asked.

Who are you to decide for them what the teachings of their faith are? Are you assuming that each of them is a Christian? Are you then saying the government should tell them what their individual and personal faith and convictions are?

"A persons religious (or otherwise) convictions" are their personal beliefs.



So who gets to define whether their beliefs are "a religious objection based on reality"?

What you are saying very clearly, and I'm not trying to twist things, is that "my views" needs special exceptions to the law because my views are based on reality. However I support others persons views not having the same validity as my views and therefore it's OK to usurp their beliefs (or other convictions) and allow the government to then exercise control over whether that private business should be allowed to discriminate.

So if we have these Public Accommodation laws and they apply equally to all business except now there are "special privileges" to exempt religious views. But wait, it's only certain religius views (ones you agree with) that qualify for an exemption. If the owner of an Auto Repair shop says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough. A plumber says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough. A Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough. A hotel owner says his faith says that God (or Gods) don't allow him to rent to people from Ireland - that's not good enough. But if a Christian Bakery says that they won't sell a wedding cake to two people of the same gender - OH, that's OK - I agree with that one.

See that's the problem. By calling for a religious exemption you actually have two problems:

#1 - Anyone can say any act of discrimination is based on their ""religious (or otherwise) convictions" and be exempt from the law. Otherwise you have the government deciding what is and is not a valid religious exemption and according to the Constitution the government is not to "respect" one religion over another.

#2 - Secondly is cedes to the government that it is proper for them to set the conditions under which a private business owner can or cannot refuse service based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, marital statue, veterans status, parental status, etc. The fundamental issue is the usurping of property rights and if those are respected then religion isn't a factor under any conditions and no "special privileges" for faith (or other convictions) are needed.​

As I said previously, what I'm seeing from some is that Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing.


>>>>

I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.

11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Mark 8:11-13

Respectfully of your beliefs, that would be irrelevant. Any claim by an individual of their "person's religious (or otherwise) conviction" was the standard.

Just because your belief is that God (or Gods) wouldn't speak to them or influence their perspective or interpretation doesn't matter. Based on the standard of "A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction" necessitating an "special privilege" under the law would have to apply (if special exemptions are written into the law) unless the government then starts getting to decide what is a valid "religious (or otherwise) conviction that qualifies.


>>>>

Wait a minute, you value the law so much, why do you ignore what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, association, and expression? And yes, the Constitution still matters.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Freak Show is still goin' full-tilt, I see...

Hypocrisy never sleeps my friend.

 

[Foxfyre]

#1 - I didn't say the repair shop owner was a Christian.

#2 - It which religion the individual ascribes to important in determining whether they can refuse service or goods based on religious grounds?

#3 - The question was "Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?". If the repair shop owner offers services to customer's should the by able to claim a "special privilege" for a religious exemption for serving blacks?

#4 - If the auto shop provides road side repair can they say no in shop service for black and no road side service for blacks yet provide those services to whites?

#5 - The "Cockfighting" is a strawman not part of the question, it is an obvious throw in to deflect from the core question which has to do with declining service based on race and not based on illegal activity.



#1 - Again not the question.

#2 - If the plumber routinely applies serives in the homes of customers (as plumbers normally do), can the plumber refuse to provide those services based on the religion of the toilet's home owner.

#3 - You realize that people don't normally remove their toilets and bring them to the plumbers shop, right?



#1 - The Cab Driver example comes from a real world example where Muslim cab drivers were refusing to take customers with dogs or who were carrying alcohol because of religious objections. Their state objections was not that they were allergic to dogs or that they were afraid that other customers were allergic to dogs. Their stated objection was it violated their faith.

#2 - Again with the strawman about dangerous neighborhoods. That was not a condition of the question because it is irrelevant. If the fare is being refused because of danger in the destination, that is wholly different question. The cab drivers in the case stated it was about religious objections to the dogs or alcohol.



#1 - Again with the strawman, it has nothing to do with pick-ups or delivery. It was about being required to rent the room based on strictly on country of origin.



#1 - In many of the replies above you use the word "should", which isn't the question. The question is, is it OK for the government allow "special priveleges" to anyone that claimes a religious belief about something, therefore they are exempt from the law. Such a religious exemption would apply to any "personally held religous belief". In other works anyone can be exempt from the laws for whatever reason really exists, they just have to claim a "special privilege" by claiming a religion based exclude. (Note: "religion based" does not equal Christian based.)

#2 - You may think that the location is a smart dodge, but legally it has no bearing. If the business offers services and those services are at another location, the business under the law cannot offer different services in a discriminatory manner when their business routinely provides services at other locations.



>>>>

I am not arguing for or against a law. I am arguing for a principle that the law SHOULD protect and defend whether it actually does or not. And I brought in the Christian component only because you did.

#1 - Incorrect, no where in any of the examples (and since they have been quoted you will note that none have been changed) did I site "Christians", as a matter of fact I included "God (or Gods)" in most of the examples the exception being one specifically involving Muslims (where I used the singular God instead).

#2 - The only place in the post where it mentioned Christians was "In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?" where I was asking if the same standard applied to non-Christian beliefs. (That standard being that all someone had to do was claim their individual faith barred something, and therefore they should receive the same special treatment under the law.
>>>>

I am not basing my argument on anybody's faith, Christian or otherwise.

Nobody should be forced to serve anybody in this country. We fought a long and bloody war to free people from slavery, and the law should never be able to put one person under bondage to another.

As a matter of ethics, morality, and common sense, I will serve anybody who comes to my place of business and I don't care who or what brand they are.. But I should not be required by law or any other edict to go someplace else that I do not want to go or be someplace that I do not choose to be whether that be because I am Christian, Jew, Druid, anti-accordian players, or just don't happen to feel like it today.

And I still say those who would destroy a person's business and livelihood or threaten their person, their family, their friends, associates, customers, etc. purely because they disagree with an opinion or conviction the person holds -

such people are bigoted far more than this Christian baker could ever be and such people are doing evil that no freedom loving American should ever condone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why?

Their faith in God informs them that homosexuality is filthy and unholy and perverse and sinful and unclean and degenerate and emasculating and that association with homosexuals is either prohibited or otherwise condemned as consorting with those in whom God is greatly displeased.

And they live in a country whose history is steeped in the influence of that faith, and whose majority population adhere to such belief-systems.

Perhaps they saw it as a matter of Man's Law in conflict with God's Law, and chose God over Man?

Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.

You know what else is immoral? Trying to dictate to other people what their morals should be.

Newsflash. No one on this planet is obligated to conform their moral standards either to what YOU think is moral, or to what you project their morals to be.

Amen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.

Do we know that the Christian Bakery Owners support such things?

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

Plus he has tattoos, which are clearly condemned in the Bible.

And even if they did...

So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...

Big deal...

In other words, its okay to twist the word of God to suit your own bigoted beliefs?

Lots of people who are Christian have tattoos. Believe it or not, tattoos do not magically disappear when you change your mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?

Quick question, even if they believe that, why does it prove they are not sincere? Who appointed you judge of what is, and is not, permissible for Christians? Aren't your words simply bigotry and hate speech aimed at people who have a different world view than you do? Doesn't that make you worse than the people who do not believe that it is wrong to discriminate based on personal beliefs?

 

[Noomi]

I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.

 

[Papageorgio]

And even if they did...

So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...

Big deal...

In other words, its okay to twist the word of God to suit your own bigoted beliefs?

What about your own bigotry Noomi, why do you easily dismiss your bigotry of Indians, yet some how feel you have a right to comment on others bigotry?

You are looking pretty hypocritical. What did you call Indians that lived and Australia and wanted to work for a living and make an income such as you do?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am not arguing for or against a law. I am arguing for a principle that the law SHOULD protect and defend whether it actually does or not. And I brought in the Christian component only because you did.

#1 - Incorrect, no where in any of the examples (and since they have been quoted you will note that none have been changed) did I site "Christians", as a matter of fact I included "God (or Gods)" in most of the examples the exception being one specifically involving Muslims (where I used the singular God instead).

#2 - The only place in the post where it mentioned Christians was "In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?" where I was asking if the same standard applied to non-Christian beliefs. (That standard being that all someone had to do was claim their individual faith barred something, and therefore they should receive the same special treatment under the law.
>>>>

I am not basing my argument on anybody's faith, Christian or otherwise.

Nobody should be forced to serve anybody in this country. We fought a long and bloody war to free people from slavery, and the law should never be able to put one person under bondage to another.

While I agree with the premise that any business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, currently we do not live under such a law and all businesses open to the public are bound by anti-discrimination laws.

Quite frankly I see no reason to discriminate against anyone at face value. I have told customers to take their business elsewhere for various reasons with no blow back but I had reasons other than I was intolerant of a person's personal choices.

And I still say those who would destroy a person's business and livelihood or threaten their person, their family, their friends, associates, customers, etc. purely because they disagree with an opinion or conviction the person holds -

And again criticism from the market and the community you serve is part of doing business. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It's always been that way and will always be that way. Any business owner with any common sense knows this.

And I do not think it's bigoted to want a person to treat everyone equally.

Those who do not treat everyone equally are bigots. And society today has little tolerance for that.

It's not good or bad it's just the way it is and as a business owner you have to adapt to that. If you don't we know what happens.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe so called christian business should post the list of sins that disqualify people from entering their establishments.

That way all sinners are treated equally and the business owners immortal soul will be protected.

For example.

We are a Christian business therefore if you have every committed any of the following sins we are unable to serve you:

Adultery
Theft
Murder
Being gay
Divorce
etc
etc etc


I wonder how many customers they'd have.

 

[RKMBrown]

Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others. Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.

Well, perhaps I ended RKM's little lie that he called an argument. It is evident to me that such people work to smear Christians instead of directly confronting them with a cogent argument.

I don't require other members to embrace or endorse or even represent Christianity accurately in order to be honorable members of USMB. But to intentionally, deliberately, and repeatedly misrepresent the position and argument of others out of pure malice--that is not honorable. And those who do it are invariably bigots.

You are both liars. Read your posts. I frigging quoted you two. Both of you defended the right of this baker to refuse to serve gays in public. Both of you are for repealing the civil rights laws that force christians to serve gays against their religion. Both of you are repeatedly accusing the community at large of committing "evil" sins by forcing this baker out of business. Your accusations have repeatedly stated that they destroyed this baker. Repeatedly. Then when I called you are your CITED statements, you feign disbelief and call me a liar for CITING YOU. What a load of crap. Admit it you two are christian bigots against gays. You don't even support gays as being worthy of practicing the time honored tradition of picketing in this country let alone worth of being defended by our civil rights laws. Homophobe bigotry. You should both be ashamed of what you have said.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right? Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.

Let's not forget it was white, southern xstians who engaged in, supported and propagated slavery and justified it in their churches via bible scripture.

Slavery was perfectly okay by god in the OT.

Xtians never learn, the always have to be dragged kicking and screaming...sometimes suing, into morality and virtue.

Case in point.

Since when is it okay to force someone into adhering to YOUR morals and virtues? Is it not gay people who say that Christians are forcing their morals and virtues on THEM? How bemusing.

Slavery was way different in the Bible than what you read about in the Civil War. Perhaps you should do a little research. RKM knows what I'm talking about. He made the same false accusation and was pounded into the ground for it.

And Democrats, for which I know you espouse as one, were the ones who founded the KKK, and encouraged open discrimination against Blacks as far back as the Civil War. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach to be openly discriminate to someone. "Love one another" it says. Another good example is the story of the Good Samaritan. In Jesus' time Samaritans were viewed unfavorably. Given that two people (a priest and a Levite) passed him by and offered no help, the Samaritan was the one who saved his life. This teaches that no matter who or what someone is, you help them in a time of need.

"Pounded into the ground for it."
You are a proud fool who thinks way to much of himself. The only thing you "pounded" was your fist on you bible. Slavery existed in the time of the bible, and it was not all "charity" being handed out by good Christians as you prefer to believe.

The discussion from you was to the history of slavery in the bible as being different than the abominations Christians did against blacks in America, and defended in the exact same way you are defending your homophobia against gays as evidence that gays should not be provided civil rights per the law.

 

[beagle9]

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?



[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]

>>>>

The thing is this, when people invoke God or anything else to try and justify their position on what they believe in life, then it is up to the people who are in the direct line of fire of this invoking, to investigate their claims in which they make thus using God or anything else in ways that may not be accurate at all when they are doing so in this way, so it is always good to do ones homework on these people and their speaking's. The Bible in many cases may not even represent them as they had spoken or quoted it that way, so it is always best to check it out for one self in life.

What I notice is that people don't want to investigate what the belief is or what the bibles says accurately about things, and this in order to counter lies or reveal perpetrators if that is what they might find in those whom may be miss-using the Lords name or invoking it for their cause or reasons for their cause in certain ways, and I think that they don't because they want to use the ignorant persons words against the whole group somehow. Home work must be done against those for whom might make a ridiculous claim in which the Bible doesn't even back up, and then on top of that make it wrongfully without challenge of. They don't do their homework because they want to use it to tear down the entire belief system or group by way of even one individual doing wrong in the groups name, and for whom had then acted out vocally or in ways that could potentially give ammunition to those whom have an agenda against an entire group in which is their hopes to then try and wipe out a specific belief system in which they hate by putting certain people out in the spotlight, especially if the belief system they hate speaks against the very created cultures and/or actions in which should be spoken against righteously or by righteous people, if those cultures, trends or actions are harmful or hurtful to a belief system that does quite well without having to deal with problems that would therefore put the belief system in jeopardy or grave danger, and in which it could potentially do to it by allowing any and everyone into it (even ones enemy without knowledge of) if so be the case where this happens or has happened in the past.

Always remember the Trojan Horse story, and it will help always to understand the ways in which our enemies seek to infiltrate and destroy us and our belief systems.

People miss-representing belief systems or cultures, and good things by high jacking them for their own twisted thinking coupled with their actions committed wrongfully upon, are coming in droves anymore in this nation, and so this places all good at risk, especially when we see also groups adapting or attaching themselves to other legitimate causes, and all in order to make their group or cause even more powerful when this happens. This then gives them more accessibility to areas in which they were never allowed to have access to before, other than by order of an ignorant out of touch government, and this because of their anti-beliefs in a system in which they desired to enter into, yet only wanted the access to it because their attempt is to destroy it once they are granted access to it. All systems should be on high alert in this nation and around the world now, because evil and bad are on the move as each line that had been established over the years are subject to now fall all because of.

Are you assuming that the Bible would be the only basis for such "special privileges" to be exempt from Public Accommodation laws? Remember the individual in the post I responded to said "Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only."

A "persons religious (or otherwise) conviction" isn't necessarily measured against some checklist. It is the person's individual faith, belief, or conviction that is the standard - therefore anyone can claim anything they want and be exempt from secular law just by claiming that is their personal religious belief.

To qualify for the exemption, must it be a belief based solely on the Bible? Other religions or religious beliefs need not apply? Will the government then, since they are the ones that apply secular law, be the ones defining what is and is not valid?


>>>>

Hmm, I'm not sure if you interpret me correctly or not here, because I am having a hard time applying your words to what I had said, so at this point I may have a hard time answering your assessment of my words spoken to your interpretation of, because I am not sure if you interpreted my words correctly. Will get back to you once I make sense of what we have done here, because at this point I am now confused as to where we are at in this ... :/

 

[RKMBrown]

There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law. And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.

But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate. We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is. We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.

Translation: You would make it legal to starve gays out of christian hovels by refusing to sell them goods and services. Is that your idea of a good law? To repeal our civil rights laws?

In a word, yes.

Thanks for being honest. That's much better than pretending I'm a liar by stating the clear meaning of their views that christian bigotry against gays should be protected.

I would defend civil rights laws, based on the fact that without them great harm is done by the majority on minority groups. Everyone has the basic right to life and liberty. Shopping in the public marketplace is a necessity for all of us. The ability of the majority to literally and figuratively starve out a minority group must be restrained. If not where does the line move? Do christians then move into gay hovels like israeli settlers and thus then move gays out of counties and states? Where does that end? With gays being pushed out of the states? That may be preferable to you. But I warn you, some day some majority group may target you and your family as not being of the right race, creed, religion, or "sexual orientation."