If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Pop23]

He makes wedding cakes, regardless of sex, regardless of sexuality.

It’s OK if he doesn’t offer a specific product as long as he excludes all from it.

No, he doesn't make wedding cakes regardless of sex. He specifically admits he uses sex as a criteria in providing his goods and services when it comes to one of his normal business offerings - wedding cakes.

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.



.>>>>

Which sex does he have a bias against ?

 

[Pop23]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, **** everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly ******* shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

The objective truth is that thinking that the definition of marriage can be changed to give pedophiles the right to marry children- because it was changed to include gays- is ******* idiotic. The law is the objective truth at any point in time- right or wrong, agree or disagree- it reigns supreme. Your objective truth comes from some cosmic horseshit that the voices in your head are telling you is real. We here in the real world understand that changing the law-changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is a far cry from changing it to include pedophiles .

I’m agreeing with you on this. Children legally have diminished capabilities, so arguing they can enter in to this kind of agreement is baseless

 

[Silhouette]

Which sex does he have a bias against ?

lol.... I wonder how Worldy will sidestep that you're asking him to distinguish between gender and what one DOES with one's gender?

 

[Silhouette]

I’m agreeing with you on this. Children legally have diminished capabilities, so arguing they can enter in to this kind of agreement is baseless

Children can NEVER enter into a contract with adults that harms them. That's why Obergefell isn't worth the paper its written on. A child cannot share benefits of a contract that contains terms that banishes him or her from all hope of having either a mother or father for life. It's illegal.

 

[Pop23]

Two men walk into a song writers office and want this song writer who advertises that he will write songs for all occasions, and asks him to write a song for their wedding.

The song writer tells the two men that, emotionally he can’t relate to same sex weddings. He says he hates to turn down the income, but just can’t write them a song

Art vs the PA?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am saying that marriage is absolutely subjective and has changed multiple times and meant multiple things in the United States and that is demonstrable.

And by the way that means that in history- marriage has included child marriage.

And that brings us to 'consent'- in biblical times- women- and girls had no right to 'consent'- their fathers- or husbands did.

The issue with a 55 year old man marrying a 5 year old is not the 55 year old- it is that in our society- we no longer go by Biblical rules- and let a father sell off a 5 year old to be married. We believe that children cannot consent to sex- or marriage.

What about you- do you believe that the consent of children consent is objective- or subjective?

Do you think that you have no leg to stand on to say that children cannot consent to sex or marriage?

Yes, of course there have been differing ideas on marriage, almost since the dawn of time. Disagreement in and of itself doesn't make something subjective.

But getting to the important part here… I'm not asking you why you believe that it's wrong. I'm asking you how you can tell someone else that they are wrong, when by your own admission it is subjective. In other words, a matter of opinion. If it's a matter of opinion, then no particular opinion can be more right than any other.

I thought I made my position very clear, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. You're getting off track by focusing so much on when people can consent… You're not acknowledging the contradiction in your position. If you believe marriage is subjective, a matter of opinion… Then you have no basis for telling a child molester, a polygamist, or anyone else that they are wrong.

To say that a child molester's subjective reality is as valid as the subjective reality of an adult who wants to marry another adult is absurd. That is like saying that because some people's reality is that they like to hunt, kill and eat animals, we have to allow others who's reality tells them that they can hunt, kill and eat human beings, to do so. Let that sink in.

Currently the law on marriage reflects my subjective reality and not yours. Get used to it. the subjective reality of individuals does not trump the law which, hopefully reflects the collective reality- and societal norms of the majority and is therefore concrete, objective and verifiable.

 

[Silhouette]

To say that a child molester's subjective reality is as valid as the subjective reality of an adult who wants to marry another adult is absurd. That is like saying that because some people's reality is that they like to hunt, kill and eat animals, we have to allow others who's reality tells them that they can hunt, kill and eat human beings, to do so. Let that sink in.

Let this sink in: hunting, killing and eating humans is not even in the same legal universe as passively refusing to condone or promote a spiritually-repugnant behavior or lifestyle.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To say that a child molester's subjective reality is as valid as the subjective reality of an adult who wants to marry another adult is absurd. That is like saying that because some people's reality is that they like to hunt, kill and eat animals, we have to allow others who's reality tells them that they can hunt, kill and eat human beings, to do so. Let that sink in.

Let this sink in: hunting, killing and eating humans is not even in the same legal universe as passively refusing to condone or promote a spiritually-repugnant behavior or lifestyle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

And, as always, you have to look at who's cherrypicking and taking things out of context, and who isn't. Usually a pretty good clue as to who's full of shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Mind you, I don't blame them. I wouldn't pick a fight with someone who might decide to blow up my house, either.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Mind you, I don't blame them. I wouldn't pick a fight with someone who might decide to blow up my house, either.

Or maybe Muslims value and understand the true meaning of religious freedom

 

[Silhouette]

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Mind you, I don't blame them. I wouldn't pick a fight with someone who might decide to blow up my house, either.

Or maybe Muslims value and understand the true meaning of religious freedom

The test for the Court as you well know will be the PASSIVE refusal to condone or promote another's lifestyle or ideologies. That is the Christian baker's Constitutional right. The Court will not condone acts of violence.

 

[Pop23]

He makes wedding cakes, regardless of sex, regardless of sexuality.

It’s OK if he doesn’t offer a specific product as long as he excludes all from it.

No, he doesn't make wedding cakes regardless of sex. He specifically admits he uses sex as a criteria in providing his goods and services when it comes to one of his normal business offerings - wedding cakes.

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.



.>>>>

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

 

[buttercup]

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, **** everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly ******* shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

The objective truth is that thinking that the definition of marriage can be changed to give pedophiles the right to marry children- because it was changed to include gays- is ******* idiotic. The law is the objective truth at any point in time- right or wrong, agree or disagree- it reigns supreme. Your objective truth comes from some cosmic horseshit that the voices in your head are telling you is real. We here in the real world understand that changing the law-changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is a far cry from changing it to include pedophiles .

I’m agreeing with you on this. Children legally have diminished capabilities, so arguing they can enter in to this kind of agreement is baseless

Except that wasn't my argument. It completely woooshed over his head, and apparently yours as well.

I made a statement that was absolutely true, but he didn't even begin to understand it, so I'm not even going to bother.

 

[buttercup]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Mind you, I don't blame them. I wouldn't pick a fight with someone who might decide to blow up my house, either.

Or maybe Muslims value and understand the true meaning of religious freedom

You've never lived in a Muslim country, have you?

 

[Pop23]

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly ******* shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

The objective truth is that thinking that the definition of marriage can be changed to give pedophiles the right to marry children- because it was changed to include gays- is ******* idiotic. The law is the objective truth at any point in time- right or wrong, agree or disagree- it reigns supreme. Your objective truth comes from some cosmic horseshit that the voices in your head are telling you is real. We here in the real world understand that changing the law-changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is a far cry from changing it to include pedophiles .

I’m agreeing with you on this. Children legally have diminished capabilities, so arguing they can enter in to this kind of agreement is baseless

Except that wasn't my argument. It completely woooshed over his head, and apparently yours as well.

I made a statement that was absolutely true, but he didn't even begin to understand it, so I'm not even going to bother.

I was simply agreeing on PP’s point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

What a paradox. First time I know of that not serving all classes is discrimination to a single class.

Or do we need to redefine that as well?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

What a paradox. First time I know of that not serving all classes is discrimination to a single class.

Or do we need to redefine that as well?

He didn't provide full and equal access to goods and services as the law requires based on the listed classes.

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

 

[buttercup]

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

It's not the cake that he refused to make. It was the artwork/message on the cake that he does not do, because doing so would go against his conscience. Artists of any kind shouldn't be forced to create art that is contrary to their worldview. I'm truly amazed that anyone would think otherwise. Perhaps a country like North Korea would be better for those of you who like forcing sincere people of faith. Here in the US we are supposed to be about liberty, not forcing people at the barrel of a gun.