Local Pennsylvania bridal shop harassed and threatened by LGBT activist after turning away same sex

[BS Filter]

In sanctuary cities only. It sure doesn't apply to the forced labor laws.

I will ask you again....does a business owner's religious beliefs trump health laws? safety laws?

Then the kosher deli will simply be forced to sell BLT's. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm sorry to hear that you still don't understand PA laws. If a kosher deli doesn't normally sell BLTs on their menu....PA laws do not require them to sell you one if you want one. Just like you can't complain that a furniture store won't sell you a BLT.

You really need to read a PA law sometime.....your examples are amusing, but they are certainly showing clearly that you have no idea what PA laws are for.

Yet a Christian baker can be forced to sell something he doesn't normally sell. But not a Jewish deli owner. Sounds like those PA laws could use some updating.

Oh really? Give us the example of the christian baker that was forced to sell something he doesn't normally sell. I'd like to read up on that case.

Another one playing dumb.

 

[Lysistrata]

Perhaps the "hateful queers" simply search advertising for the goods they wish to purchase. I know this is what I would do. How in the heck would anyone know from advertising that some shop owner is a member of one of those Christian sects that oppose "participating" in same-sex weddings? You can't turn this situation on its head. Did the members of these Christian sects ever include their membership and the restrictions imposed by this membership in their advertising? Why are you trying to blame this on LGBTs? They are not responsible for the situation; they were were simply shopping. How are they supposed to know about someone else's personal predilections?

Also, as the "Christian" (not ALL Christians, thank you!) bakeries argue, wedding cakes require their personal artistry. To what extent is personal artistry involved with the operations of this shop? Do the proprietors of this shop design and sew personalized gowns for each individual customer or do they merely sell pre-manufactured gowns?

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

Perhaps the "hateful queers" simply search advertising for the goods they wish to purchase. I know this is what I would do. How in the heck would anyone know from advertising that some shop owner is a member of one of those Christian sects that oppose "participating" in same-sex weddings? You can't turn this situation on its head. Did the members of these Christian sects ever include their membership and the restrictions imposed by this membership in their advertising? Why are you trying to blame this on LGBTs? They are not responsible for the situation; they were were simply shopping. How are they supposed to know about someone else's personal predilections?

Also, as the "Christian" (not ALL Christians, thank you!) bakeries argue, wedding cakes require their personal artistry. To what extent is personal artistry involved with the operations of this shop? Do the proprietors of this shop design and sew personalized gowns for each individual customer or do they merely sell pre-manufactured gowns?

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

From your language, you obviously are a member of one of these hateful "Christian" cults. I find your notion of "targeting" ridiculous. How would potential customers know of a shop-owner's specific beliefs? Do they include this in advertising? "We are members of a sect of the Christian faith that prohibits providing any materials or services for same-sex weddings." See this anywhere in advertising? Remember, all Christians are not the same when it comes to this issue.

Moreover, even sect members are required to follow the law. There is no reason for people who are not members of these sects, straight or LGBT, to mollycoddle them. You seem to expect the rest of us to obediently kow-tow to them. Sorry, we don't kick innocent people of any sexual orientation out of mainstream society just to accommodate the desires of some other group.

Of course you find the notion of targeting ridiculous. You think we're all stupid and don't understand what's really going on. The homo mafia and their tools in the media and legislatures drum up support and pass these anti discrimination laws, then target Christian businesses to test them. It's been the agenda for the last few years. These cases aren't just coincidences. You're like the cop in the movie Casablanca when told there was gambling going on in the back room....."I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you".

There is not such thing as a "homo mafia." There seems to be some sort of conspiracy between these so-called "Christian" organizations, though, and they definitely have an agenda. Look at organizations like "focus on the family," some of the southern baptist sects, perkins, frankie graham, jefress; organized, loud hate groups.

Yes, there is a queer mafia. Believing homosexuality is sin and an abomination against God isn't hate.

No, there is no "queer mafia." You may believe what you wish, but it's this constantly trying to drag the rest of us into it that is galling. Please get to heaven on your own. The rest of us will do the same, regardless of whatever our respective religions think that a glorious afterlife is. I seriously doubt that there is any Supreme Being up there who cares about our sex lives.

 

[BS Filter]

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

From your language, you obviously are a member of one of these hateful "Christian" cults. I find your notion of "targeting" ridiculous. How would potential customers know of a shop-owner's specific beliefs? Do they include this in advertising? "We are members of a sect of the Christian faith that prohibits providing any materials or services for same-sex weddings." See this anywhere in advertising? Remember, all Christians are not the same when it comes to this issue.

Moreover, even sect members are required to follow the law. There is no reason for people who are not members of these sects, straight or LGBT, to mollycoddle them. You seem to expect the rest of us to obediently kow-tow to them. Sorry, we don't kick innocent people of any sexual orientation out of mainstream society just to accommodate the desires of some other group.

Of course you find the notion of targeting ridiculous. You think we're all stupid and don't understand what's really going on. The homo mafia and their tools in the media and legislatures drum up support and pass these anti discrimination laws, then target Christian businesses to test them. It's been the agenda for the last few years. These cases aren't just coincidences. You're like the cop in the movie Casablanca when told there was gambling going on in the back room....."I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you".

There is not such thing as a "homo mafia." There seems to be some sort of conspiracy between these so-called "Christian" organizations, though, and they definitely have an agenda. Look at organizations like "focus on the family," some of the southern baptist sects, perkins, frankie graham, jefress; organized, loud hate groups.

Yes, there is a queer mafia. Believing homosexuality is sin and an abomination against God isn't hate.

No, there is no "queer mafia." You may believe what you wish, but it's this constantly trying to drag the rest of us into it that is galling. Please get to heaven on your own. The rest of us will do the same, regardless of whatever our respective religions think that a glorious afterlife is. I seriously doubt that there is any Supreme Being up there who cares about our sex lives.

We have different opinions. It's ny constitutional right to have my religious beliefs just as it's your right to have yours. Case closed.

 

[bodecea]

Perhaps the "hateful queers" simply search advertising for the goods they wish to purchase. I know this is what I would do. How in the heck would anyone know from advertising that some shop owner is a member of one of those Christian sects that oppose "participating" in same-sex weddings? You can't turn this situation on its head. Did the members of these Christian sects ever include their membership and the restrictions imposed by this membership in their advertising? Why are you trying to blame this on LGBTs? They are not responsible for the situation; they were were simply shopping. How are they supposed to know about someone else's personal predilections?

Also, as the "Christian" (not ALL Christians, thank you!) bakeries argue, wedding cakes require their personal artistry. To what extent is personal artistry involved with the operations of this shop? Do the proprietors of this shop design and sew personalized gowns for each individual customer or do they merely sell pre-manufactured gowns?

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

Perhaps the "hateful queers" simply search advertising for the goods they wish to purchase. I know this is what I would do. How in the heck would anyone know from advertising that some shop owner is a member of one of those Christian sects that oppose "participating" in same-sex weddings? You can't turn this situation on its head. Did the members of these Christian sects ever include their membership and the restrictions imposed by this membership in their advertising? Why are you trying to blame this on LGBTs? They are not responsible for the situation; they were were simply shopping. How are they supposed to know about someone else's personal predilections?

Also, as the "Christian" (not ALL Christians, thank you!) bakeries argue, wedding cakes require their personal artistry. To what extent is personal artistry involved with the operations of this shop? Do the proprietors of this shop design and sew personalized gowns for each individual customer or do they merely sell pre-manufactured gowns?

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

From your language, you obviously are a member of one of these hateful "Christian" cults. I find your notion of "targeting" ridiculous. How would potential customers know of a shop-owner's specific beliefs? Do they include this in advertising? "We are members of a sect of the Christian faith that prohibits providing any materials or services for same-sex weddings." See this anywhere in advertising? Remember, all Christians are not the same when it comes to this issue.

Moreover, even sect members are required to follow the law. There is no reason for people who are not members of these sects, straight or LGBT, to mollycoddle them. You seem to expect the rest of us to obediently kow-tow to them. Sorry, we don't kick innocent people of any sexual orientation out of mainstream society just to accommodate the desires of some other group.

Of course you find the notion of targeting ridiculous. You think we're all stupid and don't understand what's really going on. The homo mafia and their tools in the media and legislatures drum up support and pass these anti discrimination laws, then target Christian businesses to test them. It's been the agenda for the last few years. These cases aren't just coincidences. You're like the cop in the movie Casablanca when told there was gambling going on in the back room....."I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you".

There is not such thing as a "homo mafia." There seems to be some sort of conspiracy between these so-called "Christian" organizations, though, and they definitely have an agenda. Look at organizations like "focus on the family," some of the southern baptist sects, perkins, frankie graham, jefress; organized, loud hate groups.

Yes, there is a queer mafia. Believing homosexuality is sin and an abomination against God isn't hate.

You can believe any silly thing you want...but when you get a business license, you follow business law...including healthy, safety, and PA laws. Why haven't you complained in the past about PA laws protecting religion, race, age, and handicapped?

 

[BS Filter]

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.

From your language, you obviously are a member of one of these hateful "Christian" cults. I find your notion of "targeting" ridiculous. How would potential customers know of a shop-owner's specific beliefs? Do they include this in advertising? "We are members of a sect of the Christian faith that prohibits providing any materials or services for same-sex weddings." See this anywhere in advertising? Remember, all Christians are not the same when it comes to this issue.

Moreover, even sect members are required to follow the law. There is no reason for people who are not members of these sects, straight or LGBT, to mollycoddle them. You seem to expect the rest of us to obediently kow-tow to them. Sorry, we don't kick innocent people of any sexual orientation out of mainstream society just to accommodate the desires of some other group.

Of course you find the notion of targeting ridiculous. You think we're all stupid and don't understand what's really going on. The homo mafia and their tools in the media and legislatures drum up support and pass these anti discrimination laws, then target Christian businesses to test them. It's been the agenda for the last few years. These cases aren't just coincidences. You're like the cop in the movie Casablanca when told there was gambling going on in the back room....."I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you".

There is not such thing as a "homo mafia." There seems to be some sort of conspiracy between these so-called "Christian" organizations, though, and they definitely have an agenda. Look at organizations like "focus on the family," some of the southern baptist sects, perkins, frankie graham, jefress; organized, loud hate groups.

Yes, there is a queer mafia. Believing homosexuality is sin and an abomination against God isn't hate.

You can believe any silly thing you want...but when you get a business license, you follow business law...including healthy, safety, and PA laws. Why haven't you complained in the past about PA laws protecting religion, race, age, and handicapped?

So you believe "free exercise thereof" in the Constitution is silly? Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

Out of control because people can't treat people like second class citizens?

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

 

[BS Filter]

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

Out of control because people can't treat people like second class citizens?

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

Wrong. Refusing to be forced to violate religious beliefs isn't "prejudice".

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

Out of control because people can't treat people like second class citizens?

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

 

[frigidweirdo]

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Not all for profit, however they're willing to sell to others that would, in your words "make them complicit in their sin", but they're cherry picking what they feel makes them complicit in their sin.

I agree that a lot of Christians cherrypick but in this case, the shop owner has a point. If an atheist woman goes to buy a dress, as long as it's a heterosexual marriage, the shop owner is not complicit in the woman's sin of atheism and there is no doctrine forbidding atheists to get married.

As I've said before, until I know more about the shop owner and her motives, I have to assume that she did not refuse to sell to gays, she refused to sell a dress for a gay wedding. It might not seem like much but it's a huge difference.

Again, I question the sincerity of their faith

To me, it is a way to harass same sex couples
They may pass a law saying you can marry......but see if you can find anyone to sell you a dress, a cake or rent you a reception hall

A difference of opinion on homosexuality is no indication that their faith is not sincere.

That wasn't the point being made.

The point was a difference in opinion on different parts of the Bible shows their faith is insincere.

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

• 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)
• 3 refer to intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27)
• 1 refers to intercourse between women (Romans 1:26)
• 1 refers to prostitution and possibly pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
• 1 is general in nature (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

The first and second don't say gay is bad. It mentions something about being wicked, but it seems more to do with the fact that they have come under the protection of his roof, than they're men.
Also seems to say rape is bad.

Leviticus 20:13 seems a little bit more anti-gay.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

So, you could imagine that the Bible says to put gay people to death. Now, it doesn't say "If a man has sexual relations with a man as does with a women, don't sell them a wedding dress" It says to put them to death.

So, in theory these people are committing a sin by not putting these people to death. Right?

But what about adultery?

Exodus 20:14

“You shall not commit adultery.

Jame 4:17

" If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them."

Proverbs 6:32

"But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself."

Or as the 1599 Geneva Bible says

"But he that commiteth adultery with a woman, he is destitute of understanding: he that doeth it, destroyeth his own soul."

John 8:4-11 says

"
4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”"

Jesus doesn't say that stoning of an adulterer is bad. He merely says no one has condemned her to be stoned to death.

25 Top Bible Verses About Adultery - Encouraging Scripture

A lot more is spoken about adultery being a sin than gay sex being a sin. Yet these people will ignore all the stuff about adultery. An adulterer can have their wedding dresses, have their wedding cakes, can even be their president, they don't care. They'll ignore it because it's not convenient for them.

But gay people, oh, they'll go hammer and tongs against gay people. How convenient.

How about Mark 12:31

"The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.""

Ah.... ignore that one too. Amazing how much ignoring these Christians will do in order to present their bigotry as the word of God, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

Is that also the case if their religious beliefs trump state health laws? state safety laws?

In sanctuary cities only. It sure doesn't apply to the forced labor laws.

I will ask you again....does a business owner's religious beliefs trump health laws? safety laws?

Then the kosher deli will simply be forced to sell BLT's. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm sorry to hear that you still don't understand PA laws. If a kosher deli doesn't normally sell BLTs on their menu....PA laws do not require them to sell you one if you want one. Just like you can't complain that a furniture store won't sell you a BLT.

You really need to read a PA law sometime.....your examples are amusing, but they are certainly showing clearly that you have no idea what PA laws are for.

Yet a Christian baker can be forced to sell something he doesn't normally sell. But not a Jewish deli owner. Sounds like those PA laws could use some updating.

They are making a baker of wedding cakes bake for all customers regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation

 

[frigidweirdo]

Out of control because people can't treat people like second class citizens?

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

Wrong. Refusing to be forced to violate religious beliefs isn't "prejudice".

Go read my post 389!

 

[Coyote]

It is when that is the only area you object to in a marriage

Wrong. As wrong and as hypocritical as a Christian might be when it comes to how they view different sins, it doesn't mean that person does not sincerely believe in their heart that gay marriage is wrong.

Sincerity of faith is connected but not in the way you're thinking. A Christian that is less sincere in his/her faith would likely have no problem selling a wedding dress to a gay couple.

I follow my religion when it comes to marriage of gays but am willing to bend my faith when it comes to marriages of adulterers, divorced people, atheists, pregnant brides

The problem with this argument is, there's nothing in Christian doctrine forbidding adulterers, divorcees, atheists and pregnant brides to marry.

Catholics do not allow divorced people to remarry. Adulterers are guilty of mortal sin . Marriage is a sacrament from god.......atheists will raise atheist children......gays do not raise gay children

All this is true. But it doesn't change the fact that none of these are forbidden to marry.

Put another way, marriage does not exacerbate or further an adulterer's adultery. Neither does it exacerbate an atheist's atheism.

True. I also doubt adulterers announce the fact they are adulterers or ask for it to be written on their wedding cake.

Feel free to show that gay couples want it written on their wedding cake.

But I AM curious...how many wedding cakes have you even seen with something written on them? I've been to many weddings and receptions....some beautiful cakes...with nothing written on any of them.

I never have...and the one same sex wedding I went to had nothing written on the cake either.

I just googled same sex wedding cakes and looked at images...quite tasty and...quite unwritten.

 

[BS Filter]

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

Wrong. Refusing to be forced to violate religious beliefs isn't "prejudice".

Go read my post 389!

No. Make your point here.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Not all for profit, however they're willing to sell to others that would, in your words "make them complicit in their sin", but they're cherry picking what they feel makes them complicit in their sin.

I agree that a lot of Christians cherrypick but in this case, the shop owner has a point. If an atheist woman goes to buy a dress, as long as it's a heterosexual marriage, the shop owner is not complicit in the woman's sin of atheism and there is no doctrine forbidding atheists to get married.

As I've said before, until I know more about the shop owner and her motives, I have to assume that she did not refuse to sell to gays, she refused to sell a dress for a gay wedding. It might not seem like much but it's a huge difference.

Again, I question the sincerity of their faith

To me, it is a way to harass same sex couples
They may pass a law saying you can marry......but see if you can find anyone to sell you a dress, a cake or rent you a reception hall

A difference of opinion on homosexuality is no indication that their faith is not sincere.

That wasn't the point being made.

The point was a difference in opinion on different parts of the Bible shows their faith is insincere.

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

• 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)
• 3 refer to intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27)
• 1 refers to intercourse between women (Romans 1:26)
• 1 refers to prostitution and possibly pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
• 1 is general in nature (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

The first and second don't say gay is bad. It mentions something about being wicked, but it seems more to do with the fact that they have come under the protection of his roof, than they're men.
Also seems to say rape is bad.

Leviticus 20:13 seems a little bit more anti-gay.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

So, you could imagine that the Bible says to put gay people to death. Now, it doesn't say "If a man has sexual relations with a man as does with a women, don't sell them a wedding dress" It says to put them to death.

So, in theory these people are committing a sin by not putting these people to death. Right?

But what about adultery?

Exodus 20:14

“You shall not commit adultery.

Jame 4:17

" If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them."

Proverbs 6:32

"But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself."

Or as the 1599 Geneva Bible says

"But he that commiteth adultery with a woman, he is destitute of understanding: he that doeth it, destroyeth his own soul."

John 8:4-11 says

"
4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”"

Jesus doesn't say that stoning of an adulterer is bad. He merely says no one has condemned her to be stoned to death.

25 Top Bible Verses About Adultery - Encouraging Scripture

A lot more is spoken about adultery being a sin than gay sex being a sin. Yet these people will ignore all the stuff about adultery. An adulterer can have their wedding dresses, have their wedding cakes, can even be their president, they don't care. They'll ignore it because it's not convenient for them.

But gay people, oh, they'll go hammer and tongs against gay people. How convenient.

How about Mark 12:31

"The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.""

Ah.... ignore that one too. Amazing how much ignoring these Christians will do in order to present their bigotry as the word of God, huh?

I know all this and I've already mentioned that I'm aware of the cherrypicking. I can't defend that and I'm not trying to. My goal from the time I first entered this discussion was simply to show a different perspective from a wider context because I saw a lot of anger towards the shop owner and a lot of assumptions being made about them and and their motives. On top of all that, no one had anything to say about the reprehensible behavior of the callers.

 

[bodecea]

I will ask you again....does a business owner's religious beliefs trump health laws? safety laws?

Then the kosher deli will simply be forced to sell BLT's. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm sorry to hear that you still don't understand PA laws. If a kosher deli doesn't normally sell BLTs on their menu....PA laws do not require them to sell you one if you want one. Just like you can't complain that a furniture store won't sell you a BLT.

You really need to read a PA law sometime.....your examples are amusing, but they are certainly showing clearly that you have no idea what PA laws are for.

Yet a Christian baker can be forced to sell something he doesn't normally sell. But not a Jewish deli owner. Sounds like those PA laws could use some updating.

Oh really? Give us the example of the christian baker that was forced to sell something he doesn't normally sell. I'd like to read up on that case.

Another one playing dumb.

Don't have one, do you?

 

[bodecea]

In sanctuary cities only. It sure doesn't apply to the forced labor laws.

I will ask you again....does a business owner's religious beliefs trump health laws? safety laws?

Then the kosher deli will simply be forced to sell BLT's. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm sorry to hear that you still don't understand PA laws. If a kosher deli doesn't normally sell BLTs on their menu....PA laws do not require them to sell you one if you want one. Just like you can't complain that a furniture store won't sell you a BLT.

You really need to read a PA law sometime.....your examples are amusing, but they are certainly showing clearly that you have no idea what PA laws are for.

Yet a Christian baker can be forced to sell something he doesn't normally sell. But not a Jewish deli owner. Sounds like those PA laws could use some updating.

They are making a baker of wedding cakes bake for all customers regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation

If he want's to keep his license.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Out of control because people can't treat people like second class citizens?

Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."

Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.

And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.

My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

I've already said that I don't condone what the shop owner did. I've also said that I am basically on the fence as to whether or not they had the right to do it. Part of my problem is that you and others arguing against the shop owners have avoided the elephant in the room: The people who called the shop and were verbally abusive and issued threats to them and their family.

So let me ask you a few questions. And these are not rhetorical questions, I would actually like you to answer them if you're willing.

1.) Are you okay with people like that advancing the cause for gay rights in such a way?
2.) Do you not see "We're coming for you and your family" as hateful?
3.) Do you not see that calling someone a "fake Christian" is as judgmental as the shop owner's behavior?

What I mean is, and what we've been talking about for a few posts now, is about being able to deny service to people.

If, in your own country, you're refused from service in one shop, and it becomes legal, then you'll be refused by more shops.

69% of people are Christian. 2% Jewish, 1% Muslim. Imagine that you get refused service in 72% of shops. Imagine the area you live in you get refused service in 100% of shops.

You're a second class citizen. Just as black people were with segregation. Hence the segregation comment.

The point with the verbal abuse is that it wouldn't have happened had the owners kept within the law. The gay people probably know that the law isn't going to do much about it either.

Do I condone what they did? Sure. But sometimes there are times when people get angry, when they want revenge, when they feel they have treated in such a way by a bunch of bigots and they go do stuff like this.

Like I said, if you have this bigotry legalized, then people are going to take things into their own hands.

So the answer is to stop the bigotry, make it illegal, haul those who break the law into court and treat them like everyone else who breaks the law, then you won't put others in a position where they want to do something like those gay people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

Wrong. Refusing to be forced to violate religious beliefs isn't "prejudice".

Go read my post 389!

No. Make your point here.

You know what, I can't be bothered. Bye!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not all for profit, however they're willing to sell to others that would, in your words "make them complicit in their sin", but they're cherry picking what they feel makes them complicit in their sin.

I agree that a lot of Christians cherrypick but in this case, the shop owner has a point. If an atheist woman goes to buy a dress, as long as it's a heterosexual marriage, the shop owner is not complicit in the woman's sin of atheism and there is no doctrine forbidding atheists to get married.

As I've said before, until I know more about the shop owner and her motives, I have to assume that she did not refuse to sell to gays, she refused to sell a dress for a gay wedding. It might not seem like much but it's a huge difference.

Again, I question the sincerity of their faith

To me, it is a way to harass same sex couples
They may pass a law saying you can marry......but see if you can find anyone to sell you a dress, a cake or rent you a reception hall

A difference of opinion on homosexuality is no indication that their faith is not sincere.

That wasn't the point being made.

The point was a difference in opinion on different parts of the Bible shows their faith is insincere.

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

• 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)
• 3 refer to intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27)
• 1 refers to intercourse between women (Romans 1:26)
• 1 refers to prostitution and possibly pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
• 1 is general in nature (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

The first and second don't say gay is bad. It mentions something about being wicked, but it seems more to do with the fact that they have come under the protection of his roof, than they're men.
Also seems to say rape is bad.

Leviticus 20:13 seems a little bit more anti-gay.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

So, you could imagine that the Bible says to put gay people to death. Now, it doesn't say "If a man has sexual relations with a man as does with a women, don't sell them a wedding dress" It says to put them to death.

So, in theory these people are committing a sin by not putting these people to death. Right?

But what about adultery?

Exodus 20:14

“You shall not commit adultery.

Jame 4:17

" If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them."

Proverbs 6:32

"But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself."

Or as the 1599 Geneva Bible says

"But he that commiteth adultery with a woman, he is destitute of understanding: he that doeth it, destroyeth his own soul."

John 8:4-11 says

"
4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”"

Jesus doesn't say that stoning of an adulterer is bad. He merely says no one has condemned her to be stoned to death.

25 Top Bible Verses About Adultery - Encouraging Scripture

A lot more is spoken about adultery being a sin than gay sex being a sin. Yet these people will ignore all the stuff about adultery. An adulterer can have their wedding dresses, have their wedding cakes, can even be their president, they don't care. They'll ignore it because it's not convenient for them.

But gay people, oh, they'll go hammer and tongs against gay people. How convenient.

How about Mark 12:31

"The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.""

Ah.... ignore that one too. Amazing how much ignoring these Christians will do in order to present their bigotry as the word of God, huh?

I know all this and I've already mentioned that I'm aware of the cherrypicking. I can't defend that and I'm not trying to. My goal from the time I first entered this discussion was simply to show a different perspective from a wider context because I saw a lot of anger towards the shop owner and a lot of assumptions being made about them and and their motives. On top of all that, no one had anything to say about the reprehensible behavior of the callers.

Fine, you're trying to show a different perspective.

But it's not really working. I've discussed these issue in the previous post.

 

[BS Filter]

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

I understand completely.

You seem to have a problem between allowing shop owners to refuse service to people and calling people names.

As soon as you start allowing shop owners to refuse service to other people based on prejudice, you've created a second class of citizenship, just like black people were a second class of citizen way back when.

Wrong. Refusing to be forced to violate religious beliefs isn't "prejudice".

Go read my post 389!

No. Make your point here.

You know what, I can't be bothered. Bye!

As good an excuse as any.