Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[beagle9]

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.

To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.

Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.

Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?

They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.

Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?

A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ? Next the customer steams out and runs to the government and says hey these people said they sell books, but for some reason they won't get me the book that I need, now what are you going to do about that, and isn't that discriminating against me ? Who do you think the government would side with once they went out and saw that the book store was a Christian Book Store, and it having no illusions to it's customers because there it was big as can be, and in black and white letters "CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE"!!!

 

[Syriusly]

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.

To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.

Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.

Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?

They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.

Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?

A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ? Next the customer steams out and runs to the government and says hey these people said they sell books, but for some reason they won't get me the book that I need, now what are you going to do about that, and isn't that discriminating against me ? Who do you think the government would side with once they went out and saw that the book store was a Christian Book Store, and it having no illusions to it's customers because there it was big as can be, and in black and white letters "CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE"!!!

Your problem is the law- and that you don't realize your problem is the law.

 

[Skylar]

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.

To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.

Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.

Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?

They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.

Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?

A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ?

Beagle....you know that's not public accommodation laws. This has been explained to you over and over again. A business need only sell what it ordinarily sells. If you sell wedding cake, there's no different in a cake for Christians, Muslims, gays, or straights. Its just cake.

So your scenario where someone is expected to carry and sell a product that they don't sell is yet another misconception on your part. Albeit an intentional one in this case, as you already know better.

A closer analogy would be a christian bookstore that sold journals. But refused to sell one to a gay person, because they didn't want to encourage a record of an 'immoral lifestyle'. That would violate the public accommodation laws. As journals are a normally stocked item that they simply refuse to sell based on sexual orientation.

And labeling your store 'Christian' would do nothing to prevent the application of that law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

No it wouldn't for a couple of reasons:

1. The businesses name under public accommodation laws is irrelevant.

2. There are many "Christian" businesses that have no problem providing equal access to goods and services to homosexuals and there are a number of "Christian" Churches around the country that perform same-sex ceremonies.​

So a bakery named "Joe's Crhistian Bakery" doesn't do anything to indicate whether they provide goods and services to homosexuals. While "Joe's - We Don't Serve Gays - Christian Bakery" might, that wouldn't be a very good business name.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??

No. I see stores not wanting to alienate non Christian customers by saying "Happy Holidays", but I still can't swing a purse without hitting a christmas tree two days before Halloween.

 

[beagle9]

I apologize to yall, as I had to stop and watch the episode of "Miracle on 34th Street', the original 1947 version, and I apologize for not editing my last post before I left.... uggh. What we need now in this nation, is a savy lawyer like Khris Kringle had in which I saw depicted in that show, then maybe we could get back on some solid footing once again in this nation. I swear I'm living in the wrong time period I think.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

 

[Skylar]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

 

[beagle9]

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.

To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.

Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.

Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?

They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.

Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?

A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ?

Beagle....you know that's not public accommodation laws. This has been explained to you over and over again. A business need only sell what it ordinarily sells. If you sell wedding cake, there's no different in a cake for Christians, Muslims, gays, or straights. Its just cake.

So your scenario where someone is expected to carry and sell a product that they don't sell is yet another misconception on your part. Albeit an intentional one in this case, as you already know better.

A closer analogy would be a christian bookstore that sold journals. But refused to sell one to a gay person, because they didn't want to encourage a record of an 'immoral lifestyle'. That would violate the public accommodation laws. As journals are a normally stocked item that they simply refuse to sell based on sexual orientation.

And labeling your store 'Christian' would do nothing to prevent the application of that law.

In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake. It is something that represents his Godly talents and attributes that were given onto him by God from his birth, and this in order to perform in his life's journey as God would have him do so while in the world. Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

 

[Skylar]

In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.

And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.

If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.

Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.

Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....

.....so what?

Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.

 

[Skylar]

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

 

[Carib Gyal]

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

 

[Skylar]

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?

For the last four days. Yes.

 

[Skylar]

Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?

For the last four days. Yes.

It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

 

[Carib Gyal]

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?

For the last four days. Yes.

It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

Yeah so you said. Then Beagle said but what if they're gay. Then you said that churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are. Then Beagle said yeah but what if they're really, really gay. And you said churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

etc.

 

[beagle9]

In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.

And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.

If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.

Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.

Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....

.....so what?

Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.

You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
I guess all people want their cake (lifestyle), and I guess as the old saying goes they want to eat (live) it too. Hey I know that I am particular about who bakes my family a cake in life, and aren't we all ? It just leads me to think that the cake baker may have been targeted just like Phil of Duck Dynasty was, and so on and on and so forth it all goes in this nation right ?

I agree that everyone has a right to live free and prosperous in this nation, and all have a right to protections under the laws of course, but isn't it that we should all be able to live together without invading each others lives and spaces if we don't have to so much ? What happened to respecting each others religions, cultures, spaces, lives and privacy in this nation ? Is that even possible anymore ?

 

[Skylar]

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?

For the last four days. Yes.

It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

Yeah so you said. Then Beagle said but what if they're gay. Then you said that churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are. Then Beagle said yeah but what if they're really, really gay. And you said churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

etc.

The direct issues of the thread were addressed and resolved weeks ago. No, churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate any ceremony they object to. The rest of the threads are variations of 'what if'.

 

[beagle9]

So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.

Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?

For the last four days. Yes.

It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

Yeah so you said. Then Beagle said but what if they're gay. Then you said that churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are. Then Beagle said yeah but what if they're really, really gay. And you said churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

etc.

Being a smarty I see, and if you want to say what I say, then it best you quote me directly or you are in violation of the forum rules. Got it..