What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[paperview]

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

the bakery was put out of business......do you pretend that isn't damage?.......

Why was the business shut down? By decree of the state? Or because society refused to trade with a bigoted business?

It wasn't shut down. They still conduct the business from their home.

The owners said they planned to do that at some point soon anyway - (before the broohaha) -- because the open business was getting to be a hassle with their five young children and all...

 

[Nosmo King]

@Nosmo King

You are making an assumption that is gay bashing instead of a religious argument that one can make. My wife's relative models for a photographer and the pictures are used for gay advertising. We went to the wedding. We understand that it is a difficult issue but don't pretend that we don't think about the implications.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Ask yourself why it is sinful to wish someone God speed? If you wish someone God speed that doesn't have your own Christian interests in mind, I'm participating in their sinful deeds.

2 John 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You are saying that we hate and it has nothing to do with right and wrong or doctrine. Really? You don't know anyone at all.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I know mean and ignorant Christians who would say that it would ruin their witness.

What you are calling for is an illegal law that doesn't protect or respect the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a law that forbids 1 John 1:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22 then you have violated their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional.

Slave holders did it. Bigots did it. And now the hypocrites are doing it. Wrapping themselves in mis-interpretations of both the Bible and the constitution to rationalize unChristian and unconstitutional positions.

Let's get real. Christians believe in the divinity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He taught those who are without sin should cast the first stone. He taught judge not lest ye be judged. He commanded that we love one another. How can those most basic I tenets be ignored just so hated, fear ans suspicion be rationalized?

If misguided bigots want to use what they perceive as their "religious beliefs" as an aegis to hide behind in order to act in an unChristian way, they should post a sign in their shop window so any sinners don't accidentally stray into their bigoted businesses. The sign should clearly state: DUE TO OUR FERVENT BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

Religious freedom! What a crock!

Yes, bigots always have, and always will, attempt to use the government to force other people to be like them, which is why I will fight you every step of the way.

No laws were written to 'force' anyone to "be like them". These laws were unique in today's age in that they were laws written to promote bigotry. We haven't seen laws like this since the darkest days of Jim Crow.

What is the difference between Woolworth's refusing service to Blacks and the Arizona and Kansas laws giving legal cover to vendors to refuse service?

The Social Conservatives were on the wrong side of history 50 years ago and, to no one's surprise, they are on the wrong side today. The wrong side of history and the wrong side of any thinking person's definition of "freedom".

Protecting bigotry by using faith is not new. The Taliban uses it. So called Christians in Arizona and Kansas are using it. It's always the "fundamentalists" who try this tactic. Is it their insular social condition, their inability to appreciate the qualities of their neighbors, or their mis interpretations of scripture?

 

[Bumberclyde]

uh, no.....they said they chose not to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believed that gay marriage was wrong......the gay couple admitted in the law suit that they were frequent customers of the shop and that the manager had sold them baked goods even though he knew they were a gay couple.....obviously it was not their homosexuality that he objected to, but their marriage ceremony......

It would be interesting to know why the bible left out the part where Jesus says: "Let no gays marry". Or did I miss that part?

it isn't biblical, its societal......society for hundreds of years defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman......its the gay couple that's missing some parts......

then along came some radical liberals who said "**** what society has said, we want something and we're going to make society give it to us".........

and if some mere baker thinks he has the right to refuse to buckle under, well shucks, we'll just force him out of business.....

oh well, its all progress, right?.....

The baker could say: we don't sell male/male or female/female cake toppers. End of story. But noooooo, he has to make a big splashy show of his hatred. Just like Jesus would have, no doubt.

 

[paperview]

The irony in all this is that cons like to tell us discrimination laws should be abolished because the invisible hand of the free market will decide and put discriminators out of business --

yet when that invisible hand shows itself, they ***** and moan: Mob! They toook dere jerbs!

 

[PostmodernProph]

It would be interesting to know why the bible left out the part where Jesus says: "Let no gays marry". Or did I miss that part?

it isn't biblical, its societal......society for hundreds of years defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman......its the gay couple that's missing some parts......

then along came some radical liberals who said "**** what society has said, we want something and we're going to make society give it to us".........

and if some mere baker thinks he has the right to refuse to buckle under, well shucks, we'll just force him out of business.....

oh well, its all progress, right?.....

The baker could say: we don't sell male/male or female/female cake toppers. End of story. But noooooo, he has to make a big splashy show of his hatred. Just like Jesus would have, no doubt.

lol.....HE made a big splashy show?......

 

[Chuckt]

It would be interesting to know why the bible left out the part where Jesus says: "Let no gays marry". Or did I miss that part?

it isn't biblical, its societal......society for hundreds of years defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman......its the gay couple that's missing some parts......

then along came some radical liberals who said "**** what society has said, we want something and we're going to make society give it to us".........

and if some mere baker thinks he has the right to refuse to buckle under, well shucks, we'll just force him out of business.....

oh well, its all progress, right?.....

The baker could say: we don't sell male/male or female/female cake toppers. End of story. But noooooo, he has to make a big splashy show of his hatred. Just like Jesus would have, no doubt.

I'd actually bake them a love cake but not a marriage cake. Would I get sued for hate when they rejected my alternative in loving them? You bet.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The irony in all this is that cons like to tell us discrimination laws should be abolished because the invisible hand of the free market will decide and put discriminators out of business --

yet when that invisible hand shows itself, they ***** and moan: Mob! They toook dere jerbs!

lol....invisible hand?.......http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586195/Oregon-bakery-shuts-down-after-gay-rights-attacks.html?pg=all

 

[Bumberclyde]

it isn't biblical, its societal......society for hundreds of years defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman......its the gay couple that's missing some parts......

then along came some radical liberals who said "**** what society has said, we want something and we're going to make society give it to us".........

and if some mere baker thinks he has the right to refuse to buckle under, well shucks, we'll just force him out of business.....

oh well, its all progress, right?.....

The baker could say: we don't sell male/male or female/female cake toppers. End of story. But noooooo, he has to make a big splashy show of his hatred. Just like Jesus would have, no doubt.

lol.....HE made a big splashy show?......

By openly being a hater. Just like if he'd have said: I don't serve *******. He brings it on himself because he wants attention to the fact that he's a hater. Like I said, he could have simply said, I don't sell those, try online, or something.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The baker could say: we don't sell male/male or female/female cake toppers. End of story. But noooooo, he has to make a big splashy show of his hatred. Just like Jesus would have, no doubt.

lol.....HE made a big splashy show?......

By openly being a hater. Just like if he'd have said: I don't serve *******. He brings it on himself because he wants attention to the fact that he's a hater. Like I said, he could have simply said, I don't sell those, try online, or something.

lol....did he call a press conference and say "I am not going to bake a cake for a gay couple"?......or was that the couple.....

 

[paperview]

He called the couple "an abomination" and said their money was not equal.

The Bureau of Labor and Industry found "substantial evidence" unlawfully refused service to the lesbian couple.

Color me surprised. Law and Order cons not wanting to follow the law.

 

[Bumberclyde]

lol.....HE made a big splashy show?......

By openly being a hater. Just like if he'd have said: I don't serve *******. He brings it on himself because he wants attention to the fact that he's a hater. Like I said, he could have simply said, I don't sell those, try online, or something.

lol....did he call a press conference and say "I am not going to bake a cake for a gay couple"?......or was that the couple.....

So if he had said "I don't serve *******", the black people should just have shut up and taken it? Geez, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have ripped each other's hair out already and Obummer would have had a beer with the couple by now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Chuckt]

By openly being a hater. Just like if he'd have said: I don't serve *******. He brings it on himself because he wants attention to the fact that he's a hater. Like I said, he could have simply said, I don't sell those, try online, or something.

lol....did he call a press conference and say "I am not going to bake a cake for a gay couple"?......or was that the couple.....

So if he had said "I don't serve *******", the black people should just have shut up and taken it? Geez, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have ripped each other's hair out already and Obummer would have had a beer with the couple by now.

I was hit by a drunk driver. Was it her fault or was she born that way? Who told her to drink and drive?

And if the bartender didn't serve her, would it be the bartender's fault and should she sue the bartender because she was born that way?

 

[Bumberclyde]

lol....did he call a press conference and say "I am not going to bake a cake for a gay couple"?......or was that the couple.....

So if he had said "I don't serve *******", the black people should just have shut up and taken it? Geez, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have ripped each other's hair out already and Obummer would have had a beer with the couple by now.

I was hit by a drunk driver. Was it her fault or was she born that way? Who told her to drink and drive?

And if the bartender didn't serve her, would it be the bartender's fault and should she sue the bartender because she was born that way?

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[Chuckt]

So if he had said "I don't serve *******", the black people should just have shut up and taken it? Geez, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have ripped each other's hair out already and Obummer would have had a beer with the couple by now.

I was hit by a drunk driver. Was it her fault or was she born that way? Who told her to drink and drive?

And if the bartender didn't serve her, would it be the bartender's fault and should she sue the bartender because she was born that way?

Wtf are you talking about?

Alcoholism is hereditary. Alcoholics were born that way. If you refuse an alcoholic a drink and they drive drunk and crash into my car, it is discriminatory and they should have the right to sue the bartender who said, "no" according to your line of thought because precondition is equal to race. Right?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I took a short walk in this thread, but quickly developed vertigo from the spin. I am going to have to sit for a few minutes to get my bearing....

 

[Bumberclyde]

I was hit by a drunk driver. Was it her fault or was she born that way? Who told her to drink and drive?

And if the bartender didn't serve her, would it be the bartender's fault and should she sue the bartender because she was born that way?

Wtf are you talking about?

Alcoholism is hereditary. Alcoholics were born that way. If you refuse an alcoholic a drink and they drive drunk and crash into my car, it is discriminatory and they should have the right to sue the bartender who said, "no" according to your line of thought because precondition is equal to race. Right?

Actually, there are laws that forbid a bartender to serve a drunk person. Please try again.

 

[Chuckt]

Wtf are you talking about?

Alcoholism is hereditary. Alcoholics were born that way. If you refuse an alcoholic a drink and they drive drunk and crash into my car, it is discriminatory and they should have the right to sue the bartender who said, "no" according to your line of thought because precondition is equal to race. Right?

Actually, there are laws that forbid a bartender to serve a drunk person. Please try again.

And those would be discriminatory laws to you.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Alcoholism is hereditary. Alcoholics were born that way. If you refuse an alcoholic a drink and they drive drunk and crash into my car, it is discriminatory and they should have the right to sue the bartender who said, "no" according to your line of thought because precondition is equal to race. Right?

Actually, there are laws that forbid a bartender to serve a drunk person. Please try again.

And those would be discriminatory laws to you.

No, more like common sense. Try it sometimes.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Personally, I am in favor of discrimination against....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA]Randy Newman - Short People - YouTube[/ame]