What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[PostmodernProph]

I was tolerant of homosexuality and could have continued being so until they decided that anyone who did not do their bidding should be forced out of business........now it is obvious that we have uncovered a threat to our freedoms that must be resisted........

 

[elektra]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

 

[Nosmo King]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

When the government mandates how a Mom and Pop gas tation precisely how to store their inventory of gasoline, are Mom and Pop 'enslaved'? When he government mandates how much of that gasoline a Chevy Malibu burns in one mile's travel, is GM 'enslaved'?

When the government mandated all segregated public drinking fountains be removed, were cities and towns all through the south 'enslved'? When the government mandated service could not be refused on race, was that 'enslvement' too?

What 'freedoms' are being repressed? The 'freedom' to hate, not on a personal, one to one basis, but on the basis of fear? That's one hell of a 'freedom' to go to bat for! Is it the 'right' to dismiss e pluribus unum that has Social Conservatives banking fires on the breast works?

You chide me as intolerant. But by perverting scripture to continue to be intolerant is so obvious, it makes your chiding impossibly incredulous.

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

As the topic of the thread is about providing services for weddings as a vendor and not merely attending them, I'm on firm ground. You want this thread to be about attending weddings, which it ain't.

Now, if you want to decline the RSVP to your nephew's wedding, that's all you. It's your responsibility to make amends at the family reunion, or to shun him altogether, adding to the drama.

But the question on the table is: What's so Christian about denying services to same sex weddings.

Are you ready, willing and able to participate in that debate, or do you want to move the goal posts to suit your own agenda?

 

[Nosmo King]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

 

[daws101]

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

so traffic laws ,food safety laws, flight regulation, pollution laws are by your reasoning slavery?

 

[daws101]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

When the government mandates how a Mom and Pop gas tation precisely how to store their inventory of gasoline, are Mom and Pop 'enslaved'? When he government mandates how much of that gasoline a Chevy Malibu burns in one mile's travel, is GM 'enslaved'?

When the government mandated all segregated public drinking fountains be removed, were cities and towns all through the south 'enslved'? When the government mandated service could not be refused on race, was that 'enslvement' too?

What 'freedoms' are being repressed? The 'freedom' to hate, not on a personal, one to one basis, but on the basis of fear? That's one hell of a 'freedom' to go to bat for! Is it the 'right' to dismiss e pluribus unum that has Social Conservatives banking fires on the breast works?

You chide me as intolerant. But by perverting scripture to continue to be intolerant is so obvious, it makes your chiding impossibly incredulous.

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

the baker was required to attend....why was that?

 

[daws101]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

Newsflash. Same sex are not opposite sex. They don't bring to the marriage what normal married people are because they don't have the same equipment. How is that equal? Having to listen two one person of the same sex trying to overemphasize what they are not is confusion.

chuckles shows his true bigotry.....making babies is not a requirement for marriage.
THERE IS A LITTLE THING CALLED ADOPTION...
modern people get married mostly out of love.
it seems you'd rather have it the old fashion way, where the marriage was arranged..
what is normal is subjective
I'm positive you have certain behaviors /actions that could be/ are abnormal, just like every one else.
projecting the illusion of being totally normal is an abnormality.
as to it being confusing ..that has more to do with your short comings then anything else.
in other words too ******* bad!

 

[daws101]

I was tolerant of homosexuality and could have continued being so until they decided that anyone who did not do their bidding should be forced out of business........now it is obvious that we have uncovered a threat to our freedoms that must be resisted........

jingoism rears it's misshapen head!

 

[PostmodernProph]

I was tolerant of homosexuality and could have continued being so until they decided that anyone who did not do their bidding should be forced out of business........now it is obvious that we have uncovered a threat to our freedoms that must be resisted........

jingoism rears it's misshapen head!

so has tyranny.....

 

[daws101]

I was tolerant of homosexuality and could have continued being so until they decided that anyone who did not do their bidding should be forced out of business........now it is obvious that we have uncovered a threat to our freedoms that must be resisted........

jingoism rears it's misshapen head!

so has tyranny.....

the hydra awakes

 

[Nosmo King]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

Newsflash. Same sex are not opposite sex. They don't bring to the marriage what normal married people are because they don't have the same equipment. How is that equal? Having to listen two one person of the same sex trying to overemphasize what they are not is confusion.

Is the promise, at least, of procreation a requirement to secure a marriage license?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's how I would want to be able to do things if I ran a bakery/store!

Any customer should be able to come in an buy items off the shelf. It is none of my business if the customer is gay, a pervert, republican or democrat.

If I cater events, I should have the option to accept or deny each job for any reason I see fit. I do not even have to explain why to the person trying to contract my services. As such, if gay marriage is against my religion, I should be able to turn down a job that would involve me catering a gay wedding. I would also turn down any job that involves catering to the KKK.

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

And you completely distorted what I wrote. What you wrote about my post is a damn lie and deserves no further discussion.

No, BobPlumb, the statement and analysis are accurate and you are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did....the point was, she didn't need to bake gaycakes to survive in business...it wasn't the refusal to bake gaycake, (or the punishment of God) that ended her business....it was the vitriol of the gay community that did that......

I doubt that, it was the outrage of the more enlightened community members that did.
vitriol implies "they" hated her for no legitimate reason.
the baker was the one who started the hate ball rolling .
imo they both share equal blame for the vitriol.
not for the consequences...

She closed her business because of the death threats and the attacks against her family. If you consider that the work of enlightened people I can understand why you have no problem with tyranny.

If the implied violence and death threats actually happened, then she can bring civil claims for damages.

She, though, is not the one who decides with impunity what public accommodation laws she will follow or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

The law of We the People is not slavery.

Requiring the population to follow such law is not slavery.

To suggest such reveals the poster is either mentally feeble, truly ignorant, malignantly motivated, or a combination of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

Newsflash. Same sex are not opposite sex. They don't bring to the marriage what normal married people are because they don't have the same equipment. How is that equal? Having to listen two one person of the same sex trying to overemphasize what they are not is confusion.

This has no bearing on the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Your hyperbolic nonsense gives notice you admit defeat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

Because the nature of the discrimination is to perceive gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, where heterosexuals are perceived in a context having nothing to do with their sexuality.

 

[elektra]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

****, I do not know why they would do this, hell, why would they go in the out door?

I know this is wrong but you asked for the image so here it is, I will have to flag this myself for removal, I am laughing my ass off at the ignorance and the simple lack of your knowledge. Yes, why?

I can't do it, I can not risk being banned by posting the photos.

Have you ever seen a bear shit in the woods? Must not happen, right?

 

[elektra]

wow, the Radical/Leftist/Liberal/Democrats really do not want freedom. Bakers now must make Cock Cakes with two little dolls of a man with a fist up his A$#, you know to provide a "public service". Yet once you enter someone's private property, such as a bakery, there is no "public", there is no "service". You are buying a cake.

So the baker is revoluted, go somewhere else, hell, Homosexuals do everything better in your mind, so they can bake their own cake, in this case the baker would of gladly of sold a cake to the homosexual fisters, the baker just was revolted to have to put the "fister" theme into it.

Me, I fix electrical equipment, so now if the Homosexuals Pumpers penis pump breaks, I am going to be forced into the den of homosexuality, I must be exposed to Homosexual pornographic equipment, and I have to service the penis pump even if I am disgusted by the smell and the fluids?

Liberal/Democrats love for freedom is only for themselves.

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

Because the nature of the discrimination is to perceive gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, where heterosexuals are perceived in a context having nothing to do with their sexuality.

Bullshit, how would we know they are gay if they were not wearing it like a pin of PRIDE. Why must Homosexuals advertise the type of Sex they practice? If they never said anything nobody would ever know and their would be no controversy.

 

[GibsonSG]

Have you seen a lot of wedding cakes featuring explicit heterosexual acts as part of the wedding theme? Why would homosexuals decorate their cake in the manner you so colorfully describe?

Because the nature of the discrimination is to perceive gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, where heterosexuals are perceived in a context having nothing to do with their sexuality.

Bullshit, how would we know they are gay if they were not wearing it like a pin of PRIDE. Why must Homosexuals advertise the type of Sex they practice? If they never said anything nobody would ever know and their would be no controversy.

First of all, not all gays are "noticeable". Second, there's nothing wrong with having pride in who you are. Now you know.