Why would a gay shopper in Arizona know their merchant is an anti-gay Christian?

[kaz]

Don't we have the same issue with a photographer who does not want to participate in a mixed race or mixed religion marriage?

He is not there to approve of the marriage, just to document the proceedings

Being married to a Korean, when you put it that way you are even more retarded. In what possible way would I want someone who disproves of our marriage even there, much less being forced to take our wedding pictures?

The role of government isn't to burp you. Liberals need to grow up.

 

[martybegan]

Don't we have the same issue with a photographer who does not want to participate in a mixed race or mixed religion marriage?

He is not there to approve of the marriage, just to document the proceedings

Being married to a Korean, when you put it that way you are even more retarded. In what possible way would I want someone who disproves of our marriage even there, much less being forced to take our wedding pictures?

The role of government isn't to burp you. Liberals need to grow up.

My girlfriend is Bengali. If we do get married and some photographer says he doesn't want to do a mixed marriage, my response would be to call him an asshole, and get another one. I wouldn't go running to the State to punish him, I punish him by not doing business with him.

 

[rightwinger]

There are two forms of business we need to discuss here. Counter-top service, i.e. you walk in, buy something, and then walk out, and order service, where you place an order for some specific item or service, and it is provided.

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate. a persons orientation does not come up in the transaction. A business SHOULD be able to kick out anyone ACTING inappropriately, but the transaction does not have anything to do with religious belief, and I think most proponents of religious exemption laws agree with this.

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

Don't we have the same issue with a photographer who does not want to participate in a mixed race or mixed religion marriage?

He is not there to approve of the marriage, just to document the proceedings

You do, but typically black couples don't ask Klansmen to photograph their weddings.

Also, there is zero prohibition in religious texts about mixed race marriages. ZERO. All the crap made up before during and after the civil war was stretched hooey. There is definitive prohibition on homosexual activity in the bible.

it boils down to do you want to force people to either a) perform a non-vital private service that makes them uncomfortable or b) not be able to perform that service at all? because that's the choice you are giving those people right now.

But that didn't stop the racists in the Jim Crow era from claiming the Bible opposed race mixing. The bible is a funny book....sometimes you can make it say what you want

You are "uncomfortable" ? So what?

What if a marriage between two fat people makes you uncomfortable?
How a bout a marriage between two dwarfs?
What about a marriage with a really ugly bride?

You are there to do a job, not pass judgement on the couple

 

[martybegan]

Don't we have the same issue with a photographer who does not want to participate in a mixed race or mixed religion marriage?

He is not there to approve of the marriage, just to document the proceedings

You do, but typically black couples don't ask Klansmen to photograph their weddings.

Also, there is zero prohibition in religious texts about mixed race marriages. ZERO. All the crap made up before during and after the civil war was stretched hooey. There is definitive prohibition on homosexual activity in the bible.

it boils down to do you want to force people to either a) perform a non-vital private service that makes them uncomfortable or b) not be able to perform that service at all? because that's the choice you are giving those people right now.

But that didn't stop the racists in the Jim Crow era from claiming the Bible opposed race mixing. The bible is a funny book....sometimes you can make it say what you want

You are "uncomfortable" ? So what?

What if a marriage between two fat people makes you uncomfortable?
How a bout a marriage between two dwarfs?
What about a marriage with a really ugly bride?

You are there to do a job, not pass judgement on the couple

We don't see fat people or dwarfs going to the government when a person doesn't want to do business with them.

Those claims in the Jim Crow era were laughable, and based on nothing concrete in the bible. Again, Homosexual behavior is condemned in the bible repeatedly.

 

[emilynghiem]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

Dear G5000
If this were so, then political parties would have to shut down or shut up.

For proclaiming "prochoice" and freedom from govt regulations when it comes to abortion,
but not defending free choice in paying for health care without federal mandates.

And defending the religious freedom of Christians, but not equally of Muslims or pro-gay believers etc.

if you are going to claim to enforce Constitutional laws and especially inclusion of diversity, then ALL political views and beliefs should be equally protected and defended.

Neither party could go into attack or bully mode, defending one belief or position at the expense of the others.

G5000 if you agree with me that consensus is legally necessary to protect interests equally, then I am happy to be in agreement with you on this point.

If you believe in pushing one view over another, then you are equally hypocritical
and not upholding equal Constitutional principles being invoked.

If you don't believe in Constitutionality equality, maybe that explains it, if you only believe in political power by majority rule and force, and don't believe in equal defense of .all views.

if so, good luck fighting that battle -- of pots and kettles calling each other black -- but I don't see this projected blame game solving any issues or getting anywhere. just sorry to see it waged at the expense of taxpayers like me who believe in win-win situations and not fights to bully one side over the other. I don't see how we can claim to protect all views equally except by seeking consensus.

If someone or some side loses out and gets overruled, that's not equal protection of laws. My standards on Constitutional laws and ethics are different from people who bully to win.
Sorry if you don't share faith in the democratic process to resolve conflicts by consensus WITHOUT projection of blame back and forth. What good does that do?

 

[buckeye45_73]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

who cares, some people would do that, some just dont want homos in their store, its your business, its not anyone elses what you do with it

 

[kaz]

But that didn't stop the racists in the Jim Crow era from claiming the Bible opposed race mixing. The bible is a funny book....sometimes you can make it say what you want

Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. You want to cure government racist laws with government, LOL, of course you do...

 

[rightwinger]

You do, but typically black couples don't ask Klansmen to photograph their weddings.

Also, there is zero prohibition in religious texts about mixed race marriages. ZERO. All the crap made up before during and after the civil war was stretched hooey. There is definitive prohibition on homosexual activity in the bible.

it boils down to do you want to force people to either a) perform a non-vital private service that makes them uncomfortable or b) not be able to perform that service at all? because that's the choice you are giving those people right now.

But that didn't stop the racists in the Jim Crow era from claiming the Bible opposed race mixing. The bible is a funny book....sometimes you can make it say what you want

You are "uncomfortable" ? So what?

What if a marriage between two fat people makes you uncomfortable?
How a bout a marriage between two dwarfs?
What about a marriage with a really ugly bride?

You are there to do a job, not pass judgement on the couple

We don't see fat people or dwarfs going to the government when a person doesn't want to do business with them.

Those claims in the Jim Crow era were laughable, and based on nothing concrete in the bible. Again, Homosexual behavior is condemned in the bible repeatedly.

Where in the bible does it condemn homosexual weddings? It condemns homosexual sex. So as long as they are not engaging in sodomy on the dance floor, your photographer should be OK

 

[martybegan]

But that didn't stop the racists in the Jim Crow era from claiming the Bible opposed race mixing. The bible is a funny book....sometimes you can make it say what you want

You are "uncomfortable" ? So what?

What if a marriage between two fat people makes you uncomfortable?
How a bout a marriage between two dwarfs?
What about a marriage with a really ugly bride?

You are there to do a job, not pass judgement on the couple

We don't see fat people or dwarfs going to the government when a person doesn't want to do business with them.

Those claims in the Jim Crow era were laughable, and based on nothing concrete in the bible. Again, Homosexual behavior is condemned in the bible repeatedly.

Where in the bible does it condemn homosexual weddings? It condemns homosexual sex. So as long as they are not engaging in sodomy on the dance floor, your photographer should be OK

So its OK to assist a murder as long as you are not at the crime scene?

 

[buckeye45_73]

But that didn't stop the racists in the Jim Crow era from claiming the Bible opposed race mixing. The bible is a funny book....sometimes you can make it say what you want

You are "uncomfortable" ? So what?

What if a marriage between two fat people makes you uncomfortable?
How a bout a marriage between two dwarfs?
What about a marriage with a really ugly bride?

You are there to do a job, not pass judgement on the couple

We don't see fat people or dwarfs going to the government when a person doesn't want to do business with them.

Those claims in the Jim Crow era were laughable, and based on nothing concrete in the bible. Again, Homosexual behavior is condemned in the bible repeatedly.

Where in the bible does it condemn homosexual weddings? It condemns homosexual sex. So as long as they are not engaging in sodomy on the dance floor, your photographer should be OK

Have you always been retarded? Yes it does condemn homosexuals,because tney practice homosexual sex, is this too difficult for you to grasp? Or do you consider love without sex between two men, homosexual?

 

[Kosh]

Since we already excuse Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, etc. in the work place why not Christians?

 

[jillian]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

great question. but you might want to ask it of the "Christians" in Arizona who passed the bill that the governor ultimately vetoed.

 

[kaz]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

great question. but you might want to ask it of the "Christians" in Arizona who passed the bill that the governor ultimately vetoed.

Hmm...I might want to do what I did. And RW thanked you for that. The brainpower increase when you two enter a discussion barely wiggles the needle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you are saying it's a voluntary fine? There is no enforcement with guns? I'm going to have to call bull to your ridiculous claim.

Only you, kaz, are saying that; only you are talking stupidly.

All We the Government is based on the right to use force as necessary.

 

[Erand7899]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

Do all those things happen at a wedding? Are there gluttony weddings? Stealing weddings?

A gay wedding is a gay wedding, the entire purpose of the wedding is against certain scriptures and belief structures. And the "sin" is being entered into willingly and without remorse.

Isn't not going to church a willful thing done without remorse?

Isn't using the goddam Lord's name in vain a willful thing done without remorse?

Isn't drinking to excess willful?

A couple of fat people come in and ask for a wedding cake...

Any person in business should have the right not to create something that they consider to be offensive. If you don't like it, you go somewhere else to buy the product.

You can generate all of the distractions that you like, but in a free society, people have the right to say no. What if an athiest wanted a paint shop to paint "**** the Pope" or "Jesus sucks" on the back of his pickup? Should the shop have the right to refuse, whether they are christian, catholic or not? Of course they should have that right, and gays have no right to try and force their offensive desires on others.

 

[OnePercenter]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

But that is precisely what happened.

The butt-rangers asked the baker to bake a cake in the shape of a giant phallus with what looked like another man performing fellatio on it in one instance. In another, the butt-rangers demanded penis-shaped candles. In another the butt-rangers demanded a cake baked in the shape of a giant penis.

Not only that, but there is reason to believe that the butt-rangers sought out Christian bakers in order to make a political point after the expected refusal.

Until the last few years, I had a rather benign "Who gives a shit" attitude toward gays.

Anymore, I'm getting really sick of them.

I would think that Bakers wouldn't want to give an entire wedding party diarrhea.

Would they...

That would be pretty shitty of them I crack myself up

Open the closet door and step out!​

 

[kaz]

So you are saying it's a voluntary fine? There is no enforcement with guns? I'm going to have to call bull to your ridiculous claim.

Only you, kaz, are saying that; only you are talking stupidly.

All We the Government is based on the right to use force as necessary.

I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying it's not government force if guns are only used "as necessary?"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

There is no reason why a Christian owned business should refuse to accommodate a gay patron, as to do so would indeed violate Christian dogma. And if a Christian business owner seeks to justify his refusal to accommodate a gay patron predicated on Christian dogma, he does so solely out of animus toward gay Americans, having nothing to do with his Christian beliefs.

It is incorrect, however, to perceive public accommodations laws as government ‘forcing’ business owners to ‘deal with anyone.’ Businesses are subject to all manner of necessary and proper regulatory policy, including public accommodations laws; policy that is both appropriate and Constitutional, where public accommodations laws seek only to ensure the integrity of the local market and all interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942)), as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Moreover, business owners can make no claim of a ‘religious exemption’ with regard to refusing to accommodate a patron based on ‘faith,’ where religious belief is not grounds to justify violating or ignoring just and proper laws, as the primary focus of public accommodations laws is to regulate markets, not prohibit religious practice (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

 

[kaz]

It is incorrect, however, to perceive public accommodations laws as government ‘forcing’ business owners to ‘deal with anyone.’ Businesses are subject to all manner of necessary and proper regulatory policy, including public accommodations laws

Be honest, you work at the DMV, don't you?

public accommodations laws seek only to ensure the integrity of the local market and all interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942)), as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Bull, none of these transactions are interstate commerce.

Moreover, business owners can make no claim of a ‘religious exemption’ with regard to refusing to accommodate a patron based on ‘faith,’ where religious belief is not grounds to justify violating or ignoring just and proper laws, as the primary focus of public accommodations laws is to regulate markets, not prohibit religious practice (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

So if you're a Christian hater, government force will prevent you from having to see a manger scene or the 10 commandments on public property or hear a prayer because the existence of Christians offends you, but if you're a Christian, government force will compel you you have to bake a penis cake and take photos of a gay wedding and sell products to people with t-shirts on that violate your religion because they're too lazy to haul their asses to your competitor down the street and they want to force you to do it.

The world you're fighting for sucks.