But hey they just want their abominable marriage recognized!

J Craft said:
No, it's not discriminatory if indeed it's a tenet of ones faith. It's simply their faith. It does not harm anyone. I'd agree that they should be required to post a notice, but the idea that someone should be forced to act against their religious conscience is anathema to their 1st amendment right.
Click to expand...

The tenet of their faith regarding homosexuals is that they should be put to death. If you're already not doing that as a Christian, you're already not following the book. Nowhere in the bible does it state to not provide services to homosexuals.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
The tenet of their faith regarding homosexuals is that they should be put to death. If you're already not doing that as a Christian, you're already not following the book. Nowhere in the bible does it state to not provide services to homosexuals.
Click to expand...

If they are not killing queers Christians are going against the Buy-bull's teachings to start with...
 
Rana said:
No, it is disctiminatory, and if they don't want to serve the general publi then they should not have s business open to the public, they can run a religious bakery from their home, open to Christians only or those they wish to serve. Then their consciences won't suffer. They can practice their religion and not break the law.
Click to expand...

These self sanctimonious greedy asswipes want it both ways...An open to the public business, with all the privileges of an exclusive private club...
Jim Crow anyone?
Lol
 
Rana said:
No, it is disctiminatory, and if they don't want to serve the general publi then they should not have s business open to the public, they can run a religious bakery from their home, open to Christians only or those they wish to serve. Then their consciences won't suffer. They can practice their religion and not break the law.
Click to expand...

Or they could run it as a club, charge a nominal fee to join and then charge cake baking "fees"... There are ways you can build your business if you want to discriminate that way.
 
Damocles said:
Or they could run it as a club, charge a nominal fee to join and then charge cake baking "fees"... There are ways you can build your business if you want to discriminate that way.
Click to expand...

A business run in such a way would be very unlikely to grow to it's full, retail potential...
That is why I say, they want it both ways...
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
A business run in such a way would be very unlikely to grow to it's full, retail potential...
That is why I say, they want it both ways...
Click to expand...

Clearly they didn't want to "grow to their full retail potential"...

And you could ask nearly anybody who sold beer in Utah before they changed the law if such a business could survive.

I don't really care, if I wanted to bake cakes I'd bake cakes for anybody because it isn't participation in the ritual or support of it. I just want to bake cakes man.

If I wanted to build houses I wouldn't care who bought them. I'd just build the best house possible. I don't understand people who waste time worrying about who is going to eat the cake/buy the house/use the phone...

If they want to discriminate they could, they'd have to change their business plan but they could do it.
 
Therein lies the problem. They see providing services to homosexuals having a wedding as a tacit endorsement of what they believe to be a big bad sin.

Anyone with half a brain, and surely their all-knowing all-seeing god, understands that this is not the case.
 
Rana said:
No, it is disctiminatory, and if they don't want to serve the general publi then they should not have s business open to the public, they can run a religious bakery from their home, open to Christians only or those they wish to serve. Then their consciences won't suffer. They can practice their religion and not break the law.
Click to expand...

BS, their religious freedom does not stop at a commercial enterprise.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
The tenet of their faith regarding homosexuals is that they should be put to death. If you're already not doing that as a Christian, you're already not following the book. Nowhere in the bible does it state to not provide services to homosexuals.
Click to expand...

No, those were laws specific to Israel which was a theocracy. Christs death iniaugurated the Church to replace Israel. The church is commanded to be subject to the laws of the land "except" when laws are contrary to Gods laws and ones conscience is burdened. The bible clearly teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. There exists historical evidence that this is a Christian tenet, and not a willynilly belief.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
Therein lies the problem. They see providing services to homosexuals having a wedding as a tacit endorsement of what they believe to be a big bad sin.

Anyone with half a brain, and surely their all-knowing all-seeing god, understands that this is not the case.
Click to expand...

ok but it's still their belief, their faith, and their business. Why does your belief that they are wrong and your faith, or lack of faith if you aren't religious, overrule theirs? Is freedom of religion and freedom of expression only meant for the political or social movement that is popular at the time? Doesn't someone also have the freedom to walk away if they don't agree with a business practice? Would you personally want to give your money to a business that you believe discriminates even if they were forced by a social acceptance movement to provide a good or service to you or would you bring your business elsewhere?
 
That's just it, if you can show me in the bible where it says to not provide services to homosexuals, I'll withdraw my argument. The problem is, discriminating against homosexuals is NOT part of the Christian religion in any way, so using it as an excuse to discriminate is a fallacy.

As long as they aren't forcing you to actually marry someone of the same sex, you're supposed to default to the part of the bible that says "love thy neighbour" IMO.
 
Rana said:
No, it is disctiminatory, and if they don't want to serve the general publi then they should not have s business open to the public, they can run a religious bakery from their home, open to Christians only or those they wish to serve. Then their consciences won't suffer. They can practice their religion and not break the law.
Click to expand...

Whether it's run from home or somewhere else selling goods / services is commerce. So you are now saying it is ok to serve customers of one's choosing.
You're all over the map on this.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
That's just it, if you can show me in the bible where it says to not provide services to homosexuals, I'll withdraw my argument. The problem is, discriminating against homosexuals is NOT part of the Christian religion in any way, so using it as an excuse to discriminate is a fallacy.

As long as they aren't forcing you to actually marry someone of the same sex, you're supposed to default to the part of the bible that says "love thy neighbour" IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with the point of view that says baking a cake for homosexuals is wrong, but what I am saying is that the business should have the right to refuse service for any reason if it's a private business. They choose to provide that thing to the public, they aren't forced to.
 
Norah said:
I don't necessarily agree with the point of view that says baking a cake for homosexuals is wrong, but what I am saying is that the business should have the right to refuse service for any reason if it's a private business. They choose to provide that thing to the public, they aren't forced to.
Click to expand...

I'm not against the idea of more freedom, but in this case I really think the general populace couldn't handle such a privilege responsibly. I'm extending that to each side. Some idiots would see that as license to discriminate against a group of people, then some idiots in said group of people might be angered enough to respond violently.
 
Norah said:
I don't necessarily agree with the point of view that says baking a cake for homosexuals is wrong, but what I am saying is that the business should have the right to refuse service for any reason if it's a private business. They choose to provide that thing to the public, they aren't forced to.
Click to expand...

and we tried that


It worked badly



why do you wan to go back to that evil
 
Mr.Badguy said:
I'm not against the idea of more freedom, but in this case I really think the general populace couldn't handle such a privilege responsibly. I'm extending that to each side. Some idiots would see that as license to discriminate against a group of people, then some idiots in said group of people might be angered enough to respond violently.
Click to expand...

I do agree with what you said at the end that it could anger someone enough to respond violently but I think in most circumstances a business that is truly discriminatory would struggle in most cities and towns. I would support someones freedom to refuse service but I would personally never give them my money as a customer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top