Jump to content

Menu

Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?


Cammie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally, I would not buy from a place that did not serve gay people. But, I do support the right of someone to decide what they are going to serve.

 

What they are going to serve, yes. I support the right of all bakers everywhere to not make wedding cakes.

 

Who they are going to serve, no. Bakers do not have the right to refuse service on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, age....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake. It is a private business, not tax dollar supported. He should not have been forced to do the work, regardless of his reasons. The people who sued could have gone elsewhere and chose not to. 

 

Personally, I would not buy from a place that did not serve gay people. But, I do support the right of someone to decide what they are going to serve.

 

Would you feel the same way about a bakery that refused to serve black people? Interracial couples? Asians? Women? Christians? And if you would, imagine that "right" extending to every business you come in contact with. Would you be comfortable living in that world? It wasn't so pleasant the last time we were there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this statement in particular has been stewing in my head since I read your post, and I need to say more. How dare you take your twisted, I'm-so-persecuted perspective and turn it on me? My husband is a Christian, my mother is a Christian, my saintly mother-in-law is a Christian, my beloved sister-in-law and niece are Christians, my grandmothers are Christians. I buy my grandmother Christian gifts every single Christmas and birthday she has. I read my children books about the religious meaning of Christmas and Easter every damn year. I spent two hours at a Christian ceremony memorializing my brother-in-law a month ago, kneeling, bowing my head, murmuring responses, shaking hands and saying "peace be with you" and Amen.

 

How dare you be so self-unaware as to put your baggage on me like that? You don't know me, and you didn't read my post for what it actually said. You just laid your own issues right down over top of me. I'm going to suggest that you take a look at YOUR OWN biases right now before you go accusing anyone else of stoking any kind of hatred today, OK?

What was that about the beam in your eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the distinction is relevant, as to where they were married.   They still wanted a cake to celebrate a wedding in a state that did not recognize it, but required this cake maker to recognize it.   And that is insanity.

 

The baker resolved it in an overly broad way to meet the demands of the state, while still complying with his own conscience in the matter.  It is a shame that he was forced to do that, rather than have the freedom to decline the work openly.  He could have done it covertly, by being "booked", but he was honest about the conflict to him. 

 

Do you truly not understand that they were breaking the law? They used to provide wedding cakes, but they refused to sell them to members of a protected class, gays. The baker was not being asked to recognize a marriage, he was being asked to provide a product he normally provided, wedding cakes, to a gay couple. He could have thought to himself, "That is not a marriage in the eyes of God, but if they want a "wedding cake", I'll take their money and bake them a "wedding cake".

 

Are you o.k. with business owners using their religious views to deny particular services to members of any protected class? Do you think we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws or not enforce them or just not enforce them when a Christian feels they conflict with their religious beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, whatever....that is SUCH a big deal (sarcasm).

 

It's about as culturally important in the scheme of things as the "war" between the cake and pie eaters, the coffee and tea drinkers, and the Mac v. Windows people.

Exactly.

 

It is complete and total bullshit and a waste of time, energy and about as much about actual persecution as the majority of the other examples routinely trotted out to prove how persecuted American Christians are.

 

I spent a good chunk of Thanksgiving biting my tongue as I listen to my conservative Christian family members discuss the dangers posed to American Christians by ISIS, democrats, and the loss of Christ in Christmas. Then they went out to shop the early Black Friday sales to help keep the reason for the season alive and well here in America.

 

Do you want to know what the war on Christmas, the war on traditional marriage, the removal of prayer from school, and the birth control debate are all really about?

 

Power.

 

Power and money.

 

Individuals who align with the politically conservative evangelicals may have personally noble intentions. That doesn't change that they have taken a brood of vipers as bedfellows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake. It is a private business, not tax dollar supported. He should not have been forced to do the work, regardless of his reasons. The people who sued could have gone elsewhere and chose not to. 

 

Personally, I would not buy from a place that did not serve gay people. But, I do support the right of someone to decide what they are going to serve.

So you don't think we need anti-discrimination laws? You think businesses should be free to turn away people based on religion, race, gender, etc.? What if you're the only Muslim family in a small town and none of the businesses will serve you? You're o.k. with living in a country like that?

 

While it's a private business, when he started a business that was open to the public, he agreed to follow the public accommodation laws in the state. When he broke the law, he suffered the consequences.

 

And the couple did not sue anyone. They merely filed a complaint with the appropriate authorities claiming that the law had been broken and they were found to be correct. The state was merely enforcing the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

It is complete and total bullshit and a waste of time, energy and about as much about actual persecution as the majority of the other examples routinely trotted out to prove how persecuted American Christians are.

 

I spent a good chunk of Thanksgiving biting my tongue as I listen to my conservative Christian family members discuss the dangers posed to American Christians by ISIS, democrats, and the loss of Christ in Christmas. Then they went out to shop the early Black Friday sales to help keep the reason for the season alive and well here in America.

 

Do you want to know what the war on Christmas, the war on traditional marriage, the removal of prayer from school, and the birth control debate are all really about?

 

Power.

 

Power and money.

 

Individuals who align with the politically conservative evangelicals may have personally noble intentions. That doesn't change that they have taken a brood of vipers as bedfellows.

I must confess that I laughed out loud at the bolded.  Yes, Jesus would truly advocate giving up time for each other to get that $50 bucks off a TV that you obtain by knocking some old lady out of the way. 

 

There are vipers in EVERY camp.  I hope you know that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are taking about restraints, not affirmative actions, being required. If you operate a business in the wedding industry and weddings of a protected class of people offend your religious sensibilities such that you must refuse to sell to them, you should get out of the wedding business, or change your business model to a private one that doesn't fall under public accommodations law.

 

I can't see why it's so hard to understand that it's breaking the law. Business owners subject themselves to all kinds of laws they don't agree with when the go INTO BUSINESS FOR THE PUBLIC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer to this question, so I'm not asking to be snarky --

 

As Jews are in the majority (?) in Israel, do they tend to pass laws that require people to observe Jewish religious law?

 

 

Israel is a Jewish state yet the state also formally recognizes other religions and no one is required to practice any one religion.

 

As one example, there are Israeli laws requiring restaurants which claim to be kosher to be inspected and pass muster as actually kosher. These laws are pretty intense and a restaurant can be closed temporarily or lose its kosher certificate for a violation. However, there is no law against someone choosing to operate a non-kosher restaurant or against me choosing to eat at a non kosher restaurant.

 

The United States does not have, and can not constitutionally have, a state religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see why it's so hard to understand that it's breaking the law. Business owners subject themselves to all kinds of laws they don't agree with when the go INTO BUSINESS FOR THE PUBLIC.  

 

They totally understand! They don't care. They believe it to be an unjust law and as such, it doesn't have to be followed. And yes, they'd be willing to give up all other forms of protection against discrimination over this one issue. Mainly because they've never had to really live through being discriminated against. That's the bottom line here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't think we need anti-discrimination laws? You think businesses should be free to turn away people based on religion, race, gender, etc.? What if you're the only Muslim family in a small town and none of the businesses will serve you? You're o.k. with living in a country like that?

 

While it's a private business, when he started a business that was open to the public, he agreed to follow the public accommodation laws in the state. When he broke the law, he suffered the consequences.

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here.  The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions.  There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so.   

 

This particular issue is not about cakes or service; is about what constitutes marriage in the first place.  One can't in good conscience violate something scriptural as a matter of conscience even if everyone else is doing it.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am voting for this as "The Most Hate-Filled Thread of 2014." It also is a strong candidate for "Thread Least Likely to Change Anyone's Mind." Nominations closing soon, so be sure to get your entries in!

While I doubt we will change anyone's mind about anything fundamental, I would settle for people not continuing to make false analogies relating to Christian bakers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay couples (e.g. forcing Jewish business owners to be open on the Sabbath and make pork for anyone who demands it or bookstores being forced to stock any title anyone demands, etc.) and people following to its logical conclusion the idea that every business owner should be able to refuse any customer for any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I would still answer your question with a question. What is it that makes some Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Secular Humanists, impose their morality on the rest of society? All of those groups have countries in which they have legislated their own morality. I have been to some of them. I just don't see how some conservative Christians are different from those groups?

 

I am countering your question with another question: Are you trying to define a part of Christianity that you really don't like but are not sure how to define? Because I just don't see how Christianity is any different from any of the groups I mentioned above in regard to wanting to make laws enforcing their own morality?

The difference is that the United States has the first amendment. Christians of a particular stripe don't get to be the only ones whose morality is factored in to our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess that I laughed out loud at the bolded. Yes, Jesus would truly advocate giving up time for each other to get that $50 bucks off a TV that you obtain by knocking some old lady out of the way.

 

There are vipers in EVERY camp. I hope you know that.

I think I read somewhere around here today that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

And, for the record, I very specifically choose to use "brood of vipers" instead of the equally appropriate "jerk faces", "asshats of massive proportion", or "butt hurt blights on humanity" because the pharisaic actions and attitudes of the political shot callers in the conservative evangelical movement is one of the dead giveaways that the answer in this case to "WWJD?" is align yourself with whoever this group of whitewashed tombs is oppressing.

 

But don't worry.

 

I may hate their sin, but I still love the sinners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am voting for this as "The Most Hate-Filled Thread of 2014." It also is a strong candidate for "Thread Least Likely to Change Anyone's Mind." Nominations closing soon, so be sure to get your entries in!

 

Once again...disagreement isn't hate. Anger isn't hate. Frustration isn't hate. Who here has expressed actual hatred? I don't even think TM is expressing hatred, and we are on completely opposite sides. I don't agree with her, and I don't think her interpretation is correct or supportable, but that doesn't make it hate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here.  The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions.  There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so.   

 

This particular issue is not about cakes or service; is about what constitutes marriage in the first place.  One can't in good conscience violate something scriptural as a matter of conscience even if everyone else is doing it.     

 

 

And the yet the Bible is not the law of this land. I wasn't required to read it in my American Government class. If you cannot in good conscience violate something scriptural, do not place yourself in a business that would require you to do so. 

 

There is no law precluding someone from opening a private business and only work for other christians by word of mouth. You cannot be a public business and do. Bakers can and do work out of their homes, some might require a second separate kitchen for operation, but one could choose to operate that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't the point not 'there should be multiple laws' but what right does one branch of one religion have to insist those laws are in line with their religious views ?

 

I wish someone would answer my question upthread about whether it is inherently anti-democratic...given, for example, that there is majority public support for gay marriage. Is trying to impose a minority view  part of democracy, or is it trying to circumvent democracy ?

 

Is there a point at which these type of religionists recognise that they are no longer in the majority on particular topics and allow them to happen, or is it fight, fight, fight all the way ?

 

It sounds like some people are OK with a theocracy, or with a theodemocracy, or with other's desires for a theocracy - and that, from a country that loves and is a beacon for 'freedom' seems astounding!

I'm not sure if that's directed at me or not, but I'm not OK with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here.  The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions.  There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so.   

 

This particular issue is not about cakes or service; is about what constitutes marriage in the first place.  One can't in good conscience violate something scriptural as a matter of conscience even if everyone else is doing it.     

But only according to your particular interpretation of the Bible are there no Biblical proscription against serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. Christians interpret the Bible in all sorts of different ways. Some Christian interpretations of the Bible have been used to justify segregation, oppose inter-racial marriage, oppose inter-faith marriage, oppose marriage after divorce, etc. Plus, there are many other religions whose beliefs are not based on the Bible. A new religion could be founded tomorrow that believes just about anything. Do you think only Christians who believe as you do should not be held to anti-discrimination laws when they conflict with their religious beliefs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake. It is a private business, not tax dollar supported. He should not have been forced to do the work, regardless of his reasons. The people who sued could have gone elsewhere and chose not to. 

 

Personally, I would not buy from a place that did not serve gay people. But, I do support the right of someone to decide what they are going to serve.

 

No, you believe they should have the right to decide who they will serve. You can't support the right of someone to do something they don't have the right to do..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here.  The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions.  There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so. 

 

For the third time, there are OTHER RELIGIONS that DO NOT USE your scripture at all, and that could have any of those beliefs. Also, there are OTHER INTERPRETATIONS of your scripture.

 

You are not the center of the universe. It's not all about you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you truly not understand that they were breaking the law? They used to provide wedding cakes, but they refused to sell them to members of a protected class, gays. The baker was not being asked to recognize a marriage, he was being asked to provide a product he normally provided, wedding cakes, to a gay couple. He could have thought to himself, "That is not a marriage in the eyes of God, but if they want a "wedding cake", I'll take their money and bake them a "wedding cake".

 

Are you o.k. with business owners using their religious views to deny particular services to members of any protected class? Do you think we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws or not enforce them or just not enforce them when a Christian feels they conflict with their religious beliefs?

In the case to which I was referring, NO, it absolutely was NOT the law in the state of Colorado at the time.

 

I agree that he could simply take their money, because making what someone calls a wedding cake, does not make the ceremony a wedding.  That would be an option.

However, he (wrongly, it seems, after the fact) chose to decline on the basis of his religious belief.  And that was not respected, something that should concern every American.

 

Religious views should be respected.  Christians are not commanded to deny services to any protected class.  And sexual orientation has never been a protected class - until suddenly  now - because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions. 

 

This is really the only situation I can imagine at the moment where a Christian's belief will come in conflict in this manner in an issue that is not criminal, but merely one of conscience.  I am not sure why those few Christian bakers cannot determine which cakes they would like to make, and which business they would prefer to decline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions.

 

Religion is malleable and changeable. Sexual orientation is immutable. Fixed that for you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask what system of beliefs would you like to base laws on? I am not trying to be flip, I am trying to understand. 

 

I lived in a city where Secular Humanists make the laws, and they are actually quite religious and inflexible in their beliefs most of the time. They would tell you they are not "religious" but that is not true, they are actually extremely dogmatic in many of their beliefs. I would be very concerned if they were allowed to make laws for the whole country because they do not feel they are religious.

 

You know, I missed this the first time around. Are you saying that there can't be a basis for morality without the Bible?

 

Also, I'm curious to know what some of these secular/religious laws are. Can you share a few? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case to which I was referring, NO, it absolutely was NOT the law in the state of Colorado at the time.

 

I agree that he could simply take their money, because making what someone calls a wedding cake, does not make the ceremony a wedding. That would be an option.

However, he (wrongly, it seems, after the fact) chose to decline on the basis of his religious belief. And that was not respected, something that should concern every American.

 

Religious views should be respected. Christians are not commanded to deny services to any protected class. And sexual orientation has never been a protected class - until suddenly now - because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions.

 

This is really the only situation I can imagine at the moment where a Christian's belief will come in conflict in this manner in an issue that is not criminal, but merely one of conscience. I am not sure why those few Christian bakers cannot determine which cakes they would like to make, and which business they would prefer to decline.

Please, quote me chapter and verse where followers of Christ are commanded to refuse service to those who do not conform to the Christian ideal of marriage.

 

Or just where it says refuse to serve homosexuals.

 

Please, I have read the Bible many times and am concerned that I have missed a vital piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except if you are Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, where you can be penalized anyway even though gay marriage itself is illegal. (Before October 2014).

Talk about crazy. Shop owner was penalized by the state for failing to provide a cake for a wedding the state didn't even recognize itself.

Because if your job is to sell cakes, you cannot refuse to sell someone a cake because they are a member of a protected class of people. It doesn't matter what the customer is going to do with the cake, or what type of event it is being served at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I would still answer your question with a question. What is it that makes some Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Secular Humanists, impose their morality on the rest of society? All of those groups have countries in which they have legislated their own morality. I have been to some of them. I just don't see how some conservative Christians are different from those groups?

 

 

Well, roughly speaking, the secular humanists believe all adult people deserve the same rights because they think it is bad manners to tell some adults that they aren't quite as equal as others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Religious views should be respected.  Christians are not commanded to deny services to any protected class.  And sexual orientation has never been a protected class - until suddenly  now - because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions. 

 

This is really the only situation I can imagine at the moment where a Christian's belief will come in conflict in this manner in an issue that is not criminal, but merely one of conscience.  I am not sure why those few Christian bakers cannot determine which cakes they would like to make, and which business they would prefer to decline. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean in the bolded.

 

Marital status is not "immutable" -- yet it is a legally protected class.

Religion is not "immutable" -- yet it is a legally protected class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here. The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions. There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so.

 

This particular issue is not about cakes or service; is about what constitutes marriage in the first place. One can't in good conscience violate something scriptural as a matter of conscience even if everyone else is doing it.

Diverging with the opinion of Tranquil Mind does not a fallacy make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sexual orientation has never been a protected class - until suddenly  now - because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions. 

 

 

 

I assume you are heterosexual. Your heterosexuality is.........not a choice, not completely malleable or sexual "decisions?"

 

 

Way to (once again) make homosexuality about SEX and not love, romance, partnering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case to which I was referring, NO, it absolutely was NOT the law in the state of Colorado at the time.

 

I agree that he could simply take their money, because making what someone calls a wedding cake, does not make the ceremony a wedding.  That would be an option.

However, he (wrongly, it seems, after the fact) chose to decline on the basis of his religious belief.  And that was not respected, something that should concern every American.

 

Religious views should be respected.  Christians are not commanded to deny services to any protected class.  And sexual orientation has never been a protected class - until suddenly  now - because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions. 

 

This is really the only situation I can imagine at the moment where a Christian's belief will come in conflict in this manner in an issue that is not criminal, but merely one of conscience.  I am not sure why those few Christian bakers cannot determine which cakes they would like to make, and which business they would prefer to decline. 

 

Yes, he was breaking the law. He refused to sell a product to members of a protected class that he routinely sold to everyone else. What do you not understand about that?

 

You seem to want special treatment for a very small group of Christians, but only in a particular circumstance. Why are they so special? If we allow a small subset of Christians to violate anti-discrimination laws in very specific circumstances with no repercussions, then what's to stop other religious people from claiming they should be exempt in other cases? If you don't think sexual orientation should be a protected class, then work to change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the third time, there are OTHER RELIGIONS that DO NOT USE your scripture at all, and that could have any of those beliefs. Also, there are OTHER INTERPRETATIONS of your scripture.

 

You are not the center of the universe. It's not all about you.

You might wish to note the title of the thread before you go off like that. 

 

Focus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here.  The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions.  There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so.   

 

This particular issue is not about cakes or service; is about what constitutes marriage in the first place.  One can't in good conscience violate something scriptural as a matter of conscience even if everyone else is doing it.     

 

Significant points that you continually ignore in making this argument include:

 

(1) There is no Biblical proscription against providing business services to gays. None.

 

(2) There are devout Christians who do not agree with you that gay marriage is anti-Biblical.

 

(3) There are devout Christians who do not agree with you that there are no scriptural proscriptions against things like interracial or interfaith marriages, as well as many who believe that other religions are evil and who would in fact discriminate against Muslims or Hindus or other religions if it was legal to do so.

 

So essentially your argument is this: "I believe that any business owner who agrees with my own interpretation of the scripture of my own religion, should have the right to discriminate against ONE specific group of people whose lifestyle is considered, in my interpretation of scripture, as a sin, while continuing to serve those who commit many other types of sin."

 

That is the only way it's possible to justify the right of certain religious groups to discriminate against gay couples without admitting to also supporting the right of all religious groups to discriminate against anyone they want, according to their own interpretation of their own scriptures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right here. It's all about the God who created the universe.

 

For the third time, there are OTHER RELIGIONS that DO NOT USE your scripture at all, and that could have any of those beliefs. Also, there are OTHER INTERPRETATIONS of your scripture.

 

You are not the center of the universe. It's not all about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he was breaking the law. He refused to sell a product to members of a protected class that he routinely sold to everyone else. What do you not understand about that?

 

You seem to want special treatment for a very small group of Christians, but only in a particular circumstance. Why are they so special? If we allow a small subset of Christians to violate anti-discrimination laws in very specific circumstances with no repercussions, then what's to stop other religious people from claiming they should be exempt in other cases? If you don't think sexual orientation should be a protected class, then work to change that. 

AGAIN, it was not a protected class when he DID it.  It was only a protected class subsequently.  That is what is insane about that case, and what no one seems to recognize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To some, baking a cake for homosexual couple is condoning sin. I don't necessarily hold that view, but I stand by the rights of bakers to go about their business in freedom. Maybe a better example would be legislating a Jewish family business to butcher & sell pork, even if they do not eat it themselves. They deserve freedom. Just the same, you have the right to choose to not patron those businesses...and to tell all of your friends the reason why you don't buy from them.

 

The examples above are not the same. No one is forcing the baker to make and sell wedding cakes. They made a business decision to do so. And in states where sexual orientation is a protected class, by law, they can't sell wedding cakes to everyone else but refuse to sell them to gay couples. Otherwise, what's to stop other business owners from using their religious views to not sell their goods to someone of a particular religion, race, gender, etc.

About the wedding cake issue....( and I am not saying I would not bake a cake...haven't thought it through well enough)....but I see the logic of refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual WEDDING which is a different thing than refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual. It is the wedding that gets the refusing baker all tripped up and confused. If he could stop seeing the WEDDING and just see himself baking a cake and let the purchaser do whatever they want with it....then I think it would cease being an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cindy, people convert religion all the time. That's how I *know* it's malleable. I have a friend right now who was raised Catholic, spent many years as an atheist, and is now converting to Judaism.

 

As far as sexual orientation goes, I know many gay people who have tried really hard to be straight. Hasn't worked. I've yet to meet a straight person who even put in a tiny bit of effort into being gay. You can be the first! Be gay for a week (you don't have to do anything special, just change how you feel) and then come back and tell us how it went! Unless you're chicken, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN, it was not a protected class when he DID it.  It was only a protected class subsequently.  That is what is insane about that case, and what no one seems to recognize. 

 

This is blatantly incorrect, as several of us have told you. The anti-discrimination laws went into effect in 2008. The incident occurred in 2012. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant points that you continually ignore in making this argument include:

 

(1) There is no Biblical proscription against providing business services to gays. None.

 

(2) There are devout Christians who do not agree with you that gay marriage is anti-Biblical.

 

(3) There are devout Christians who do not agree with you that there are no scriptural proscriptions against things like interracial or interfaith marriages, as well as many who believe that other religions are evil and who would in fact discriminate against Muslims or Hindus or other religions if it was legal to do so.

 

So essentially your argument is this: "I believe that any business owner who agrees with my own interpretation of the scripture of my own religion, should have the right to discriminate against ONE specific group of people whose lifestyle is considered, in my interpretation of scripture, as a sin, while continuing to serve those who commit many other types of sin."

 

That is the only way it's possible to justify the right of certain religious groups to discriminate against gay couples without admitting to also supporting the right of all religious groups to discriminate against anyone they want, according to their own interpretation of their own scriptures. 

I'm out of likes, but I love this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant points that you continually ignore in making this argument include:

 

(1) There is no Biblical proscription against providing business services to gays. None.

 

(2) There are devout Christians who do not agree with you that gay marriage is anti-Biblical.

 

(3) There are devout Christians who do not agree with you that there are no scriptural proscriptions against things like interracial or interfaith marriages, as well as many who believe that other religions are evil and who would in fact discriminate against Muslims or Hindus or other religions if it was legal to do so.

 

So essentially your argument is this: "I believe that any business owner who agrees with my own interpretation of the scripture of my own religion, should have the right to discriminate against ONE specific group of people whose lifestyle is considered, in my interpretation of scripture, as a sin, while continuing to serve those who commit many other types of sin."

 

That is the only way it's possible to justify the right of certain religious groups to discriminate against gay couples without admitting to also supporting the right of all religious groups to discriminate against anyone they want, according to their own interpretation of their own scriptures. 

It is irrelevant what any of the rest of us believed.  It is relevant what HE believed at the time that he acted on his belief, and whether sexual orientation was protected at the time (it was not, in the Colorado case). 

 

No, this most decidedly does not open it up for all to discriminate against everyone.  The protected categories are already well-established, based on immutable, indisputable traits, like race, religion, national origin, gender, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is blatantly incorrect, as several of us have told you. The anti-discrimination laws went into effect in 2008. The incident occurred in 2012. 

 

Oh, geez. You know, I think it might be time for the rational discussion flowchart.

 

Anybody arguing a point which has already been refuted loses. And TranquilMind, if you say ONE MORE TIME that religion is an "immutable trait" I'm going to reach through my computer and throw a pie in your face. If religion was so immutable, there wouldn't be any Christians, because all early Christians would have stayed Jews or Pagans or whatever.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I know people who have changed their sexual orientation. Mutable.

 

Cindy, people convert religion all the time. That's how I *know* it's malleable. I have a friend right now who was raised Catholic, spent many years as an atheist, and is now converting to Judaism.

 

As far as sexual orientation goes, I know many gay people who have tried really hard to be straight. Hasn't worked. I've yet to meet a straight person who even put in a tiny bit of effort into being gay. You can be the first! Be gay for a week (you don't have to do anything special, just change how you feel) and then come back and tell us how it went! Unless you're chicken, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll stick with the way God created it to be. One man. One woman.

 

Cindy, people convert religion all the time. That's how I *know* it's malleable. I have a friend right now who was raised Catholic, spent many years as an atheist, and is now converting to Judaism.

 

As far as sexual orientation goes, I know many gay people who have tried really hard to be straight. Hasn't worked. I've yet to meet a straight person who even put in a tiny bit of effort into being gay. You can be the first! Be gay for a week (you don't have to do anything special, just change how you feel) and then come back and tell us how it went! Unless you're chicken, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I know people who have changed their sexual orientation. Mutable.

 

Yeah, except the evidence suggests that they didn't, they're just lying to themselves. But go ahead - try it out for yourself. Don't rely on other people. If YOU come back and YOU say that you've been gay for a whole week, I'll concede the point. Like I said, you don't have to do anything special, you just have to change your attraction for seven days. You still stay with your spouse, and you don't date or anything, you just change so that you're more attracted to hot chicks than hot guys.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...