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

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I haven't been able to read this thread, but this stood out to me because this isn't how it works. If there are people who don't agree with same sex marriage, and they refuse services to a same sex couple, they get sued. So you want Christians to let people live their lives and not try and direct their choices, but various groups of people want to FORCE Christians to agree with their lifestyles, no matter their beliefs.

 

That's fair.

 

Read the thread. That's been covered. Though I doubt you'll agree no matter what.

 

OK, now I REALLY have to go.

 

Good night!

[Rosie_0801]

But but but it's going the other way. The gov is forcing them to practice beliefs that aren't their own in their business. I know it's a choice they can go open a church blah blah. But it's the same as the HL employees. They can go work somewhere else right? Don't like it leave. Don't like that the law is forcing you I marry same sex couples? Go do something else. I just can't agree with that.

 

Obviously you don't want to be discriminated against. Naturally, then, you'd have a bit of sympathy for those on the opposite side, knowing they don't want to be discriminated against either. Where then is the middle ground where no one is feeling discriminated against? There must be one around somewhere. Or we must hope there is one. Otherwise we're saying one group of citizens are more important than another kind of citizen to the point where their rights are subordinate. That can't really make sense unless we all want to live in a George Orwell novel or vote on what I assume would be a constitutional change to erase the equality clauses and designate who is to be second class citizens. 

 

Laws aren't about changing anyone's heart. They are about making sure people use their "in public manners." 

[Mrs Mungo]

In a perfect world we wouldn't need laws at all. But, we know that the Israelites broke the commandments when they were hot off the presses. If Christians were following Christ, then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[StaceyinLA]

Read the thread. That's been covered. Though I doubt you'll agree no matter what.

 

OK, now I REALLY have to go.

 

Good night!

Just saw that and then went to delete my post until I could read the entire thread.

[Tanaqui]

You can change peoples hearts by force.

 

1. The study referenced in this article on East and West Germans begs to differ.

 

2. Who cares about their hearts? I care about their behavior.

[fraidycat]

Why can't Christians just add "for me" to the end of their beliefs? It'd save a lot of arguing and feeling forced to do anything against those beliefs.

 

Examples:

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong...for me.

 

I believe abortion is wrong...for me.

 

It's pretty difficult to force anyone to engage in homosexual relationship or to have an unwanted abortion.

[Frances]

I haven't been able to read this thread, but this stood out to me because this isn't how it works. If there are people who don't agree with same sex marriage, and they refuse services to a same sex couple, they get sued. So you want Christians to let people live their lives and not try and direct their choices, but various groups of people want to FORCE Christians to agree with their lifestyles, no matter their beliefs.

 

That's fair.

No, you don't necessarily get sued. You may have a complaint filed against you with the appropriate authorities if you are breaking a law, as is the case when sexual orientation is a protected class in your jurisdiction. And no one is forcing anyone to agree with their lifestyle. They are simply being asked to follow the laws they agreed to when they opened a public business. They cannot provide a service to everyone except members of a protected class. They must follow the laws placed on businesses in their location.

[Rosie_0801]

 

2. Who cares about their hearts? I care about their behavior.

 

Too right. I firmly believe anyone is entitled to go home and have a whinge to whoever will listen, or to the dog, or the wall, about anything they like!

[hornblower]

 

 

That's because dogs rarely write their own vows.

 

 They exchange bow-wows instead of vows.

 

[Corraleno]

I haven't been able to read this thread, but this stood out to me because this isn't how it works. If there are people who don't agree with same sex marriage, and they refuse services to a same sex couple, they get sued. So you want Christians to let people live their lives and not try and direct their choices, but various groups of people want to FORCE Christians to agree with their lifestyles, no matter their beliefs.

 

That's fair.

 

The post you replied to said "You don't believe that same sex couples should marry...fine. Please do not perform such weddings in your church."

 

That *is* how it works: churches do not have to perform gay weddings — or any other kind of weddings — if they choose not to. No one can sue a CHURCH for refusing to perform a wedding that goes against the beliefs of that church.

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, a commercial business is not a church. Requiring that business owners abide by the laws that apply to their business is not the same thing as "forcing" them to "agree with the gay lifestyle" or forcing them to "practice religious beliefs" that go against their own (as another poster claimed). 

[Catwoman]

I don't think it's a failure to teach it. I think it's a failure of empathy and a "But what about MEEEE!" mentality. From Christians, of all people. It makes me sad.

 

And on that note, I have to go deal with the crazy that cropped up in my actual real life tonight. Good night, everyone. 

 

I hope everything is OK!  :grouphug:

 

[fraidycat]

They exchange bow-wows instead of vows.

 

So let me get this dog wedding thing straight.

 

The dogs who are partaking in this dog wedding, they don't write their own dog wedding vows?

 

So, what you're saying is at the dog wedding, instead of dog wedding vows, they have dog wedding bow-wows.

 

Do they have to "speak now", or does that just create a cacophony of confusion amongst the dog wedding guests, witnessing the lack of dog wedding vows in favor of dog wedding bow-wows?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panda and Catwoman, can you still read or are things a little booze-goggle blurry? :P

[Catwoman]

Dog wedding

 

Dog wedding

 

Dog wedding

 

 

 

 

You're welcome.

 

Thank you.  :hurray:

 

[Frances]

 

 

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, a commercial business is not a church. Requiring that business owners abide by the laws that apply to their business is not the same thing as "forcing" them to "agree with the gay lifestyle" or forcing them to "practice religious beliefs" that go against their own (as another poster claimed). 

And if the business has to change its organizational type or business model in order to follow the law and honor their religious beliefs, then that seems like a great way to demonstrate the sacrifices they are willing to make for their beliefs. As we are often reminded by some on this board, being a Christian is hard and often requires great sacrifices.

[Catwoman]

So let me get this dog wedding thing straight.

 

The dogs who are partaking in this dog wedding, they don't write their own dog wedding vows?

 

So, what you're saying is at the dog wedding, instead of dog wedding vows, they have dog wedding bow-wows.

 

Do they have to "speak now", or does that just create a cacophony of confusion amongst the dog wedding guests, witnessing the lack of dog wedding vows in favor of dog wedding bow-wows?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panda and Catwoman, can you still read or are things a little booze-goggle blurry? :p

 

:cheers2: :cheers2: :cheers2: :cheers2: :cheers2: :cheers2: :cheers2:

 

[StaceyinLA]

 

The post you replied to said "You don't believe that same sex couples should marry...fine. Please do not perform such weddings in your church."

 

That *is* how it works: churches do not have to perform gay weddings — or any other kind of weddings — if they choose not to. No one can sue a CHURCH for refusing to perform a wedding that goes against the beliefs of that church.

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, a commercial business is not a church. Requiring that business owners abide by the laws that apply to their business is not the same thing as "forcing" them to "agree with the gay lifestyle" or forcing them to "practice religious beliefs" that go against their own (as another poster claimed).

Yea. I got that. As I mentioned, I went back and deleted my comment because I saw things addressed in the thread.

[foxbridgeacademy]

This thread is especially awesome if you drink every time someone says "dog wedding."

:lol: <roflmao,

 

I ran out of likes AGAIN!  Yesterday I used like 20, today 5 and I'm out WTH! 

[bettyandbob]

That is not neccessarily true though, depending on who is counted as a founding father of course but of the big names Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were not Christians.

No, I'm not going to waste my time looking up multiple sources for you. You could start with a simple review of Jefferson and his religious viewpoints at Monticello.org. He did not believe Jesus was savior. He probably believed in a supreme bring. He definitely believed in separation of church and state. He was raised Christian and he attended church, but he did not believe in Christianity, in particular the trinity and he certainly did not want his beliefs forced on others. During his time he was accused of being atheist.

[foxbridgeacademy]

It's true. Well except the young part ;)

 

Ugh. I get what you are saying. I do. And I can't really form any more coherent thoughts. (I'm crazy tired) This honestly has been a good thing for my brain. I am exploring why I feel so strongly about this issue. It's near to me because I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. I've said it before but again I don't care what anyone does in their private life nor do I care about civil unions or maybe even calling it marriages. I don't agree with it but whatever. I can just live my life and not worry about it. But the idea of the government forcing a religious business owner to do something so against their beliefs really does bother me. It's close to home to because I could see it affecting me in my profession.

 

 

You know, I'll be honest with you. It bothers me too. However, the alternative bothers me far, far, FAR more. Something has to give. I choose the greater good of society over the perceived rights of a few uncomfortable individuals. 

:iagree: It also bothers me (and I'm an atheist). But like NowWeAreFour the alternative is much worse.  I'm sad to say but we have to have these types of laws. We are not the kind, loving, altruistic society many people think we are.  Removing discrimination laws would invariably lead to rampant discrimination.  I know this because where I live and places I've lived people are often quite vocal about their prejudices and what they'd do/not do if the government weren't ruling their lives.   

[Cindy in FL.]

Because that's not what they believe.

 

Why can't Christians just add "for me" to the end of their beliefs? It'd save a lot of arguing and feeling forced to do anything against those beliefs.

 

Examples:

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong...for me.

 

I believe abortion is wrong...for me.

 

It's pretty difficult to force anyone to engage in homosexual relationship or to have an unwanted abortion.

[creekland]

This thread is especially awesome if you drink every time someone says "dog wedding."

 

Sure - NOW you mention this!

 

Oh great.

 

Now I have to go back and re-read the entire thread.  :D

 

(Hey, if I'm gonna play, I'm gonna do it right!)

 

I'd do this too, except I have to get on the road in a couple of hours (sigh).  I missed my chance...

 

And maybe consider how Creekland pointed out how active the KKK still is in her area. These are the people who are just waiting for an opportunity like this--for our invasive government to relax their controls just a bit. Are you really comfortable with the idea of letting them have free reign again? Are you comfortable with aligning yourselves with ANY of their beliefs? Could you live with yourself if you fought for the elimination of discrimination laws and they got a nice, solid foothold in our society again?

 

Creek's going to add a few more details that the KKK who came were IMPORTED from a nearby state.  They were not local.  They wanted to raise some local support - to let people know they are still out there - and to potentially start something local.  The LOCAL people did not want them and tried at first to deny the permit, but weren't allowed to do so.  There were a handful of people who went to go hear them - a dozen or so if I recall the newspaper article about it.  There were FAR more attending an opposition event. ;)

 

There's hope.

 

But I also have a MIL who is the most racist person I've ever met IRL.  She doesn't have a business, but she'd love to visit any that discriminated to only allowing her kind.  I think anti-discrimination laws need to stay.

[Jane in NC]

Who said the business owner had to BELIEVE anything about this chapel wedding? Is the chapel owner being forced to BE gay, or just perform the same service he provides every other day for any other couple who wants it?

 

What is there not to agree with? If you provide a service, provide it for everybody. Don't want to provide it for everybody, don't provide the service. It really is that simple.

 

The idea that a business owner can pick and choose among customers is rather odd to me. Sure, many businesses self select customers by their nature, i.e. youth market, female market, hipster market.  But I have never entered a store that said "Middle age white women not allowed."  Or "Middle age white women may look only but not purchase anything here."

 

Is the wedding business something more sacred than plumbing or hair dressing?  Apparently it is to some. I feel that the religious nature of a wedding can indeed be sacred. There is no proposal for government to impose change on religious ceremonies. 

 

We are talking about business.  Business needs roads, sidewalks, water, etc., the infrastructure of the community.  I do not pay taxes so that only one subset is allowed to make a purchase in a business.

[Pam in CT]

It's true. Well except the young part ;)

 

Ugh. I get what you are saying. I do. And I can't really form any more coherent thoughts. (I'm crazy tired) This honestly has been a good thing for my brain. I am exploring why I feel so strongly about this issue. It's near to me because I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. I've said it before but again I don't care what anyone does in their private life nor do I care about civil unions or maybe even calling it marriages. I don't agree with it but whatever. I can just live my life and not worry about it. But the idea of the government forcing a religious business owner to do something so against their beliefs really does bother me. It's close to home to because I could see it affecting me in my profession.

 

Busymama, thanks for hanging in, and continuing to engage in a difficult discussion with good grace.  This stuff is hard.

[Cindy in FL.]

I can't support dog weddings. Weddings are for cats only.

 

Dog wedding

 

Dog wedding

 

Dog wedding

 

 

 

 

You're welcome.

[Amira]

It's true. Well except the young part ;)

 

Ugh. I get what you are saying. I do. And I can't really form any more coherent thoughts. (I'm crazy tired) This honestly has been a good thing for my brain. I am exploring why I feel so strongly about this issue. It's near to me because I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. I've said it before but again I don't care what anyone does in their private life nor do I care about civil unions or maybe even calling it marriages. I don't agree with it but whatever. I can just live my life and not worry about it. But the idea of the government forcing a religious business owner to do something so against their beliefs really does bother me. It's close to home to because I could see it affecting me in my profession.

I don't think you're wrong to feel strongly about this and for you to be worried about it.

 

I know that many religious people feel that they shouldn't abandon their beliefs when they go to work- that religious beliefs aren't just for Sunday (or Saturday or Friday) or whatever. I think that's a good thing and I personally try to live my life that way too.

 

But I don't think that civil laws requiring a business to follow public accommodation law can ever make me violate my religious beliefs. No one can make me violate my beliefs. Even if I believed that I should not support or condone anything at all even remotely touching gay marriage, I still don't think that baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding is supporting it any more than Costco is supporting gay marriage if someone buys the cake there. If I were a baker, I would bake products for people to buy and use as they pleased because that's how businesses work and because public accommodation laws are important.

 

If a religious person does feel strongly enough about their beliefs that they cannot follow public accommodation law then it will limit how they interact the rest of society. That would be a consequence of those strongly-held beliefs because the US does not allow the religious beliefs of a public business owner to trump anti-discrimination laws.

[FaithManor]

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.     

 

Oh really! So, does the baker give customers a questionnaire before choosing to do business with every couple? I think not despite the fact that the Bible indicates females should be virgins - I seriously doubt he/she is going to ask about the virginity of the female in question before deciding to the sell the cake - adultery, idolatry, being unequally yoked in faith matters, divorce status. Does the baker ask about lying, stealing, murdering, mixed fiber blends, conducting agricultural pursuits on the Sabbath, taking the Lord's name in vain, coveting, ...oh that's a bad one...they might come in and have coveted someone else's wedding cake which is possibly why they are there in the first place....to get a beautiful cake like their friends had?  Strike them off the list. They liked their friends' cake and decided to do business with you so they could get one equally, if not, more beautiful. Must ask these important questions before doing business with them.

 

I mean really. This is not supportable. There are HUGE prohibitions against all kinds of activities within the context of marriage in the Bible. Picking ONE and hanging one's hat on it as a business tactic to openly discriminate against a protected group while actively ignoring the others and NOT discriminating against those that engage in such practices is folly. Pure.simple.folly. A secular government has absolutely no reason to allow a public business to engage in such folly. Be a private business or club if that's the name of your game. Be a 501c. There is room for the folly, but as a private entity.

 

It's not supportable. It really isn't. In order for it to be a supportable "closely held belief" then the people claiming they shouldn't have to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple because of their "sin" would have to discriminate against all the other committers of marital sin as well. Otherwise it's not a closely held belief; it's just bigotry.

 

What's next? "Sorry, the paramedics sent to your car accident have surmised you are gay and therefore cannot provide you with medical services because that would violate their conscience?" How about utilities, law enforcement...nope, don't have to come look for the prowler on your property because you are a lesbian..., not going to teach your kid in school because I disapprove of your lifestyle...where the heck does it end???

 

That is not a world I want to live in, but sad to say, I do believe there is a small, and very outspoken minority of religious observers that do want to live in a world like that and those people do align themselves with PACS like FRC, or belong to organizations like The 700 Club, Vision Forum, ATI, KKK, Westboro Baptist, etc. and liberals, moderates, conservatives, and all people somewhere in between should be very afraid of the agenda of these folks. One day they may be attempting to restrict something you are okay with being restricted and then next day, they are coming for you! That's how it works. They are right, everyone else bows to their demands. The end.

 

No thanks. That's not the kind of America that most of us actually want to live in when it's all said and done regardless of where you fall on the political and religious spectrum unless you do belong to one of these extremist groups.

 

Again, Sneetches...read about the Sneetches. Play nice; be nice. It works.

[FaithManor]

The idea that a business owner can pick and choose among customers is rather odd to me. Sure, many businesses self select customers by their nature, i.e. youth market, female market, hipster market.  But I have never entered a store that said "Middle age white women not allowed."  Or "Middle age white women may look only but not purchase anything here."

 

Is the wedding business something more sacred than plumbing or hair dressing?  Apparently it is to some. I feel that the religious nature of a wedding can indeed be sacred. There is no proposal for government to impose change on religious ceremonies. 

 

We are talking about business.  Business needs roads, sidewalks, water, etc., the infrastructure of the community.  I do not pay taxes so that only one subset is allowed to make a purchase in a business.

 

This is a VERY valid point.

[Pronghorn]

Christian businesses most likely participate in unsavory marriages all the time without even realizing it. Many first marriages end in affairs that then become a second marriage. Or someone marries for money. Or one person is secretly abusive. Or people are marrying partly to get a green card. If it is a sin to bake a cake for a questionable wedding, then businesses need to discriminate much more broadly.

[FaithManor]

That is not neccessarily true though, depending on who is counted as a founding father of course but of the big names Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were not Christians.

 

Deist is a much better term for what they believed and even then, that is open for debate because "Deist" is a very broad term. Yet, it still describes may of our founding fathers better, George Washington included (and he's a real favorite amongst many revisionist historians trying to put a pro-Christianity as understood by far right evangelicals slant on history). Once one really delves into their personal philosophies and religious beliefs, it opens the mind to what they really meant concerning government and religion. Of course, not all of them were deists. There was actually a fairly wide range of religious and secular thought amongst them. Many of the "morals" they all tended to share were not based on religiously held belief but upon what they felt was "for the common good".

[texasmama]

Churches are not businesses.

 

Churches get very specific tax breaks because they are churches and not businesses.

 

Pastors get very specific tax treatment because they are pastors and not employed in a business.

 

There are very different rules for churches and for businesses.

 

Religious organizations need to simply organize as a religious organization and they will not be subject to the same rules as publicly operated businesses. 

 

America has recognized the right of churches to operate freely within that private sphere.

 

The tension comes in when people want the rights afforded to CHURCHES to apply when they are operating a business in the public sphere with all the attended benefits of doing so.

 

100% in agreement.  The laws are very clear.  They are not difficult to understand.  If you do not want to follow them, either go into a different line of work or accept the consequences for choosing to break the law.

 

[FaithManor]

Obviously you don't want to be discriminated against. Naturally, then, you'd have a bit of sympathy for those on the opposite side, knowing they don't want to be discriminated against either. Where then is the middle ground where no one is feeling discriminated against? There must be one around somewhere. Or we must hope there is one. Otherwise we're saying one group of citizens are more important than another kind of citizen to the point where their rights are subordinate. That can't really make sense unless we all want to live in a George Orwell novel or vote on what I assume would be a constitutional change to erase the equality clauses and designate who is to be second class citizens. 

 

Laws aren't about changing anyone's heart. They are about making sure people use their "in public manners." 

 

Rosie, that's awesome..."in public manners". Boy, if we could just get people to do that! :hurray:

 

[elegantlion]

Do we live in the same town?

Seriously, I'm like the only non-christian HSer in my town and believe me if/when I explain my lack of religion  I get the cold shoulder. I try to just say "we're not religious but people still assume I believe in their god.

 

I don't even deal with homeschoolers in my town. Thankfully ds was older when we moved here. 

 

Is the wedding chapel open to the public ? Then yes. Simple.

 

Why is that so hard to understand. When you open a business there are plenty of laws you might not agree with that you have to follow. I'm not a huge fan of the IRS, but you have to pay taxes and it's a lot more complicated when you own a business. 

 

 

I also don't get why LGBTQ issues have become the plank in the eye of Christianity. What about the gossiping, lying women that practically drove my mother out of church because they spread rumors about her because my dad didn't attend church with us? They get to buy cake wherever they want? What about a relative who oozes unrighteous pride and elevates herself in most conversations with her family - it's so bad some people won't talk to her. She can buy a cake where she wants. What about the pastor that deceived an entire congregation and ended up breaking up a once very tight community of believers, so much so that some of them no longer attend church? He gets to buy cake. 

 

Why is that? is it because their sins are not visible? No, because if that is the cake then obese people couldn't buy cake either - no comment on that, not a commentary on weight. So if it's not the visibility of the sin, what is it? People that cohabitate? Well that could be visible based upon how much information you give the baker. But no, they get to buy the cake too, probably. 

 

Is it because thinking about a same sex couple leads a person to think about that s.e.x. word? I don't know. I don't really care about other peoples s*x lives. I don't want to know details and I don't care what happens behind closed doors with consensual adults.  

 

So even if you people a relationship between two same sex people is wrong, surely you believe in other sins too. Why the elevation of this sin? Seriously? Go back to the Bible and ponder this one a bit. 

[texasmama]

I don't think it's a failure to teach it. I think it's a failure of empathy and a "But what about MEEEE!" mentality. From Christians, of all people. It makes me sad.

 

And the Christians should understand that if discrimination is legally allowed against homosexuals, at some point that tide will turn and it will be Christians who are allowed to be discriminated against.  And they do not want that.  I promise you that.  (This Christian does not, in any case...)

 

A gay couple eating cake hurts no one.

 

 

[texasmama]

No I did not say that. I know it sounded like it but it's not what was in my head. Not really sure how to explain it any better. I think what I meant was in an ideal world(utopia) this just would not be an issue. The government wouldn't have to force people to live moral just lives. Humans would just make good choices and live together peaceably. Ugh. I'm probably making it worse.

 

Of course.  It is what we ALL want.  But it will never, ever happen so we do have to legislate a lot of things.  It is better to legislate protection with a broad brush than to allow an ever-shrinking majority to decide what legislation should exist.  (By ever-shrinking majority, I mean Christians in the US, not people who oppose gay marriage.)

 

[MSNative]

Is the wedding chapel open to the public ? Then yes. Simple.

Moving off the wedding topic on to the idea that if a business is open to the public it does not have the right to discriminate. What do you think about affirmative action? This is done in the name of redressing past discrimination but it is still discrimination. And I think a lot of us are ok with that as are many of our judges who have ruled on the issue. I not trying to get into an argument about that. I just think the idea that if a business is public it must not discriminate is a little simplistic. There are times when our laws tell businesses to discriminate. And the arguments kinda work both way. If we don't tell business to discriminate by using affirmative action, then minorities will be hurt. If we don't tell businesses to not discriminate, then minorities will be hurt.

[LizItaly]

I'd make a cake for a jewish wedding, but I wouldn't make one for a brit milah (assuming they would have a cake at such an event).  

 

 

I think private businesses should be able to discriminate. Not the government. Not schools. But regular business owners. Why not let them show their true colors? If a business owner is a closet racist or hostile towards certain groups of people, wouldn't you like to know so you could choose to shop elsewhere? Remember when businesses used to have signs up that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"  I always assumed that was so they could throw out disruptive people, but I kind of think that private business owners ought to be able to sell their services to only the people they want to. 

 

I don't know, maybe that's opening a giant can of worms. But I'd like to believe that as a society we are diverse and tolerant enough that minority groups would still have plenty of places to shop at and receive services from, even if a small number of people discriminate against them.

 

I'd bake the cake for the brit milah, but otherwise I agree with you.  Let the baker do as he pleases and let the market decide if he gets to stay in business.

 

Not a very popular viewpoint, but I think it is the most workable and the best guarantor of freedom for all groups.

 

Likewise, I am an ardent supporter of free speech, regardless of whose feelings are hurt by it.  Let people be true to themselves. If that means that it comes out that the guy at my corner bar hates me because I am Jewish, well thank goodness I know!  Now I will spend my money elsewhere.

[Χά�ων]

I don't even deal with homeschoolers in my town. Thankfully ds was older when we moved here. 

 

 

Why is that so hard to understand. When you open a business there are plenty of laws you might not agree with that you have to follow. I'm not a huge fan of the IRS, but you have to pay taxes and it's a lot more complicated when you own a business. 

 

 

I also don't get why LGBTQ issues have become the plank in the eye of Christianity. What about the gossiping, lying women that practically drove my mother out of church because they spread rumors about her because my dad didn't attend church with us? They get to buy cake wherever they want? What about a relative who oozes unrighteous pride and elevates herself in most conversations with her family - it's so bad some people won't talk to her. She can buy a cake where she wants. What about the pastor that deceived an entire congregation and ended up breaking up a once very tight community of believers, so much so that some of them no longer attend church? He gets to buy cake. 

 

Why is that? is it because their sins are not visible? No, because if that is the cake then obese people couldn't buy cake either - no comment on that, not a commentary on weight. So if it's not the visibility of the sin, what is it? People that cohabitate? Well that could be visible based upon how much information you give the baker. But no, they get to buy the cake too, probably. 

 

Is it because thinking about a same sex couple leads a person to think about that s.e.x. word? I don't know. I don't really care about other peoples s*x lives. I don't want to know details and I don't care what happens behind closed doors with consensual adults.  

 

So even if you people a relationship between two same sex people is wrong, surely you believe in other sins too. Why the elevation of this sin? Seriously? Go back to the Bible and ponder this one a bit. 

I think it is the obsession with s_x* that is the old testament. We are in the process of studying the old testament and so far there is a constant theme of obsession with s_x and the male genitalia. I am not shocked that some Christians are fixated on gay relations above all other sins. I also think that many do not understand the many euphemisms for s_x that are in the Bible. I am just thankful that my son has not yet made the connection. I am planning to revisit the subject when he is older to make sure he really understands what was said. 

 

*I hate not spelling it out but I do not want to give ammo to those with twitchy report fingers who report almost everything I post**.

 

**To the mods or SWB, Hi!

[songsparrow]

But but but it's going the other way. The gov is forcing them to practice beliefs that aren't their own in their business.

 

busymama7, this passage has been quoted and responded to a lot.  I am quoting it again because it sums up the argument I hear most often.  

 

If you are a baker who bakes wedding cakes, the government is not forcing you to engage in homosexual sex acts, endorse homosexuality, or even attend a same-sex wedding.  The only thing that the government is requiring you to do is to bake a cake.  There is nothing sacred about a cake, even one that is intended to be eaten in celebration of a couple exchanging wedding vows.  

[Frances]

Moving off the wedding topic on to the idea that if a business is open to the public it does not have the right to discriminate. What do you think about affirmative action? This is done in the name of redressing past discrimination but it is still discrimination. And I think a lot of us are ok with that as are many of our judges who have ruled on the issue. I not trying to get into an argument about that. I just think the idea that if a business is public it must not discriminate is a little simplistic. There are times when our laws tell businesses to discriminate. And the arguments kinda work both way. If we don't tell business to discriminate by using affirmative action, then minorities will be hurt. If we don't tell businesses not to discriminate, then minorities will be hurt.

Can you fill me in on the laws concerning affirmative action that apply to private businesses that are open to the public? I'm not familiar with them.

[MSNative]

"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company’s written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually." From dept of labor. http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

 

SBA (special groups created "social or economically disadvantaged who then get special dispensation)https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Small%20Business%20Act.pdf#page110

 

Just a couple. I'm heading out to a meeting but a google search of racial preferences will give you lots of examples.

[Cindy in FL.]

I think they should bake the cake. I don't think a photographer or wedding coordinator should have to participate in a gay marriage, though. Having to attend and work at the ceremony would be different than baking a cake or selling them decorations or anything like that.

[Peaceful Isle]

I have not read all the posts nor do I have time this morning ;)

 

I am a conservative christian. I have never forced my beliefs on anyone. Yes, I have shared my faith with others who want to know, because in the Bible I am commanded to preach the gospel of Christ to others.

I have never forced anyone to believe or live life a certain way. I treat people with love and compassion no matter their race or religion. I'm not a pushy person.

 

Those are my thoughts this morning. I am definitely not a debating type at all :)

[songsparrow]

I think they should bake the cake. I don't think a photographer or wedding coordinator should have to participate in a gay marriage, though. Having to attend and work at the ceremony would be different than baking a cake or selling them decorations or anything like that.

 

I agree that a photographer or wedding coordinator should not be forced to "participate" in a gay marriage as I am quite opposed to shot-gun weddings - however, I fully support their right to enter into a same-sex marriage if they wish to do so.  (In case the tongue-in-cheek is not clear, I'm attempting to point out - with a touch of humor - that the only participants in the marriage ceremony are the couple exchanging vows and the officiant.)

 

The photographer is taking photographs of an event.  

The wedding coordinator is organizing the logistics of an event.

A soloist who is hired to sing or perform music during the ceremony would be performing at an event.

 

There is nothing sacred about snapping photographs, organizing the flow of people, or even singing a song (although the song may be about sacred topics).  

 

It's easy to tell the difference between those who are participating in the marriage (couple & officiant) and those who are not:  absent those who are participating in the marriage, there is no marriage.  Without the photographer, wedding coordinator, soloist, etc., there is still a valid marriage.  Thus, they are not participants in the marriage.  They are simply professionals hired to enhance an event.

[TeacherZee]

Ooh, I love this!  Problem solved.  Of course it doesn't solve my problem that I don't bake, but as I said before, that's a different issue.  This was purely speculative.

 

 

 

Perhaps not, but they had the legal right to hold their brouhaha nearby even though they weren't wanted by the majority of local residents.  It was a public venue open to the public (by permit) and they weren't allowed to deny them.

 

I could easily see them challenging anything in court if someone with a public business like a bakery denied them something.  How many business owners could even afford the legal fees?

 

Methinks donating all their $$ to an opposing educational group (or similar) would be the best thing to do if in that situation.

  

Sure - NOW you mention this!

 

 

 

I'd do this too, except I have to get on the road in a couple of hours (sigh).  I missed my chance...

 

 

Creek's going to add a few more details that the KKK who came were IMPORTED from a nearby state.  They were not local.  They wanted to raise some local support - to let people know they are still out there - and to potentially start something local.  The LOCAL people did not want them and tried at first to deny the permit, but weren't allowed to do so.  There were a handful of people who went to go hear them - a dozen or so if I recall the newspaper article about it.  There were FAR more attending an opposition event. ;)

 

There's hope.

 

But I also have a MIL who is the most racist person I've ever met IRL.  She doesn't have a business, but she'd love to visit any that discriminated to only allowing her kind.  I think anti-discrimination laws need to stay.

I've been thinking about this off and on all day (proctoring exams and sitting in meetings)

 

If the KKK or (and this applies even more) FRC wanted to rent a venue from me I would be tempted to give the adjoining room to the East Rutherford Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Alliance for their luau* 'cause that is how I roll

 

 

*points if you get the reference.

[Cindy in FL.]

I don't think they should have to be present at the event, sorry.

 

I agree that a photographer or wedding coordinator should not be forced to "participate" in a gay marriage as I am quite opposed to shot-gun weddings - however, I fully support their right to enter into a same-sex marriage if they wish to do so. (In case the tongue-in-cheek is not clear, I'm attempting to point out - with a touch of humor - that the only participants in the marriage ceremony are the couple exchanging vows and the officiant.)

 

The photographer is taking photographs of an event.

The wedding coordinator is organizing the logistics of an event.

A soloist who is hired to sing or perform music during the ceremony would be performing at an event.

 

There is nothing sacred about snapping photographs, organizing the flow of people, or even singing a song (although the song may be about sacred topics).

 

It's easy to tell the difference between those who are participating in the marriage (couple & officiant) and those who are not: absent those who are participating in the marriage, there is no marriage. Without the photographer, wedding coordinator, soloist, etc., there is still a valid marriage. Thus, they are not participants in the marriage. They are simply professionals hired to enhance an event.

[Muttichen]

 

 

I also don't get why LGBTQ issues have become the plank in the eye of Christianity. What about the gossiping, lying women that practically drove my mother out of church because they spread rumors about her because my dad didn't attend church with us? They get to buy cake wherever they want? What about a relative who oozes unrighteous pride and elevates herself in most conversations with her family - it's so bad some people won't talk to her. She can buy a cake where she wants. What about the pastor that deceived an entire congregation and ended up breaking up a once very tight community of believers, so much so that some of them no longer attend church? He gets to buy cake. 

 

Why is that? is it because their sins are not visible? No, because if that is the cake then obese people couldn't buy cake either - no comment on that, not a commentary on weight. So if it's not the visibility of the sin, what is it? People that cohabitate? Well that could be visible based upon how much information you give the baker. But no, they get to buy the cake too, probably. 

 

Is it because thinking about a same sex couple leads a person to think about that s.e.x. word? I don't know. I don't really care about other peoples s*x lives. I don't want to know details and I don't care what happens behind closed doors with consensual adults.  

 

So even if you people a relationship between two same sex people is wrong, surely you believe in other sins too. Why the elevation of this sin? Seriously? Go back to the Bible and ponder this one a bit. 

The difference between this sin and others is that society isn't forcing us to accept that lying, adultery, and gluttony are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors.

[Χά�ων]

The difference between this sin and others is that society isn't forcing us to accept that lying, adultery, and gluttony are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors.

These are already normal behaviors. All you have to do to see them is to look around.

[Tanaqui]

No, the difference is that lying, adultury, and gluttony are harmful to others.

[Dmmetler]

The idea that a business owner can pick and choose among customers is rather odd to me. Sure, many businesses self select customers by their nature, i.e. youth market, female market, hipster market.  But I have never entered a store that said "Middle age white women not allowed."  Or "Middle age white women may look only but not purchase anything here."

 

Is the wedding business something more sacred than plumbing or hair dressing?  Apparently it is to some. I feel that the religious nature of a wedding can indeed be sacred. There is no proposal for government to impose change on religious ceremonies. 

 

We are talking about business.  Business needs roads, sidewalks, water, etc., the infrastructure of the community.  I do not pay taxes so that only one subset is allowed to make a purchase in a business.

 

Not only that, but it seems like a business that chooses to discriminate is making a really, really poor business decision. especially in a service oriented business.

 

I've had the experience, for the last three years, of having a child who wants a snake cake for her birthday. I also can now tell you, basically, what every single cake decorator in the Mid-South area thinks of snakes. It's pretty obvious when someone doesn't even want to look at a photo of your child's snake that they're not the person to make her cake.  It's also pretty obvious when someone is willing to do whatever it takes to make a special cake for a special occasion, (and who, if they dislike snakes, manage to hide it well). It is the latter person who gets the job-and who gets the recommendation when someone else asks for someone to make a cake for THEIR child's birthday party-even though the next party may require a pretty sparkling pony princess cake! 

 

How much more so when you're talking wedding cakes that cost 10-100x as much as my DD's birthday cakes do? It seems like the best business decision to make would be to make this couple's day as special as possible. 

[songsparrow]

I don't think they should have to be present at the event, sorry.

 

 

It is the nature of their business (which they chose to engage in) that requires their presence at the event.