Because it would require physical coercion of a person. And mental coercion for that matter.
In my mind, sex without consent is unacceptable.
It almost makes me wish that the OP was forced to sell the cake and then forced to have sex with a disease ridden prostitute and then reconsider
This is true. When the state licenses a business enterprise, such as prostitution in Nevada, that business enterprise must be governed by all the public accommodation laws in place.
If you are going to allow discrimination against religion you might as well allow racism. Power to the people! Huh?
Why do you keep saying I have not answered the question, when I very clearly have?
where the **** was he making death threats?
oh yes i'm responsible for every moron's probably joking tweets about burning down a craphole pizza place in middle of nowhere and that *definitely* applies to everyone who opposes "RFRA"
No, I don't care what someone feels. I care about equal rights. Which, because men aren't angels, need to be protected by legislation.
Only the christian victimhood complex could come up with such insane hyperbole. Selling a cake to a homosexual is not the same thing as being forced to have sex with someone. I wish that you had at least an ounce of shame and you should be embarrassed for making such a comparison.
These questions are not as ridiculous as you seem to think they are. They are legitimately asking where the line is. Of course the examples are extreme, but the premise is valid.I've also been asked if I should have to do business with a pedophile, a Nazi, a puppy beater, someone in the act of committing bestiality, etc. If these threads go on for much longer someone will demand to know whether a deli should be forced to make a sandwich for a time-traveling, cyborg Nazi alien.
I mentioned this in my first post that I was not 100 % sure, but that I saw reference(I forget where now) to them being considered private clubs. Still a business, still licensed, but not a public accommodation. I did make it a point to also answer with the assumption that it was a public accommodation, so I answered both ways essentially.
These questions are not as ridiculous as you seem to think they are. They are legitimately asking where the line is. Of course the examples are extreme, but the premise is valid.
I'll rephrase the OP's question in simpler and less absurd terms: Where is the line?
Please, be specific and/or give examples.
only one of us is getting all bent out of shape and it's not me...
"however gently" :lol:.. please dude, don't be dishonest... none of you anti-christian bigots are "gentle".
from time to time, everybody has thin skin.... and everybody always wishes thier "enemy" should just shut up or disappear
you're not special... you've got thin skin from time to time as well... and we certianly know you want Chrsitian to remove themselves from society... you've stated as much.
yes, I am...
you forgot to answer the question....
I don't know either, but the thought of a bakery with no yeast in it is kinda comical. Leavening has to be not just left out of all recipes, it has to be removed from the premises, completely. Leavening is representative of sin.
Wait...you were being serious???
And here comes the EXACT kind of defensiveness that I have grown used to from you conservative Christians. Like clockwork.
You know why you (plural) are so defensive? Because you. Have. No. Faith. You may have belief, but you do not have faith. If you had faith in God as described by the Bible and interpreted by most Christian denominations, if you had faith in whom you profess to be Lord of the Universe, who could instantly knock the planet Earth halfway across the galaxy in a blink of an eye, you would be able to do what Jesus did and shrug everything off your shoulders, because God would take care of us in the end. But you rely on your own powers, not God's powers, to boost yourselves up. You have no faith.
Oh, and another thing. You just gave false testimony against your neighbor. You just broke the Ninth Commandment. Now why the hell should we listen to someone who can't even follow his own rules, let alone try to make laws and statutes out of those rules?
No faith, and full of lies. The Bible is very clear as to what happens to people with those attributes.
Your question was either a meaningless hypothetical or a strawman. I answered them already with questions of my own; anyone whose mind is open would have instantly recognized that my questions were rhetorical. Geez you conservative Christians are defensive...
I doubt I will see a more inaccurate and off the marl post today.
An atheist telling a Christian he has no faith.
Oh sweet irony, the muse of illiteracy
Such hate!
Notice ladies and gentlemen we cannot simply have "Christians" engaging in hyperbole, they have to be "the christian victimhood complex"...
Death threats, a call top arson, the forced closure of a family business.....nothing stops the Amerikan "liberal" from demeaning and degrading other Americans.
And while we're at it I need to add the topic is rather ridiculous, but no more so than 80% of the socialist hate that's being posted on this topic.
FFS, Germany, France, Canada, Britain, Australia and others have all settled this a long time ago without death threats. So much hate......
Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winnersHere's the thing: I didn't support the original Indiana law. I am both a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible prohibits serving a same-sex wedding and a vocal LGBT rights supporter who has blasted laws similar to Indiana's for fear that they could provide legal protection to those who discriminate against gay people.
But I'm starting to wonder: who needs the protection here?
Prove it. Prove that what I said was wrong. No ridiculous strawmen or ad hominems. Logic. Use it.
Protip: Resorting to childish insults in your first reply to someone is not the winning tactic that you apparently believe it is.
Moderator's Warning: |
Because you have not. You have attempted to avoid the issue at question by bringing up and answering other questions instead. Should the State have the right to force women to have sex with men (or women) they do not want to against their will, if doing so is what is necessary to enforce anti-discrimination law. You are attempting to shift to "well it may be a private club" or "well, maybe the prostitute is a private contractor" etc. in order to try to avoid answering that question.
This is true. When the state licenses a business enterprise, such as prostitution in Nevada, that business enterprise must be governed by all the public accommodation laws in place.
Well it seems we have an honest man.
If Sally cannot reasonably serve a substantial part of the public, she should not own or be working in a public business where that is required.
Just like the Muslim woman at Target who did not want to handle pork. Then she should not have taken that job.
If Sally will not comply with the business regulations of the state, her license for that business should be revoked or her boss should fire her. Or stick her in the office to do paperwork or other tasks required for that business.
How is that necessarily different from any other enforcement of discrimination law, in which you both physicaly coerce the actions of the individual and are willing to override potential mental anguish when doing so?
I think that's the nugget, and I think it's what is informing most of this debate. People are reacting to what they find unacceptable, rather than seeking to formulate and follow consistent rules that would apply to all scenarios.
I guess that would have to be right. I think you can see the analogy I was trying to make. Should a Muslim demand a Jewish Baker sell them certain goods that may be against their religious beliefs?
Such anger in so called liberals...
protip.....strawman is the weakest argument.
Please read a business license and don't get back to me.
And how is this substantially different? It was posted early in the thread.
So early that it might have reduced the opportunities to "discuss" your point of view with dissenters?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?