- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 12,050
- Location
- Over the edge...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Everybody has an opinion, that does not make reality.I've said for some time now that a lot of the emotional impetus behind the gay movement is a kind of attempt to Make Daddy Love Me.
Paranoia and fear of what you hate.They will eventually start targeting the non-explicitly religiously-oriented activities of Churches, too, it's just inherent in the movement.
You mean bigotry, because there is no other reason to discriminate.As for me :shrug: I think I'd rather go to jail than violate my religious precepts.
We still care just as much about religious freedom, we are just no longer willing to tolerate bigotry and discrimination which has nothing to do with religious freedom.Once upon a time even liberal Democrats (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) cared about individual religious liberty.
Yea, just as much.Now, apparently, not so much.
This is obviously in reaction to the case in Colorado where a court ordered a bakery to support a gay wedding against the owners religious beliefs.
On the subject of the OP I pointed out how CNN misrepresented the law and then pointed out how you excused that with the typical "Oh yeah, what about FOX" line. That is what I have done here.
Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked aboutForcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.
Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.
His religious beliefs allow him to "support" a wedding for dogs, but not for a gay couple?
Pretty sure this is a political conviction and personal bias against gays rather than real religious objections. The religious objection thing is an excuse.
Everybody has an opinion, that does not make reality.
Paranoia and fear of what you hate.
You mean bigotry, because there is no other reason to discriminate.
We still care just as much about religious freedom, we are just no longer willing to tolerate bigotry and discrimination which has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve blacks?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve interracial couples?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve Jews?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve interfaith couples?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve someone that is divorced?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith for their religion and not serve a customer who is disabled and has a service dog?
>>>>
:shrug: if you are discussing questions of should, then I think people should have the freedom of contract with whomever they choose. If (for example) a Catholic does not wish to support the wedding of a multiple-divorcee millionaire marrying his latest 24 year old trophy wife :shrug: I think he has the right to do so.
Great way to maintain a civil society - NOT!
How is that even possible?but for me to support a gay wedding would be making an implicit statement of principles on the question of marriage that I do not agree with.
Except that is not the case here.It is wrong to force people to violate their religious ideals.
Yes, that is why people oppose discrimination, because they do not want equal rights.And you don't really want equal rights for gays.
No you do not get it. I am against allowing the use of the vail of religious freedom as a tool of discrimination. First and foremost it is a lie as such acts have NOTHING to do with one's personal faith. Second, they denigrate the meaning of Christianity, both by perpetuation such a lie and by acting the exact opposite of how Christ did who came into this world for the sinners and openly welcomed them to His table.So you still care just as much about religious freedom except that you are no longer willing to allow people to exercise that freedom in ways that you find distasteful, or of which you disapprove. Got it.
:shrug: if you are discussing questions of should, then I think people should have the freedom of contract with whomever they choose. If (for example) a Catholic does not wish to support the wedding of a multiple-divorcee millionaire marrying his latest 24 year old trophy wife :shrug: I think he has the right to do so.
How is that even possible?
Except that is not the case here.
Yes, that is why people oppose discrimination, because they do not want equal rights.
Thank you for the honesty, and in a way we are kindred spirits then because I also support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses (but they should be maintained for the dealings of government entities).
My fundamental disagreement with the bill is it creates a group that gains "special rights" (you know those thing many claim "the gheys" are asking for) which exempt them from the law and grant them special privileges to discriminate by hiding behind the curtain of religion.
Most claim to be for smaller more limited government, for freedom and liberty - but when asked those pointed questions the answer is commonly (and I paraphrase) - "Oh no, those laws are OK. It is a good thing for the government to prevent discrimination against them." Big government hypocrites. They don't mind big government dictating the lives of individuals as long as it's not their ox being gored.
Your honestly is a breath of fresh air.
>>>>
Is that your defense for bigotry? If you are a Christian act like Christ did instead of making empty claims.I am a Christian.
Actually it is not and you are unable to make a case for why or how making a cake for a gay wedding compromises your faith.In fact it is.
I am not trying to decide what your faith is, you made it clear what you call it. You may also note that there is really no mystery about Christianity is all about, but you are attempting to change that to mean that it includes bigotry. It does not and never did.One of the points about religious freedom is that you do not get to decide what others' faiths will be or include.
Yea, but again, you did no claim nor did the bigoted proponents of this law to be followers of some obscure religion that no one really understands, not that that would make it acceptable, but it was the pretense of following Christianity and that is laughable.The point being that just as you think that is is stupid for someone not to take you at face value when you state what you believe and what you are pursuing, it is stupid of you to refuse to do the same for others.
But this post reeks of bigotry.Your honestly is a breath of fresh air.
But this post reeks of bigotry.
Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked aboutForcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.
Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.
How exactly is your faith violated on one specific sin and not another? Are all other sins less egregious or does your faith allow you to pick and choose degree of sin?
Where in your faith does it say not to bake a cake for a sinner? Where in your faith does it say to shun business from sinners...or some sinners over others?
The use of the calim of faith or religion needs clairification to be held paramount over Constitutional law
Is that your defense for bigotry? If you are a Christian act like Christ did instead of making empty claims.
Actually it is not and you are unable to make a case for why or how making a cake for a gay wedding compromises your faith.
I am not trying to decide what your faith is, you made it clear what you call it.
You may also note that there is really no mystery about Christianity is all about, but you are attempting to change that to mean that it includes bigotry. It does not and never did.
Yea, but again, you did no claim nor did the bigoted proponents of this law to be followers of some obscure religion that no one really understands, not that that would make it acceptable, but it was the pretense of following Christianity and that is laughable.
And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.
I do wonder though why people get so pissy about such things. It would have been interesting to see someone turn down my grandparents for a cake because they wanted it to say something like "50 years Chuck and Bill" on it and it was either ordered over the phone or by only my grandfather or perhaps one of us younger ones.
It's not the baking of the cake - it's the taking part in, the support of, the ceremony. No one should force you to celebrate that which you morally disapprove of, and no one should force you to violate your beliefs because people can't stand it when you don't celebrate what you morally approve of.
Freedom of Conscience IS Constitutional Law! It's the First Amendment, for crying out loud.
The topic of my discussion was refusal of service on what grounds. Not the act of celebrating.
A baker does not celebrate any of the occasions he bakes a cake for. His business is baking cakes. The question is not celebrating the occasion, it is whether his belief allows him to refuse service to a class of people. A class of people he chose not to serve.
Freedom of Conscience does not need to be listed as a right to uphold, because that right...like the right to self defense and marriage pre-dates the US Constitution.
You have freedom to believe as you wish. The question is whether your belief is pararmount over other's rights.
No right is sacroscant over another just as no religion is sacrocant over another.
If your claim is that your faith is in your head[Freedom of Conscience] and that should be sufficient to act as you will, that might be sufficient to your God[whatever that may be], but I don't think that is sufficient justification in a court of law in the US.
If someone comes before the court with a claim of "religious exemption", then they should - at least- have something written down so that all can all follow along with the defense. To tell the judge..."it's all in my head Judge"...I don't think will go over very well in court.
In this case, the service being provided is part of a celebration. If a Baker does not wish to take part in a gay wedding via his or her work, that is his or her right.
No - it is for an event.
The Right of Religious Conscience does indeed pre-date the Constitution, but it is there that it was firsts enshrined into written law.
Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have a right to force other people to support your wedding. You do not have a right to force other people to bake a cake for you. You do not have a right to force other people to let you use their space. You do not have a right to other people's stuff or their labor.
On the contrary - if any of our rights is more Sacrosanct, it is religious freedom; which played not a little role in the founding of this country.
Sure. and if you think you should get married then that should be sufficient to act as you will, and let me act as I will.
Christianity is pretty clear on the nature of marriage and the nature of homosexuality. That being said, we live in a country where each individual is free to define their own faith, and we make pretty great allowance for those who wish to follow it - which is why we allow people to opt out of the Draft, or Social Security on that basis.
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?