- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 110,831
- Reaction score
- 64,793
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Would you agree, though, that government policy can influence societal attitudes to some degree?
Interesting concept: That it's not just the business OWNER perpetuating unwarranted racial discrimination, but rather, he's just reflecting the societal attitude at the time. "I'm not shopping there because those OTHER people shop there!" A pretty crummy take on life, no doubt.
But I stand by my earlier statement that GOVERNMENT is not the solution to this problem. All government can do is threaten people with forceful prosecution and punishment. Regardless of how crummy and stupid some people act (some still do), you cannot "fix" that with further violence and threats theretofore. Societal attitudes must change, and that has to come from within.
It's like when the U.S. military invaded Iraq, with the goal of ending thousands of years of tribal conflicts and instilling a love of democracy and rule of law. It didn't work. You can't force an entire society to change its attitude.
How many times have "armed policemen" shown up to a bakery?
Do people really have parties to celebrate an adoption or have cake at baby showers?
i dont understand the issue with the gay wedding cake,if a gay couple walked in and wanted on,i would say its gonna be x amount,if they say yeah i take an already premade cake rip the bride off it and add another groom figurine,easy money.
It happens. Business can and do get sued by "offended" customers and potential customers. Even if the business "wins" the lawsuit, they're out big bucks for legal fees. And if they lose the lawsuit, yes they will be compelled at gunpoint to do what the government demands (if they want to remain in business).
It happens on the employment front, also. Just recently, a woman sued Abercrombie & Fitch for not hiring her because she wore a head scarf, which didn't match A&F's image. Now we can argue all day about WHY A&F chose not to hire her, but the bottom line is that government BUREAUCRATS overrode the hiring manger's decision and decreed who shall be an A&F employee. Is that really what we want?
It's not difficult to understand my position. We all know that homosexual marriage is considered sacrilege in many faiths, but to my knowledge there is nothing written in any religious scriptures about who can and can not raise a child that has no family. Therefore to not serve such an event would be a case of discrimination, not a violation of someone's religious tenets.
It's not difficult to understand my position. We all know that homosexual marriage is considered sacrilege in many faiths, but to my knowledge there is nothing written in any religious scriptures about who can and can not raise a child that has no family. Therefore to not serve such an event would be a case of discrimination, not a violation of someone's religious tenets.
1.)Most of you are aware of the case about the Christian shop owners that didn't want to server the gay couple on religious grounds, but for those that support the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on gender preference, is there any justification in your mind for turning away a paying customer?
2.) What if the shop owners were Jewish cake makers and they were asked to bake a cake celebrating the anniversary of the holocaust? I mean certainly, while a vile thing to do, is still protected under law. Should the shop owners, in this case, be forced to bake the cake?
The reason I ask the question isn't meant to support what I believe, but to provoke thought.
Honestly I'm most interested in those that think the answer to the religious example is yes, but of course everyone is welcome to answer.
Would you agree, though, that government policy can influence societal attitudes to some degree?
This topic again...
My view remains the same. A business can not refuse service to someone, when doing so violates anti-discrimination laws. In the case of a baker who refuses to provide a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony on religious grounds, that is not refusing to serve gay people. That is refusing to provide a service for or take part in, an event that violates the tenets of their religion.
It is not refusing to serve gay people, it's refusing to cater to an event that's sacrilegious to their beliefs.
Personally, I think it's stupid for any business to say no to a paying customer, but it's their religion and their choice...
There are plenty of people who consider same sex couples raising children to be a violation of their religious beliefs, particularly if the child is the result of IVF or surrogacy or sperm donation. Some consider homosexuals raising children to be worse than same sex couples getting married.
My religious beliefs dictate that having forums avatars with dogs in them is sacrilege.
And I really don't think the government should be deciding something like "Christianity counts as a religion, but Deuceism doesn't."
and that claim as already been shown to be false and illogical
It isn't false, I don't care what you or anyone else says.
That may be their personal belief, but it sure isn't based on any religious text I've ever heard of.
Is that the worship of taking a dump? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Seriously though, show me the religious text of yours that's been around for thousands of years, then we can continue this conversation.
They should bake and decorate the cake.What if the shop owners were Jewish cake makers and they were asked to bake a cake celebrating the anniversary of the holocaust?
sarcasm?
you do realize that every wedding cake i have ever seen is not bought off the shelf....right?
it is a huge business.....and very lucrative for some shops
while i applaud your optimism, history tells us that wrongdoing can and will be perpetuated without the backing of the government to change things
to wit
View attachment 67185137
View attachment 67185138
it is infact discrimination against gays and tenets of religion doesnt matter to illegal discrimitinion
1.)Sorry
2.), but just because a judge said so, doesn't make it discrimination on a moral level.
3.) It used to be that America was a country that respected a persons religious values and beliefs, but that is slowly being extinguished, just as so many other things that set America apart from the rest of the world.
Most of you are aware of the case about the Christian shop owners that didn't want to server the gay couple on religious grounds, but for those that support the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on gender preference, is there any justification in your mind for turning away a paying customer?
What if the shop owners were Jewish cake makers and they were asked to bake a cake celebrating the anniversary of the holocaust? I mean certainly, while a vile thing to do, is still protected under law. Should the shop owners, in this case, be forced to bake the cake?
The reason I ask the question isn't meant to support what I believe, but to provoke thought.
Honestly I'm most interested in those that think the answer to the religious example is yes, but of course everyone is welcome to answer.
1.) you dont have to apologize for being wrong its ok
2.) when did i say anything about morals LOL oh thats right i didnt. morals dont matter to this topic
3.) this is just meaningless subjective opinion from you that also doesnt impact the reality that your earlier identified statement as wrong.
act remains it is discrimination against gays and tenets of religion doesnt matter to illegal discrimination
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?