Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[OKTexas]

If you are going to claim religious reasons prevent you from serving gays, then the courts should be able to reference your religious texts and make sure you do not serve ANY person who has participated in ANY prohibited activity.

If you served ONE person who has broken a single one of your religious tenets, then your "religious principles" defense is gone.

As a Christian, I detest those who have bastardized my faith to serve political purposes. There is NOTHING in the teachings of Jesus to defend actions like these. So yes, they should be discredited.

And what about the folks that just object because gay practices are unnatural?

 

[The T]

ANY business is a private enterprise and reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to ANYONE. Government needs to get their noses out of this.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Thank you RW bigots lol...

 

[KevinWestern]

ANY business is a private enterprise and reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to ANYONE. Government needs to get their noses out of this.

I dunno if that should always be the case. I don't think a business should be able to not sell a shirt to guy if he's black, or refuse to serve an interracial couple. I get where you're coming from, but me personally I'm ok with some restrictions here or there.

 

[Iceweasel]

And a Nazi couple may decide that a Jewish baker make them a Swastika cake. That would be equal too then. There is no right to a wedding cake of your choosing. You find someone willing to make it.

Hey I already said that I understand that perspective, however (I've asked this before) do you think this law is going to be abused in the sense gays will be refused restaurant service, bar service, etc in a manner that really has nothing to do with religious freedom anymore?

Are you concerned about that?

A law by definition can't be abused without legal repercussions. I'm not worried because a private enterprise should be allowed to decide what's right for them. I'm not sure how the sexual orientation figures into serving a gay person unless the gay person is asking for something specifically gay. I've answered that numerous times.

 

[buckeye45_73]

OP- Thank you RW bigots lol...

More wisdom from our favorite facist

 

[buckeye45_73]

Guys its only descrimination if liberals say so, they never have to abide by their laws and change their reasoning every few minutes. Its like their science, everything is bad for you and causes cancer, snf if you dont agree youre antiscience and stupid

 

[The T]

Would it be okay to force the lumberjack to cut down the tree that would crucify Christ? He didn't order the crucifixion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would it be okay to force the lumberjack to cut down the tree that would crucify Christ? He didn't order the crucifixion.

Pilate did that, and he wasn't the kind of man to ask for a show of hands or take no for an answer.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Constitution gives you that right to freely exercise your religion, not just worship where you want. It's clear you haven't actually read the Constitution lately, you might want to give it a try.

It is part of the Bill of Rights, and maybe you should do a little reading...

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Yes, never mind figuring out what the Constitution says by reading the Constitution. You should go read Wikipedia and have it tell you what the Constitution says.

Ohmigod, my sides literally hurt from laughing at this.

The WORDS and the ruling of Reynolds v. United States EXIST, regardless of your ignorant, non sequitur wiki rant. It IS the law of the land.

But feel free to spew the anecdotal to support your RIGHT to discriminate...

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

 

[Iceweasel]

Would it be okay to force the lumberjack to cut down the tree that would crucify Christ? He didn't order the crucifixion.

Pilate did that, and he wasn't the kind of man to ask for a show of hands or take no for an answer.

Bible scholar huh? All the translations I've read said he asked the Jewish leadership if he should let him go or crucify him.

 

[Iceweasel]

But feel free to spew the anecdotal to support your RIGHT to discriminate...

Business scholar huh? The first thing you learn in business is how to effectively discriminate. What to offer. What products and supplies to buy. What service to offer. What service to avoid, etc. But when a gay couple comes in we are supposed to grab our ankles.

 

[KevinWestern]

And a Nazi couple may decide that a Jewish baker make them a Swastika cake. That would be equal too then. There is no right to a wedding cake of your choosing. You find someone willing to make it.

Hey I already said that I understand that perspective, however (I've asked this before) do you think this law is going to be abused in the sense gays will be refused restaurant service, bar service, etc in a manner that really has nothing to do with religious freedom anymore?

Are you concerned about that?

A law by definition can't be abused without legal repercussions. I'm not worried because a private enterprise should be allowed to decide what's right for them. I'm not sure how the sexual orientation figures into serving a gay person unless the gay person is asking for something specifically gay. I've answered that numerous times.

And again (back to the OP), my original question was are Christians (using that term in a very general way) as diligent in refusing business to someone who is remarrying? When you take a vow ("till death do you part") before God, and then try to marry someone else, essentially you are committing adultery. I grew up Catholic and this is what we were taught.

My point is, why are all sins treated equally, or are gays getting singled out unfairly here?

I see Christians breaking laws scribed out in the Ten Commandments all of the time, without hesitation, but when it comes to discussing a gay person they'll dig up obscure passages, etc, and point out how they're not living by the book. You know what I mean?

Not trying to play games here, as I think that's a valid observation.

 

[Iceweasel]

And again (back to the OP), my original question was are Christians (using that term in a very general way) as diligent in refusing business to someone who is remarrying? When you take a vow ("till death do you part") before God, and then try to marry someone else, essentially you are committing adultery. I grew up Catholic and this is what we were taught.

My point is, why are all sins treated equally, or are gays getting singled out unfairly here?

I see Christians breaking laws scribed out in the Ten Commandments all of the time, without hesitation, but when it comes to discussing a gay person they'll dig up obscure passages, etc, and point out how they're not living by the book. You know what I mean?

Not trying to play games here, as I think that's a valid observation.

I'm not religious. However, Christians are not bound by OT laws but most do see homosexuality as a sin since it's been given press in the NT. I agree that there is a picking and choosing in any demonination but it shouldn't be up to somebody else to decide what someone's values should be. That's my point.

 

[KevinWestern]

And again (back to the OP), my original question was are Christians (using that term in a very general way) as diligent in refusing business to someone who is remarrying? When you take a vow ("till death do you part") before God, and then try to marry someone else, essentially you are committing adultery. I grew up Catholic and this is what we were taught.

My point is, why are all sins treated equally, or are gays getting singled out unfairly here?

I see Christians breaking laws scribed out in the Ten Commandments all of the time, without hesitation, but when it comes to discussing a gay person they'll dig up obscure passages, etc, and point out how they're not living by the book. You know what I mean?

Not trying to play games here, as I think that's a valid observation.

I'm not religious. However, Christians are not bound by OT laws but most do see homosexuality as a sin since it's been given press in the NT. I agree that there is a picking and choosing in any demonination but it shouldn't be up to somebody else to decide what someone's values should be. That's my point.

Oh again - totally in agreement with you. And wasn't trying to change the subject there or anything (as that idea was outlined in my OP). This is more of a religious question to the Christian group (vs a question about the law itself): do you think the intense media coverage (on both sides of the issue, of course) has thrown the scales in a way that "gay sins" are attracting much more focus (and thus hold more weight) than some of the less covered sins (like divorce, not honoring parents, lying, etc).

Is it hypocritical to not build a cake for a gay customer but at the same time build a cake for someone you know who has been divorced and is getting remarried (and is obviously breaking his/her original vows that were said BEFORE GOD)? Breaking vows said before God has to count for something, right?

That's probably what I should have been asking from the get-go...

 

[Iceweasel]

Is it hypocritical to not build a cake for a gay customer but at the same time build a cake for someone you know who has been divorced and is getting remarried (and is obviously breaking his/her original vows that were said BEFORE GOD)? Breaking vows said before God has to count for something, right?

That's probably what I should have been asking from the get-go...

Well, I was a Christian for many years and went to many churches so feel somewhat qualified to answer that. Technically you are right. However, women aren't made to wear head coverings either and any number of things. Christianity, unlike Islam, has and does adapt to the times under the freedom under Jesus thing. The NT is not law.

Remarriage probably isn't as controversial because it doesn't change the 'male/female made by God for a reason' dynamics with remarriage accomodating an imperfect world.

 

[KevinWestern]

Is it hypocritical to not build a cake for a gay customer but at the same time build a cake for someone you know who has been divorced and is getting remarried (and is obviously breaking his/her original vows that were said BEFORE GOD)? Breaking vows said before God has to count for something, right?

That's probably what I should have been asking from the get-go...

Well, I was a Christian for many years and went to many churches so feel somewhat qualified to answer that. Technically you are right. However, women aren't made to wear head coverings either and any number of things. Christianity, unlike Islam, has and does adapt to the times under the freedom under Jesus thing. The NT is not law.

Remarriage probably isn't as controversial because it doesn't change the 'male/female made by God for a reason' dynamics with remarriage accomodating an imperfect world.

That's a sincere answer and I appreciate it.

My point of view is that sometimes I see Christians (again, generally speaking of course – not all Christians) focus unevenly on the gay community (and the sins that come with that lifestyle) because they’re an easy target. They’re different, they’re separate, and ‘what I say and do against them will have no impact on me’.

It’s really easy (as a straight Christian) to condemn a gay for his/her lifestyle but will always be more difficult to condemn someone who is divorced, or someone who uses the Lord’s name in vain, or someone who doesn’t honor his/her parents, or someone who lies from time to time, or someone who covets his/her neighbors wife (which are all DIRECT commandments from God) because that would force the person to possibly have to reexamine his/her OWN life – you know?

I totally understand that there’s a Bible, and that people life their lives according to it (and should be able to do so in America), but it irks me to death when I see individuals throw that Bible at the gays and then give themselves free passes on sins that arguably hold just as significant of a weight (ie the Ten Commandments are pretty serious, right?). And I'm not talking about people messing up from time to time, I'm talking about people willfully committing these sins in the open and being completely OK with it.

That’s hypocritical to me, and insincere. I hear many calls to block gay marriage from being legalized, but not a SINGLE call from the Christians to make remarriage illegal too. Yes, I get the point about the perceived unnaturalness of the whole thing, but isn't breaking a direct vow before God just as freakin' serious?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would it be okay to force the lumberjack to cut down the tree that would crucify Christ? He didn't order the crucifixion.

Pilate did that, and he wasn't the kind of man to ask for a show of hands or take no for an answer.

Bible scholar huh? All the translations I've read said he asked the Jewish leadership if he should let him go or crucify him.

Yes, and that was untrue. Pilate was a brutal man, he didn't ask for advice, and he executed insurrectionists, lots of them, without trial, on the cross.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And again (back to the OP), my original question was are Christians (using that term in a very general way) as diligent in refusing business to someone who is remarrying? When you take a vow ("till death do you part") before God, and then try to marry someone else, essentially you are committing adultery. I grew up Catholic and this is what we were taught.

My point is, why are all sins treated equally, or are gays getting singled out unfairly here?

I see Christians breaking laws scribed out in the Ten Commandments all of the time, without hesitation, but when it comes to discussing a gay person they'll dig up obscure passages, etc, and point out how they're not living by the book. You know what I mean?

Not trying to play games here, as I think that's a valid observation.

I'm not religious. However, Christians are not bound by OT laws but most do see homosexuality as a sin since it's been given press in the NT. I agree that there is a picking and choosing in any demonination but it shouldn't be up to somebody else to decide what someone's values should be. That's my point.

You get to picks values, faiths get to pick values, and society gets to pick values. One of our values, in the public square, is equality. When you do business there, our values come first.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Would it be okay to force the lumberjack to cut down the tree that would crucify Christ? He didn't order the crucifixion.

Pilate did that, and he wasn't the kind of man to ask for a show of hands or take no for an answer.

yes, crucifixion was a Roman punishment. Only a Roman authority could order it.