Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess ignoring the fact that the people refused service for gay weddings, not gays in general. Are you saying people don't have the right to prefer traditional marriage or the choice not to participate in nontraditional ceremonies?
To clarify, I support a business's right to refuse service to anyone they want. I'm generally a person who wants less government involvement in our lives.
The OP question was why do Christians single gay people out? Why don't they also refuse to serve people who work on Sunday (by choice) - for instance - or a guy who says "Jesus Christ" in vein all of the time, or a guy who gambles and is divorced, or a guy who's known to worship idols, or a guy who doesn't honor his parents, etc?
Why do they single out the gays as the customer of choice to refuse, as if they are the only humans on the planet who sin?
Do they refuse service to Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Atheists?
ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Doesn't sound like a successful business model to me.
Or a gay bar refusing a heterosexual couple. I'd like them to have that freedom of choice. I'm pro-choice in that regard. I don't know how a gay would be discriminated against by eyesight alone though. Or any other sexual persuasion.
Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.
And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.
.
I haven't been to any gay bars so I wouldn't know. The point was hypothetical though. Two women with kids means they're gay? Seriously?Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.
And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.
You have a point about small towns though but has this been a problem?
Or a gay bar refusing a heterosexual couple. I'd like them to have that freedom of choice. I'm pro-choice in that regard. I don't know how a gay would be discriminated against by eyesight alone though. Or any other sexual persuasion.
Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.
And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.
.
Would a hetero couple want to be in a Gay Bar ?
I once walked into one by mistake - in 30 seconds I was late for the door
Did it open a can of worms when businesses could no longer have a "whites only" section? I don't think so.
I don't think this is a can of worms here...
So you're cool with someone being put in jail for refusing to service a gay wedding? Think carefully before you say yes, because you're also saying yes to jailing blacks that refuse to service a KKK event, of a Jew who refuses to service a Nazi event, should I go on?
Jail? No, of course not.
But do you understand my slippery slope concern? How can we protect a person like a cake builder who doesnt want to directly participate in a gay wedding while at the same time not open the doors to entire towns not serving gay people?
I don't understand how serving a gay guy a beer is "violating religious freedom", but I feel like this law is going to be abused to accommodate such a scenario.
I don't know the scope of the law but it isn't such a small matter. Anyone that does anything in the graphic or print world, sign making, invitations, etc. And any profession that could be asked to produce a gay theme of sorts.Are we passing this ENTIRE law just to protect cake makers from making gay cakes? Maybe it'll cover a handful of other wedding-related services?
I'm interested in this dialog; what are the other scenarios where doing business with a gay would 'threaten religious freedom', and the business owner can't already back out of the deal (like a photographer)?
I mentioned earlier, long before this state even had gay marriage, Canadian gays ganged up on a Seattle wedding invitation provider. A small business owned by a Christian lady that refused to offer them gay announcements.
Seattle had some "anti-discrimination" law that included sexual orientation. I heard the gays call in to a local talk show bragging about how they were piling on and causing her fine after fine after fine. That amy be OK with you but from I'm sitting that's sick, twisted and evil.
They could have gone to any number of other places but their intend is to intimidate, blackmail and force you out of business if you dare to not hold their RELATIONSHIPS in the same regard as the traditional men and women.
But every argument I've heard is in the wedding context whereas I think this law is going to be abused by non-wedding related businesses (like a bar, serving a man walking in). You know? Is there away we can also prevent that from occurring?
Jail? No, of course not.
But do you understand my slippery slope concern? How can we protect a person like a cake builder who doesnt want to directly participate in a gay wedding while at the same time not open the doors to entire towns not serving gay people?
I don't understand how serving a gay guy a beer is "violating religious freedom", but I feel like this law is going to be abused to accommodate such a scenario.
Anytime you use the force of law there is always a chance of being jailed and who would have thought the faghadist would be going after people with such zeal who don't agree with them. Gays have always had the same protections as everyone else, but that's not good enough, now they want special treatment for their sexual proclivities, they want to me more equal than other men or women.
In the context of this conversation, we're talking exclusively about gays not being treated equally. The cake person WILL make a cake for the straight couple, but WON'T make it for the gays. The bar WILL serve to a straight person, but WON'T serve the gays.
In the context of this conversation, it truly is a discussion about equal treatment and lack thereof...
There's a differnce between serving a homosexual and being forced to produce a homosexual themed product. Why is that so goddamned hard to understand?In the context of this conversation, we're talking exclusively about gays not being treated equally. The cake person WILL make a cake for the straight couple, but WON'T make it for the gays. The bar WILL serve to a straight person, but WON'T serve the gays.
In the context of this conversation, it truly is a discussion about equal treatment and lack thereof...
I understand, but my point was that gays want to be treated equally by businesses owners. Right? That's a fair statement.
If a cake maker says no to the gay couple and yes to the straight couple, that is unequal treatment, right?
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.I understand, but my point was that gays want to be treated equally by businesses owners. Right? That's a fair statement.
If a cake maker says no to the gay couple and yes to the straight couple, that is unequal treatment, right?
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?
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.
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...
Cecilie1200 said:No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.
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.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?
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.
First try it and find out if you like it or not. Seriously...Walk into a gay bar, pick up a gay person and have fun. I am thinking that all you homophobes were told it was bad and never attempted it.
Tell you what - you show me in the Bible where it says it is a sin to bake a cake for a gay person, and I'll change my mind.
Until then, I'm not buying into those who try to justify ignorance and hate with their "religion."
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.But feel free to spew the anecdotal to support your RIGHT to discriminate...
No, the first thing you need to learn is the English language, and the ability to discern different meanings and definitions of a word.
Discriminate
discriminate against:
1) to treat someone unfairly because of their religion, race, or other personal features
Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender.
discriminate between
2) to recognize the difference between things
It shouldn't need to be justified, period.I think a bar refusing to serve a gay customer is something very similar to a bar refusing to serve a black customer.
Neither can be justified on the grounds of exercising one's "religious freedom", either.
This is what I'm most concerned about when talking about this new bill.
I think a business should have to justify why they chose to not serve a black customer who has money, is being courteous, etc...
Don't you?
So here is what this law means righties.
A "Small Business Owner" in Arizona who is a Non-Christian, can deny service to a "Christian".
Thank you and good night.
Try thinking next time.
