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.
No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.
We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.
It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?
Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?
Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.
We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.
Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.
All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.
They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.
We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.
Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.
All of our armchair quarterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.
They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.
We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.
Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.
All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.
They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.
Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.
So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>
We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.
Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.
All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.
They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.
Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.
So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>
It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.
He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.
But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.
Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.
So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>
It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.
He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.
But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.
I'm sorry, but you are legally mistaken. The location of the discrimination when the business model calls for on-site services makes no difference as the NM case points out.
A Plumber can no more refuse to unclog the Jewish persons toilet in their home, based on religion, then they can refuse to someone a toilet wax ring in their storefront.
The solution is not defining "special privileges" that people can claim on morality/convictions/faith, the solution is true freedom and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses in general.
>>>>
who pulled Cecilie1200's cord
who pulled Cecilie1200's cord
I think Cecille yanks his own cord.
No that is not how the Lord came to me, but for some people in this world sadly, what needs to be said can not be sugar coated. It needs to be said flat out.Agreed but do you convince someone they are in jeopardy of eternal damnation by beating them over the head and screaming at them, "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL". Is that what Jesus did? Is that the way Christ came to you?People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
Immie
I never had to take one because I graduated with the rest of my class back in 2000.Let me guess...fail you're GED?What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
Amen to what you say here, QW. If I were on a road that only led to a dead end and drove past people who knew it, I would very much appreciate it if they had given me the heads up that anyone in my position would like to have had.Going the homosexual route is not Christ like.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
No, it is not, but put two gay men in the place of the adulteress brought to Christ to be stoned. If they were brought to him do you really think Jesus would have cast the first stone rather than tell those around him, "Ye without sin cast the first stone", knowing full well none of them would?
I know you have the right answer to that. Jesus would have done the same thing he did with the adulteress. Once the crowd broke up he would have said, "go and sin no more".
Immie
Yes, but the modern gay couple would sue him for not accepting them as they are, and win in court. As a Christian, I cannot watch them in sin and not warn them of the consequences, not should I be forced to accommodate their behavior simply because I own a business.
That does not mean the state should be judging them as long as they are not harming anyone else. It just means I should have the freedom to believe what I want, just like they insist they want.
who pulled Cecilie1200's cord
I think Cecille yanks his own cord.
His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?
People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
Agreed but do you convince someone they are in jeopardy of eternal damnation by beating them over the head and screaming at them, "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL". Is that what Jesus did? Is that the way Christ came to you?
Immie
What did Jesus do when people refused to repent? I can find plenty of examples of him insulting people, berating them, and even resorting to physical violence. Just a thought, perhaps you should think about the side of Jesus that took a scourge to make his point rather than telling others what Jesus wouldn't do.
It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?
Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.
I don't know how people can so consistently miss this point.Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.
Not all Christians agree with you AND with the Loving v. Virginia case, Christianity and the bible was used to argue for keeping the different races from legally marrying. 50 years from now, what do you think your christianity's position will be on gay marriage?
Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.
We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.
It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?
Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.
That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.
The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.
The legal logic is what is in question.
Now remembering that this is based on religious convitions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.
Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.
If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.
If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions. It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".
>>>>
