Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[NYcarbineer]

In the schizophrenic's mind, they are not mentally ill.
In the homosexaul's mind they are not mentally ill.

Do we build a fantasy world for schizophrenics? No!
Why should we make special laws that create a fantasy world for homosexuals?

Is it legal to refuse to sell baked goods to a person who's been diagnosed with a mental illness?

LOLOL

So you are challenged to produce an example of that having happened, you FAIL MISERABLY to do so, and still feel entitled to project as truth, that which YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO BE FALSE.

Your post has nothing to do with my post.

False... you see as a contributor to this open forum, you offered a public profession, which was judged by the evidence set forth by you, that your personal position was false, that you MUST HAVE reasonably known it to be false, and this in no way precluded you from advising the reader that such was TRUE.

Demonstrating ONCE AGAIN that you are a person who is not worthy of the Reader's trust.

I am the one who pointed that out, ergo: you post is intrinsic to my post.

But... in fairness to you, as a member of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, THERE WAS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!

I asked the other poster if it's legal to refuse to sell baked goods to a person diagnosed as mentally ill.

Would YOU like to help him answer the question?

Or do you both concede its rhetorical point?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game

It’s firmly in the Christian ethos to identify as being persecuted. Jesus stood up to the establishment and was tortured and murdered for it. To be a Christian is to worship a martyr.


So it’s been easy for America’s religious leaders/politicians to convince the devout they too are under assault. That in a country of 300 million, where the vast majority identify as Christian, where there’s never been a non-Christian president, where crosses are as ubiquitous as trees—Christians are being victimized for their convictions. That the almost entirely unanimously self-identified Christian government is going to suddenly go all ancient Rome on the followers of Jesus Christ.


It’s a way believers get manipulated. It makes them malleable and willing to go along with any hysteria that flares up. This week it’s religious freedom. If you listen to those sending out emails asking for donations—it’s under attack!!


How are Christians being attacked? How are their rights being diminished? Apparently if they own a business they’re being forced by Big Government to serve homosexuals. This is what oppression looks like: owning a business and making money off people your religion condemns. GASP! [...]

Apparently, American Christians are now being told liberty is a zero-sum game. That if LGBTs have more rights, Christians then have fewer; if homosexuals are equal, then Christians are second-class citizens; the more for a minority, the less for the majority. They’re being told the most important part of their faith isn’t charity to all—it’s ostracization for some.

Slavery is in the Bible. There are even instructions on how to treat one’s slaves. Slavery is not legal—and even the most devout can’t own any human beings. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Segregation was fueled by the belief that black people had the mark of Cain. Segregation is not legal. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Mutilations for punishments are abundant in the Bible for various crimes including theft and being a prostitute. This has been a practice of the Christian World for ages. The Eighth Amendment barred them; they are illegal. Are Christians less free?

No, and no one would dare to make that argument. Those battles have been won. American Christians live with a secular government that “forces” them to not live biblically every day and largely they’re fine with it.


But homosexuality is an abomination—an affront to god—according to the Bible, you say?


Usury is condemned as an abomination in the Bible. Charging interest is legal—even egregious amounts to poor people. These moneychangers are on every corner. Are Christians being threatened by this offense to god?

There are plenty of other abominations which are suspiciously glossed over by the modern faithful, like obesity, not covering your head, wearing wool blends, eating shellfish, being rich—all condemned and punished severely in the Christian Bible. None of them are against the law. Christians don’t claim their freedom is being impeded by these facts or that it’s so offensive to their faith they can’t run a business. [...]

Freedom really means others will be tolerated whom you don’t regard, understand or agree with. That’s the downside of having freedom in a free county—Americans you don’t like have it too.​

Gays being treated equally and having the same protections in a few states that Christians have in all 50 states, does not equate to "Christian Persecution".

The same goes for minorities. Its the same zero sum bullshit like whites are losing rights because someone cant openly discrimate

One doesn't 'lose rights'... but as the framer's understood, the problem comes when power precludes the means to exercise one's rights.

And where the power of government, entertains lawsuits which set the right of an individual to not participate in abhorrent behavior, the individual therefore LOSES THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT.

It's not a complex equation, just sufficiently so to be beyond your means to negotiate.

Individuals don't get to decide what is or is not 'abhorrent' under the law.

(Reader... the above cited would-be contribution, is yet another example of why:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!

You see, Nature precludes the means for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

It simply cannot be done.)​

So if you decide that paying your taxes is 'abhorrent', you can claim that as an exemption to paying them?

Explain how that would work.

Well it works like this: You set forth your case, declare the principles and greivances at issue and wait for the powers that be to come and check you, at which point you defend yourself within the scope of your stated principles.

See: The Founding of the United States: 1775-1793

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the schizophrenic's mind, they are not mentally ill.
In the homosexaul's mind they are not mentally ill.

Do we build a fantasy world for schizophrenics? No!
Why should we make special laws that create a fantasy world for homosexuals?

So, are you really asserting that homosexuals are mentally ill? Really?

Of course they aren't.

All human behaviors exists on a continuum

Just because a very small percentage prefer the same sex is no big deal there have always and I do mean always been people who are homosexual.

And there always will be.

The single most important justification for denying rights to a particular group of citizens is the ability to prove that their exercise of that right causes sufficient harm to society to warrant denying it.

Homosexuals getting married does not. Homosexuals buying cake does not.

 

[Conservative65]

Still going on over some damn cake, flowers and pizza. I mean my GAWD.

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In the schizophrenic's mind, they are not mentally ill.
In the homosexaul's mind they are not mentally ill.

Do we build a fantasy world for schizophrenics? No!
Why should we make special laws that create a fantasy world for homosexuals?

Is it legal to refuse to sell baked goods to a person who's been diagnosed with a mental illness?

LOLOL

So you are challenged to produce an example of that having happened, you FAIL MISERABLY to do so, and still feel entitled to project as truth, that which YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO BE FALSE.

Your post has nothing to do with my post.

False... you see as a contributor to this open forum, you offered a public profession, which was judged by the evidence set forth by you, that your personal position was false, that you MUST HAVE reasonably known it to be false, and this in no way precluded you from advising the reader that such was TRUE.

Demonstrating ONCE AGAIN that you are a person who is not worthy of the Reader's trust.

I am the one who pointed that out, ergo: you post is intrinsic to my post.

But... in fairness to you, as a member of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, THERE WAS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!

I asked the other poster if it's legal to refuse to sell baked goods to a person diagnosed as mentally ill.

Would YOU like to help him answer the question?

Or do you both concede its rhetorical point?

LOL!

Gilligan, this is a text forum. That means that every word exchanged is issued IN WRITING. The record is therefore clear and present.

I'll leave it to the Reader to decide for themselves.

(Reader, for decades the Left has had some remarkable success in denying their own words... "I didn't say that", has been their chronic refrain. It works wonderfully for the short attention span common to their constituency... but not so much on the Message Board. Which is why the Left is quickly abandoning these vehicles... they simply have no means to prevail once Americans find the board and through their presence, begins to erase the basis of their common delusion.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The same goes for minorities. Its the same zero sum bullshit like whites are losing rights because someone cant openly discrimate

One doesn't 'lose rights'... but as the framer's understood, the problem comes when power precludes the means to exercise one's rights.

And where the power of government, entertains lawsuits which set the right of an individual to not participate in abhorrent behavior, the individual therefore LOSES THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT.

It's not a complex equation, just sufficiently so to be beyond your means to negotiate.

Individuals don't get to decide what is or is not 'abhorrent' under the law.

(Reader... the above cited would-be contribution, is yet another example of why:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!

You see, Nature precludes the means for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

It simply cannot be done.)​

So if you decide that paying your taxes is 'abhorrent', you can claim that as an exemption to paying them?

Explain how that would work.

Well it works like this: You set forth your case, declare the principles and greivances at issue and wait for the powers that be to come and check you, at which point you defend yourself within the scope of your stated principles.

See: The Founding of the United States: 1775-1793

And you lose if your only argument is, I don't like taxes. In fact, you will lose if your argument is conscience.

The same goes for homosexuality. You might think homosexuality is abhorrent. You might think that you are thus entitled to punish homosexuals by denying them some sort of right that heterosexuals possess.

You will find, more and more, that the Law will not be on your side.

 

[PredFan]

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Ok, I see the problem, you jumped in on a discussion and I mistook one left wing nut for another. Let me make it as simple as I can:

Providing a pizza or a cake, or a cab ride to a customer, is not the same as actively getting involved in a ceremony or activity. The key word is "actively". Walk in, order cake, leave with cake, no problem. Walk in, order cake with two plastic men or women on top, demand that it be delivered, problem. Demand that a photographer coordinate the wedding photos, problem.

There is a huge difference and though it may be discrimination, Americans should have their right to practice their faith trump the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Clear?

And who is being held to "actively" participating in a wedding? After all....who brings food to wedding anyways? Isn't the food for the reception? A reception is AFTER the wedding, isn't it? Not part of the wedding, is it?

Since when is a reception not part of the wedding? You people are too ridiculous to talk to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is it legal to refuse to sell baked goods to a person who's been diagnosed with a mental illness?

LOLOL

So you are challenged to produce an example of that having happened, you FAIL MISERABLY to do so, and still feel entitled to project as truth, that which YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO BE FALSE.

Your post has nothing to do with my post.

False... you see as a contributor to this open forum, you offered a public profession, which was judged by the evidence set forth by you, that your personal position was false, that you MUST HAVE reasonably known it to be false, and this in no way precluded you from advising the reader that such was TRUE.

Demonstrating ONCE AGAIN that you are a person who is not worthy of the Reader's trust.

I am the one who pointed that out, ergo: you post is intrinsic to my post.

But... in fairness to you, as a member of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, THERE WAS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!

I asked the other poster if it's legal to refuse to sell baked goods to a person diagnosed as mentally ill.

Would YOU like to help him answer the question?

Or do you both concede its rhetorical point?

LOL!

Gilligan, this is a text forum. That means that every word exchanged is issued IN WRITING. The record is therefore clear and present.

I'll leave it to the Reader to decide for themselves.

(Reader, for decades the Left has had some remarkable success in denying their own words... "I didn't say that", has been their chronic refrain. It works wonderfully for the short attention span common to their constituency... but not so much on the Message Board. Which is why the Left is quickly abandoning these vehicles... they simply have no means to prevail once Americans find the board and through their presence, begins to erase the basis of their common delusion.)

I have a shiny new quarter for anyone on this board who can explain in their words what the above post is supposed to mean.

 

[PredFan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

"Forcing participation in the pretense of marriage by the sexually deviant" violates the 1st amendment ... mere participation does not violate the 1st amendment, it merely demonstrates delusion.

Your opinion doesn't matter unless you are a member of that church or faith.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Still going on over some damn cake, flowers and pizza. I mean my GAWD.

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The single most important justification for denying rights to a particular group of citizens is the ability to prove that their exercise of that right causes sufficient harm to society to warrant denying it.

Homosexuals getting married does not. Homosexuals buying cake does not.

There is no right to harm an innocent... DUMBASS!

Now just so you know... YOU ARE NEVER ENTITLED TO INJURE AN INNOCENT PERSON. FOR ANY REASON. What's more, as a free sovereign it is your SACRED RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT... as in protecting their means to exercise their rights; in BEARING THAT RESPONSIBILITY: YOU SUSTAIN YOUR OWN MEANS TO EXERCISE YOUR OWN RIGHTS.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder which presents as sexual deviancy. The Advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality DENIES THAT SUCH IS A MENTAL DISORDER, which is DELUSIONAL. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ADVISE PEOPLE THAT THAT WHICH IS FALSE IS TRUE. AS SUCH IS INJURIOUS TO THE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE, BECAUSE IT PRECLUDES THEM FROM MAKING SOUND DECISIONS.

Now as an FYI: > IF< you were an American... you'd have known that.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Ok, I see the problem, you jumped in on a discussion and I mistook one left wing nut for another. Let me make it as simple as I can:

Providing a pizza or a cake, or a cab ride to a customer, is not the same as actively getting involved in a ceremony or activity. The key word is "actively". Walk in, order cake, leave with cake, no problem. Walk in, order cake with two plastic men or women on top, demand that it be delivered, problem. Demand that a photographer coordinate the wedding photos, problem.

There is a huge difference and though it may be discrimination, Americans should have their right to practice their faith trump the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Clear?

And who is being held to "actively" participating in a wedding? After all....who brings food to wedding anyways? Isn't the food for the reception? A reception is AFTER the wedding, isn't it? Not part of the wedding, is it?

Since when is a reception not part of the wedding? You people are too ridiculous to talk to.

A caterer does not participate in the wedding, and it's a red herring anyway.

btw, are you conceding at least the the government does have the right to force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't have to go to the event itself?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the schizophrenic's mind, they are not mentally ill.
In the homosexaul's mind they are not mentally ill.

Do we build a fantasy world for schizophrenics? No!
Why should we make special laws that create a fantasy world for homosexuals?

So, are you really asserting that homosexuals are mentally ill? Really?

Of course they aren't.

All human behaviors exists on a continuum

Just because a very small percentage prefer the same sex is no big deal there have always and I do mean always been people who are homosexual.

And there always will be.

The single most important justification for denying rights to a particular group of citizens is the ability to prove that their exercise of that right causes sufficient harm to society to warrant denying it.

Homosexuals getting married does not. Homosexuals buying cake does not.

There is no right to harm an innocent... DUMBASS!

Now just so you know... YOU ARE NEVER ENTITLED TO INJURE AN INNOCENT PERSON. FOR ANY REASON. What's more, as a free sovereign it is your SACRED RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT... as in protecting their means to exercise their rights; in BEARING THAT RESPONSIBILITY: YOU SUSTAIN YOUR OWN MEANS TO EXERCISE YOUR OWN RIGHTS.

Now as an FYI: > IF< you were an American... you'd have known that.

You're disagreeing with me and agreeing with me at the same time.

I think we've found our schizo. lol

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

They are not forced to celebrate just as they are not forced to celebrate the birthday of an adulterer if they bake the birthday cake.

 

[martybegan]

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

 

[Stephanie]

I seriously DOUBT there is that many businesses who use their Religion to REFUSE to serve ANYONE.
they had NO PROBLEM with the Muslim baker refusing service

This is all BS. and the people are finally seeing through it.

thankfully

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.