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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

I swear, you are the intellectual equivalent of DEAD WEIGHT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is the government justified in outlawing discrimination by race even if a person claims a religious belief in separation of the races?

In your world is "Race" a behavior?

Because if it IS, then the answer is YES. A Free people who govern themselves are required to establish rules regarding what IS and is NOT acceptable Behavior. (Of course, this Assumes that the goal is that they want to remain free.)

 

[martybegan]

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.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

Again, its not about you, its about how someone else feels. Do you want the government to enforce your moral compass on everyone else under threat of fine/jail/change profession?

If you open a business you are subject to public accommodation laws.

If you don't like it then don't open a business on only make cakes for your fellow bigots on the side

That shouldn't have to be a choice. Society can handle a baker that doesn't want to cater to a gay wedding.

Also, the whole "all businesses are public accommodations" motif is bull. Hell, Memories pizza acknowledged they would sell equally to anyone who walked in the door, they just didn't want to cater a specific event, and they had to go into hiding.

So a gay guy eating a pizza after having anal sex with a another man is OK but 2 gay guys and a few friends eating a pizza after a ceremony that the baker did not attend is a sin?

And you can't see the utter stupidity of that argument?

I don;t care about the utter stupidity (your view) of the argument. Government still shouldn't force the people to who they don't want to sell to without an EXPLICIT COMPELLING REASON, same as government shouldn't PREVENT them from selling to someone without the aforementioned explicit compelling reason.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.

Sure... as long as we understand that calling someone a bigot, is... by definition: Bigotry.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

Again, not your call, and not government's call.

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

ROFLMNAO!

Well it's your straw, so I guess you can shape it up to appear as any argument you feel you can sell. I'm only pointing out that your argument is not truthful... that your argument is a deceit, created from the straw you conjured from your own deluded mind.

See how that works?

What 'taxes are abhorrent' argument has ever worked for anyone who tried to get exempted from paying taxes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is the government justified in outlawing discrimination by race even if a person claims a religious belief in separation of the races?

In your world is "Race" a behavior?

Because if it IS, then the answer is YES. A Free people who govern themselves are required to establish rules regarding what IS and is NOT acceptable Behavior. (Of course, this Assumes that the goal is that they want to remain free.)

Your post makes no sense. Try again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

Again, not your call, and not government's call.

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

I swear, you are the intellectual equivalent of DEAD WEIGHT!

The wedding is the ceremony and the caterer does not participate the party afterwards is not the ceremony.

It's no different than a party for any other "sinner"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your post makes no sense. Try again.

The post makes perfect sense. That you cannot make sense of it, does not an obligation on my part, make.

But your failure to make sense of the truth, DOES prove the point, that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!

And this is because Nature precludes the means of an individual to simultaneously adhere to both the thesis and the antithesis.​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The wedding is the ceremony and the caterer does not participate the party afterwards is not the ceremony.

It's no different than a party for any other "sinner"

In what other parties, does one axiomatically celebrate THE SIN?


Let's review:

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity.

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

It's not even a debatable point Skull. With your desire to debate it, not withstanding.

 

[martybegan]

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

Again, not your call, and not government's call.

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Yeah, well thanks for playing "I want unicorns that fart glitter". The fact is that the government does indeed do just that and when they do, it has been found to be within their Constitutional boundaries. You can argue the world where you want it to be instead of discussing it where it is...I'd rather play a video game. At least that's fantasy I can interact with.

I would rather play a video game than have a govt force me to do something.

Then don't have a business that requires a business license. Because there's a boat load of things the government "forces" you to do in order to have a business.

That's not my fault of how whacked the federal govt is. It is my job as an owner to legally circumvent all the worthless garb imposed by the fed govt.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Yeah, well thanks for playing "I want unicorns that fart glitter". The fact is that the government does indeed do just that and when they do, it has been found to be within their Constitutional boundaries. You can argue the world where you want it to be instead of discussing it where it is...I'd rather play a video game. At least that's fantasy I can interact with.

The government does many things it isn't allowed to do. This is one of them.

The government is not allowed to dictated moral value at the exchange of money. The Commerce clause does not extend that far, and does not trump the First Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

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

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

I swear, you are the intellectual equivalent of DEAD WEIGHT!

Since when is food and drink provided at the wedding itself?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

I swear, you are the intellectual equivalent of DEAD WEIGHT!

Since when is food and drink provided at the wedding itself?

Since the guests arent there with the minister and couple I guess the guests dont participate either.
The spin on the Left is dizzying.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Yes -- they do.

Our government is an extension of our will, the will of the people.


Public accommodations are something we, as Americans, believe should be open and available to all.

That is what we value. That is our will.

That is how our country works.


The whole "religious freedom" b.s. was weak when it was used for segregation.

These so-called "christians" pick and choose what they believe based on their own fears and insecurities.

 

[bodecea]

The wedding is the ceremony and the caterer does not participate the party afterwards is not the ceremony.

It's no different than a party for any other "sinner"

In what other parties, does one axiomatically celebrate THE SIN?


Let's review:

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity.

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

It's not even a debatable point Skull. With your desire to debate it, not withstanding.

The WEDDING is not where food and drink is provided....it is at the after party, AKA the reception.....in most cases not even in the same place.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The wedding is the ceremony and the caterer does not participate the party afterwards is not the ceremony.

It's no different than a party for any other "sinner"

In what other parties, does one axiomatically celebrate THE SIN?


Let's review:

participate: take part

cater: provide food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity.

So, from the BIg Book O'Words... we find that a Caterer, TAKES THE PART OF PROVIDING FOOD AND DRINK... at social events.

Ergo: BY DEFINITION, A Caterer, PARTICIPATES IN THE WEDDING.

It's not even a debatable point Skull. With your desire to debate it, not withstanding.

But it's not the social event that is the problem.

The baker said he would have no problem baking a birthday cake for a gay guy I assume that means even if said gay guy had gay anal sex the morning of his party. Can the baker say that making the birthday cake forces him to take part in gay anal sex?

It's the wedding they have a problem with. The ceremony is the wedding the baker or caterer plays no part in the ceremony the party after has nothing to do with the ceremony it's no different than any other party

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Yes -- they do.

Our government is an extension of our will, the will of the people.


Public accommodations are something we, as Americans, believe should be open and available to all.

That is what we value. That is our will.

That is how our country works.


The whole "religious freedom" b.s. was weak when it was used for segregation.

These so-called "christians" pick and choose what they believe based on their own fears and insecurities.

exactly.

If serving the public equally will cause a crisis of faith then don't open a business that serves the public.