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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

 

[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.

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

People should vote to do away with government sanctioned marriage. Period.

 

[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?

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

There is the wedding itself...many (but not all) guests participate in that....but I never have seen the food people there participating...they are at the RECEPTION. What weddings have you been to where the caterers are in the seats at the wedding itself, witnessing the actual ceremony?

 

[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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

Marriage as defined by the state is nothing but a property contract.

The religious definition has nothing to do with law.

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Since the party after the wedding is completely separate from the ceremony and the baker won't provide a cake for the party then yes he is refusing to serve the gay people at the party because they are gay and gay is a sin

 

[bodecea]

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

Unless it is unConstitutional...just like if the people vote that marriage is only for christians, the courts SHOULD and will step in.

 

[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!

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.

There is the wedding itself...many (but not all) guests participate in that....but I never have seen the food people there participating...they are at the RECEPTION. What weddings have you been to where the caterers are in the seats at the wedding itself, witnessing the actual ceremony?

And witnessing is not "being forced to participate"

The only participants of the ceremony are the couple getting married, the two witnesses and the person performing the rite.

 

[rdean]

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

Right wing Christians feel their right to hate is being compromised.

 

[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.

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.

Thanks for sharing... sadly, none of that is relevant to the issue at hand, which is that your need to find legitimacy by pretending that people of the same gender are suitable for marriage, does not obligate me to participate in the celebration of that debauchery,

 

[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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

People should vote to do away with government sanctioned marriage. Period.

Marriage is just a property contract

Government should stop treating married people differently from single people for tax purposes though

 

[martybegan]

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

You can't call it "peaceful protesting" either. There were also violence proposing tweets, i.e. "burn it down."

refusing to serve anyone for any reason can be considered bigotry, the real question is, without a overriding compelling interest, why should the government care?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

Marriage as defined by the state is nothing but a property contract.

The religious definition has nothing to do with law.

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Since the party after the wedding is completely separate from the ceremony and the baker won't provide a cake for the party then yes he is refusing to serve the gay people at the party because they are gay and gay is a sin

No one disputes homosexuals' right to get married in any church they want. The entire dispute is the state sanction.
It is not up to you to decide what constitutes "participating."

 

[konradv]

People should vote to do away with government sanctioned marriage. Period.

Marriage on one level is a contract. What good would it be without an entity to back it up?

 

[martybegan]

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.

so basically "screw you" to any people of faith.

 

[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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

Marriage as defined by the state is nothing but a property contract.

The religious definition has nothing to do with law.

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Since the party after the wedding is completely separate from the ceremony and the baker won't provide a cake for the party then yes he is refusing to serve the gay people at the party because they are gay and gay is a sin

No one disputes homosexuals' right to get married in any church they want. The entire dispute is the state sanction.
It is not up to you to decide what constitutes "participating."

The baker then is participating in the gay sin whenever he makes any kind of cake for a gay person then right?

 

[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.

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

People should vote to do away with government sanctioned marriage. Period.

Marriage is just a property contract

Government should stop treating married people differently from single people for tax purposes though

Like Ramses....

Marriage should be stricken from every obalisque (or however you spell that word!, every pylon, every tablet.....no citizen should be permitted to utter the word, "Marriage" in front of children and the mentally handicapped.

So let it be written......

So let it be done!!

 

[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.

so basically "screw you" to any people of faith.

If serving the public is going to be at odds with your faith then you shouldn't want to serve the public at all.

Get a job somewhere else or only work on the side on the QT for other like minded idiots.

 

[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.

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

Marriage as defined by the state is nothing but a property contract.

The religious definition has nothing to do with law.

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Since the party after the wedding is completely separate from the ceremony and the baker won't provide a cake for the party then yes he is refusing to serve the gay people at the party because they are gay and gay is a sin

No one disputes homosexuals' right to get married in any church they want. The entire dispute is the state sanction.
It is not up to you to decide what constitutes "participating."

The baker then is participating in the gay sin whenever he makes any kind of cake for a gay person then right?

No, that's not true.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So when the people vote that marriage is between one man and one woman then gov't is bound to uphold that, right?

Marriage as defined by the state is nothing but a property contract.

The religious definition has nothing to do with law.

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.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Since the party after the wedding is completely separate from the ceremony and the baker won't provide a cake for the party then yes he is refusing to serve the gay people at the party because they are gay and gay is a sin

No one disputes homosexuals' right to get married in any church they want. The entire dispute is the state sanction.
It is not up to you to decide what constitutes "participating."

The baker then is participating in the gay sin whenever he makes any kind of cake for a gay person then right?

No, wrong.
Next.