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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFLMNAO!

(Reader, the above 'would-be contribution' is evidence of the subsequent 'reasoning' which is manifest by the mental disorder that presents through sexual deviancy. Note how such concludes a non sequitur, which the bearer presents as 'reason'. Yes... that is insanity, of the first order. And No... there is no 'right' to present insanity as sound reason. And that is because insanity is the detachment from reality, which is represented as reality. Thus such represents that which is NOT TRUE as Truth. And where one advises and individual that something which is NOT TRUE as truth, one injures that individual through the usurpation of the means of that individual to make a sound decision... thus promoting the likelihood that they will further injure themselves. Such is therefore axiomatically IMMORAL.)

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

It's the same logic used not to bake a wedding cake.

The bigot baker could say those two gay guys have gay anal sex in their home I cannot in good conscience bake them a cake to be eaten at a party in their home because that would be the same as participating in gay anal sex.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

A contract can still be had....

But if you want to be married, then go to church...

However, no church marriage should be legally recognized.

Civil contract or nothing at all.

Besides, I don't need the government to tell Me I'm married to My wife......
















She is more than willing to tell Me at every turn!

muuahahahahahaa.....*coughcough*

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

A contract can still be had....

But if you want to be married, then go to church...

However, no church marriage should be legally recognized.

Civil contract or nothing at all.

Besides, I don't need the government to tell Me I'm married to My wife......
















She is more than willing to tell Me at every turn!

muuahahahahahaa.....*coughcough*

I agree no church official should have any legal authority

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

It's the same logic used not to bake a wedding cake.

The bigot baker could say those two gay guys have gay anal sex in their home I cannot in good conscience bake them a cake to be eaten at a party in their home because that would be the same as participating in gay anal sex.

It is not the same logic at all. In fact every provider distinguished between a customer who walks in and orders something and a customer who wants somethign for an occasion.

 

[Skylar]

Personally, I think trying to force Christian bakers to provide cake is a strategic mistake. Without it, the Christians are left with no ash and sack cloth to drape themselves in. As gay marriage doesn't actually effect them in any way.

While I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated fairly and equally in business.....the practical imposition of an occasional baker, photographer or florist refusing to do so is minimal. While the bad blood it generates is significant.

I'd grab some popcorn, toss Frozen into the DVD player, and sing along with Elsa.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

A contract can still be had....

But if you want to be married, then go to church...

However, no church marriage should be legally recognized.

Civil contract or nothing at all.

Besides, I don't need the government to tell Me I'm married to My wife......
















She is more than willing to tell Me at every turn!

muuahahahahahaa.....*coughcough*

I agree no church official should have any legal authority

I like watermelon.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

The religious definition has nothing to do with law.
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.

It's the same logic used not to bake a wedding cake.

The bigot baker could say those two gay guys have gay anal sex in their home I cannot in good conscience bake them a cake to be eaten at a party in their home because that would be the same as participating in gay anal sex.

It is not the same logic at all. In fact every provider distinguished between a customer who walks in and orders something and a customer who wants somethign for an occasion.

A birthday is an occasion.

A party is an occasion.

 

[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.

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.

That's not a real option, and you know it. Again, what is the harsher impact, a gay couple having to go to another provider, or said denying provider being denied their freedom of thought, their freedom of association, and their right to earn a living they way they want to?

 

[Darkwind]

Personally, I think trying to force Christian bakers to provide cake is a strategic mistake. Without it, the Christians are left with no ash and sack cloth to drape themselves in. As gay marriage doesn't actually effect them in any way.

While I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated fairly and equally in business.....the practical imposition of an occasional baker, photographer or florist refusing to do so is minimal. While the bad blood it generates is significant.

I'd grab some popcorn, toss Frozen into the DVD player, and sing along with Elsa.

Frozen?

FROZEN!?

Why are you anti-Ariel?

Bastage.......

 

[Skylar]

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.

ROFLMNAO!

(Reader, the above 'would-be contribution' is evidence of the subsequent 'reasoning' which is manifest by the mental disorder that presents through sexual deviancy. Note how such concludes a non sequitur, which the bearer presents as 'reason'. Yes... that is insanity, of the first order. And No... there is no 'right' to present insanity as sound reason. And that is because insanity is the detachment from reality, which is represented as reality. Thus such represents that which is NOT TRUE as Truth. And where one advises and individual that something which is NOT TRUE as truth, one injures that individual through the usurpation of the means of that individual to make a sound decision... thus promoting the likelihood that they will further injure themselves. Such is therefore axiomatically IMMORAL.)

This is the same tired argument you always offer us, Keyes. You have no other. You offer us your personal opinion, insist your subjective opinion is 'objective truth', and then denounce anyone who doesn't accept your opinion as infallible truth as a 'relativist'. Backed predictably with with the same silly Appeals to Authority fallacies.

And yet your argument fails at its first step: your subjective opinion isn't objective fact.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

A contract can still be had....

But if you want to be married, then go to church...

However, no church marriage should be legally recognized.

Civil contract or nothing at all.

Besides, I don't need the government to tell Me I'm married to My wife......
















She is more than willing to tell Me at every turn!

muuahahahahahaa.....*coughcough*

I agree no church official should have any legal authority

I like watermelon.

 

[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!

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.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?

(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)

 

[Skylar]

Personally, I think trying to force Christian bakers to provide cake is a strategic mistake. Without it, the Christians are left with no ash and sack cloth to drape themselves in. As gay marriage doesn't actually effect them in any way.

While I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated fairly and equally in business.....the practical imposition of an occasional baker, photographer or florist refusing to do so is minimal. While the bad blood it generates is significant.

I'd grab some popcorn, toss Frozen into the DVD player, and sing along with Elsa.

Frozen?

FROZEN!?

Why are you anti-Ariel?

Bastage.......

Smiling......Let it Go!

 

[martybegan]

Personally, I think trying to force Christian bakers to provide cake is a strategic mistake. Without it, the Christians are left with no ash and sack cloth to drape themselves in. As gay marriage doesn't actually effect them in any way.

While I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated fairly and equally in business.....the practical imposition of an occasional baker, photographer or florist refusing to do so is minimal. While the bad blood it generates is significant.

I'd grab some popcorn, toss Frozen into the DVD player, and sing along with Elsa.

Well stated, and insightful position. Be prepared to be attacked by your more authoritarian equivalents.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

The 'big book o words' indicate that cater provides food at social events in a professional capacity. It doesn't say a thing about them participating in the social event.

That would be you citing you, pretending to be the dictionary.

Now what would be the problem in you pretending to be a dictionary, Keyes?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFLMNAO!

(Reader, the above 'would-be contribution' is evidence of the subsequent 'reasoning' which is manifest by the mental disorder that presents through sexual deviancy. Note how such concludes a non sequitur, which the bearer presents as 'reason'. Yes... that is insanity, of the first order. And No... there is no 'right' to present insanity as sound reason. And that is because insanity is the detachment from reality, which is represented as reality. Thus such represents that which is NOT TRUE as Truth. And where one advises and individual that something which is NOT TRUE as truth, one injures that individual through the usurpation of the means of that individual to make a sound decision... thus promoting the likelihood that they will further injure themselves. Such is therefore axiomatically IMMORAL.)

This is the same tired argument you always offer us, Keyes. You have no other. ...

OH! How sweet. You've once again come to offer your customary tired deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?

(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)

So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?

No you are not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Personally, I think trying to force Christian bakers to provide cake is a strategic mistake. Without it, the Christians are left with no ash and sack cloth to drape themselves in. As gay marriage

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?

(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)

So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?

No you are not.

When you sit in the stands are you participating?
How about if you are a player but not on the field, are you participating?
How about you are a player on the field but the ball is in someone else's hands and you're on the opposite side?
See, you can draw the definition any way you want to fit your agenda.
In point of fact the baker feels he is participating by providing service for the wedding. The gay couple obviously feel the same way.