Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[Nosmo King]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

Matters of conscience are between the individual and his god. If you are neither party, you don't get a vote, nor do you get to demand to have it justified to you.

But I am therefore supposed to have it lorded over me in commerce. How is that an American virtue?

No one is lording anything over you. No one can without your permission. If you do not like the business practices of an establishment take your business elsewhere. That's the American way.

The Abbey bar and grille is a well known gay bar. There is a sign on the door that if someone does not support same sex marriage they will not be served. Is this discrimination? To my knowledge they have never actually refused to serve anyone.

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are. American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

The standard is what they have done. Criminals, the insane can be turned away from commerce, not citizens who have not committed any crime.

If bigots can get away with not baking a cake, can they get away with not renting an apartment, not approve ing a job application or a school application or a loan application.

 

[dblack]

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are.

Does that include those who own or run a business?

American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

 

[Nosmo King]

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are.

Does that include those who own or run a business?

American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

They aren't being "forced" to conduct business "against their will"! Let's bag up that piece of hyperbole right now.

They WON'T provide the exact same services they offer to heterosexual clients. Are they being "forced" to conduct commerce with heterosexuals? It it of their own free will they decided to become bakers or caterers?

What they are doing, in fact, is acting as an American Taliban. They are twisting dogma and doctrine to provide a legal shield just to perpetuate their narrow minded bigotry.

 

[Katzndogz]

As soon as gays are beheaded you can say American Taliban. A practice that American liberals don't have a problem with because the beheading is done by muslims.

 

[Anathema]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma.

No. The claim stems from basic MORALITY, which supercedes religion of any sort.

 

[Nosmo King]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma.

No. The claim stems from basic MORALITY, which supercedes religion of any sort.

Which renders such claims u defensible by calling their refusal as based on religous grounds.

That makes their refusals mere bigotry, nothing more.

 

[Nosmo King]

As soon as gays are beheaded you can say American Taliban. A practice that American liberals don't have a problem with because the beheading is done by muslims.

Specious logic.

 

[Anathema]

Which renders such claims undefensible by calling their refusal as based on religous grounds.

That makes their refusals mere bigotry, nothing more.

Bigotry us a major part of Morality.

 

[Nosmo King]

Which renders such claims undefensible by calling their refusal as based on religous grounds.

That makes their refusals mere bigotry, nothing more.

Bigotry us a major part of Morality.

I'm sure you have what you believe is a moral code. It has absolutely nothing to do with true morality, however. Bigotry runs counter to moral codes.

 

[bodecea]

No, baking a cake or arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is not sinful and corrupt. The same sex marriage is sinful and corrupt. Enabling it and participating in it should be voluntary.
Or should we force people who are against capital punishment for religious reasons to prepare the execution room?

Someone who has problems with some kinds of legal marriages...and yet pick the wedding business...either should go into another line of work or we have to wonder if they are doing it just to whine.......or maybe cash out.

 

[Anathema]

I'm sure you have what you believe is a moral code. It has absolutely nothing to do with true morality, however. Bigotry runs counter to moral codes.

True Morality understands that homogenous populations are the only ones capable of being Moral. It's thst simple.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm sure you have what you believe is a moral code. It has absolutely nothing to do with true morality, however. Bigotry runs counter to moral codes.

True Morality understands that homogenous populations are the only ones capable of being Moral. It's thst simple.

And that explains the Japanese Rape of Nanking.

 

[dblack]

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are.

Does that include those who own or run a business?

American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

They aren't being "forced" to conduct business "against their will"! Let's bag up that piece of hyperbole right now.

And how are "we" going to do that? How are they not being forced to do business against their will. They say "I don't want to serve this customer", and the law says they must, or they'll be punished. What sort of definitions are could you possible be using for words like "will" and "force" that would let you call such an obvious observation "hyperbole"?

What they are doing, in fact, is acting as an American Taliban. They are twisting dogma and doctrine to provide a legal shield just to perpetuate their narrow minded bigotry.

That's pretty insulting to the memory of the real Taliban's victims. I bet they'd be more than happy to trade places with the "victims" of these bigoted business owners.

 

[Nosmo King]

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are.

Does that include those who own or run a business?

American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

They aren't being "forced" to conduct business "against their will"! Let's bag up that piece of hyperbole right now.

And how are "we" going to do that? How are they not being forced to do business against their will. They say "I don't want to serve this customer", and the law says they must, or they'll be punished. What sort of definitions are could you possible be using for words like "will" and "force" that would let you call such an obvious observation "hyperbole"?

What they are doing, in fact, is acting as an American Taliban. They are twisting dogma and doctrine to provide a legal shield just to perpetuate their narrow minded bigotry.

That's pretty insulting to the memory of the real Taliban's victims. I bet they'd be more than happy to trade places with the "victims" of these bigoted business owners.

These merchants are not 'forced' to service a heterosexual wedding. In fact, it's their stock in trade. They are refusing to provide the exact same services for a homosexual wedding, and that's simply a discriminatory act against a group based on what in reality is an intolerance to the fact of homosexuality hiding behind a defense of religous freedom.

If the moral standing, the approval of society, an acceptance as something as usual as ''customer' can be something used to repress citizens of this country, can we still call ourselves free?

I too am a Christian. In my faith, we reserve judgment to God and follow the basic tenets of Christianity. Our liturgy does not include emphasis on disassociating heterosexuals from homosexuals. I doubt their are many Christians who share my experience. So this isolation of homosexuals is more accurately have it's roots in a Conservative reaction to marriage equality.

It's much more political than eccumenical.

If merchants were sincere in their concerns for the status of their immortal souls by associating with sinners they should be vetting each and every customer. Who knows? There may be a mafia princess or a secret bigamist or a customer of a faith not worthy. But the dust up is with same sex weddings.

The culture wars go on. Why do you think they call these 'wedge issues'? They force folks to be either for something or against it. No time to logically think things out. No room for forethought. Poorly contrived Religious Freedom Restorating Acts are just the knee jerk reaction that can be easily dismissed, recalled, forgotten.

 

[dblack]

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are.

Does that include those who own or run a business?

American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

They aren't being "forced" to conduct business "against their will"! Let's bag up that piece of hyperbole right now.

And how are "we" going to do that? How are they not being forced to do business against their will. They say "I don't want to serve this customer", and the law says they must, or they'll be punished. What sort of definitions are could you possible be using for words like "will" and "force" that would let you call such an obvious observation "hyperbole"?

What they are doing, in fact, is acting as an American Taliban. They are twisting dogma and doctrine to provide a legal shield just to perpetuate their narrow minded bigotry.

That's pretty insulting to the memory of the real Taliban's victims. I bet they'd be more than happy to trade places with the "victims" of these bigoted business owners.

These merchants are not 'forced' to service a heterosexual wedding. In fact, it's their stock in trade. They are refusing to provide the exact same services for a homosexual wedding, and that's simply a discriminatory act against a group based on what in reality is an intolerance to the fact of homosexuality hiding behind a defense of religous freedom.

If the moral standing, the approval of society, an acceptance as something as usual as ''customer' can be something used to repress citizens of this country, can we still call ourselves free?

I too am a Christian. In my faith, we reserve judgment to God and follow the basic tenets of Christianity. Our liturgy does not include emphasis on disassociating heterosexuals from homosexuals. I doubt their are many Christians who share my experience. So this isolation of homosexuals is more accurately have it's roots in a Conservative reaction to marriage equality.

It's much more political than eccumenical.

If merchants were sincere in their concerns for the status of their immortal souls by associating with sinners they should be vetting each and every customer. Who knows? There may be a mafia princess or a secret bigamist or a customer of a faith not worthy. But the dust up is with same sex weddings.

The culture wars go on. Why do you think they call these 'wedge issues'? They force folks to be either for something or against it. No time to logically think things out. No room for forethought. Poorly contrived Religious Freedom Restorating Acts are just the knee jerk reaction that can be easily dismissed, recalled, forgotten.

Of course they're being forced to do business against their will. It's hard to take you seriously as you try to convince yourself otherwise. As for all the religious stuff, I don't care. I'm not a Christian and I don't see anti-discrimination laws as having anything to do with religious freedom. I just don't like government playing "thought police".

 

[Nosmo King]

American citizens should note be expected to accept second class or second choice simply because of who they are.

Does that include those who own or run a business?

American citizens should never be turned away fro opportunities to conduct commerce because of who they are.

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

They aren't being "forced" to conduct business "against their will"! Let's bag up that piece of hyperbole right now.

And how are "we" going to do that? How are they not being forced to do business against their will. They say "I don't want to serve this customer", and the law says they must, or they'll be punished. What sort of definitions are could you possible be using for words like "will" and "force" that would let you call such an obvious observation "hyperbole"?

What they are doing, in fact, is acting as an American Taliban. They are twisting dogma and doctrine to provide a legal shield just to perpetuate their narrow minded bigotry.

That's pretty insulting to the memory of the real Taliban's victims. I bet they'd be more than happy to trade places with the "victims" of these bigoted business owners.

These merchants are not 'forced' to service a heterosexual wedding. In fact, it's their stock in trade. They are refusing to provide the exact same services for a homosexual wedding, and that's simply a discriminatory act against a group based on what in reality is an intolerance to the fact of homosexuality hiding behind a defense of religous freedom.

If the moral standing, the approval of society, an acceptance as something as usual as ''customer' can be something used to repress citizens of this country, can we still call ourselves free?

I too am a Christian. In my faith, we reserve judgment to God and follow the basic tenets of Christianity. Our liturgy does not include emphasis on disassociating heterosexuals from homosexuals. I doubt their are many Christians who share my experience. So this isolation of homosexuals is more accurately have it's roots in a Conservative reaction to marriage equality.

It's much more political than eccumenical.

If merchants were sincere in their concerns for the status of their immortal souls by associating with sinners they should be vetting each and every customer. Who knows? There may be a mafia princess or a secret bigamist or a customer of a faith not worthy. But the dust up is with same sex weddings.

The culture wars go on. Why do you think they call these 'wedge issues'? They force folks to be either for something or against it. No time to logically think things out. No room for forethought. Poorly contrived Religious Freedom Restorating Acts are just the knee jerk reaction that can be easily dismissed, recalled, forgotten.

Of course they're being forced to do business against their will. It's hard to take you seriously as you try to convince yourself otherwise. As for all the religious stuff, I don't care. I'm not a Christian and I don't see anti-discrimination laws as having anything to do with religious freedom. I just don't like government playing "thought police".

You don't want 'thought police' and that's quite expected. But the vendors who have refused service to clientle based on other immutable factors found themselves compelled by law to serve Irish, Jews, Blacks and Women.

If their immutable characteristics are to be ignored in commerce, what makes the immutable characteristic of homosexuality so worthy to be the last repressed group of American citizens?

 

[tinydancer]

The Supremes disagree with your OP.

The SCOTUS handed the win to Hobby Lobby based on the RFRA. The Justices' decision effectively extends the law to "for profits".

Legal issues stemming from government overreach are going to get hot.

 

[dblack]

Does that include those who own or run a business?

Should they be forced into business transactions against their will?

They aren't being "forced" to conduct business "against their will"! Let's bag up that piece of hyperbole right now.

And how are "we" going to do that? How are they not being forced to do business against their will. They say "I don't want to serve this customer", and the law says they must, or they'll be punished. What sort of definitions are could you possible be using for words like "will" and "force" that would let you call such an obvious observation "hyperbole"?

What they are doing, in fact, is acting as an American Taliban. They are twisting dogma and doctrine to provide a legal shield just to perpetuate their narrow minded bigotry.

That's pretty insulting to the memory of the real Taliban's victims. I bet they'd be more than happy to trade places with the "victims" of these bigoted business owners.

These merchants are not 'forced' to service a heterosexual wedding. In fact, it's their stock in trade. They are refusing to provide the exact same services for a homosexual wedding, and that's simply a discriminatory act against a group based on what in reality is an intolerance to the fact of homosexuality hiding behind a defense of religous freedom.

If the moral standing, the approval of society, an acceptance as something as usual as ''customer' can be something used to repress citizens of this country, can we still call ourselves free?

I too am a Christian. In my faith, we reserve judgment to God and follow the basic tenets of Christianity. Our liturgy does not include emphasis on disassociating heterosexuals from homosexuals. I doubt their are many Christians who share my experience. So this isolation of homosexuals is more accurately have it's roots in a Conservative reaction to marriage equality.

It's much more political than eccumenical.

If merchants were sincere in their concerns for the status of their immortal souls by associating with sinners they should be vetting each and every customer. Who knows? There may be a mafia princess or a secret bigamist or a customer of a faith not worthy. But the dust up is with same sex weddings.

The culture wars go on. Why do you think they call these 'wedge issues'? They force folks to be either for something or against it. No time to logically think things out. No room for forethought. Poorly contrived Religious Freedom Restorating Acts are just the knee jerk reaction that can be easily dismissed, recalled, forgotten.

Of course they're being forced to do business against their will. It's hard to take you seriously as you try to convince yourself otherwise. As for all the religious stuff, I don't care. I'm not a Christian and I don't see anti-discrimination laws as having anything to do with religious freedom. I just don't like government playing "thought police".

You don't want 'thought police' and that's quite expected. But the vendors who have refused service to clientle based on other immutable factors found themselves compelled by law to serve Irish, Jews, Blacks and Women.

If their immutable characteristics are to be ignored in commerce, what makes the immutable characteristic of homosexuality so worthy to be the last repressed group of American citizens?

Nothing at all. I'm not opposed to them being added to the list of "protected classes". But if we really care about equal rights, we have to put everyone on the list.

 

[Zander]

The worst part about the "Gay-cake" issue, is that it's so fake.
It's a made up issue designed to distract.....
nobody gives a fuck about homo cakes.....

 

[Ernie S.]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

Matters of conscience are between the individual and his god. If you are neither party, you don't get a vote, nor do you get to demand to have it justified to you.

But I am therefore supposed to have it lorded over me in commerce. How is that an American virtue?

No one is lording anything over you, guy. if any lording is being done, it's you with your PC, anti anybody else's religion but my own attitude.
Please feel free to take your business to a shop that has no compelling moral principle that prevents them from participating in a gay marriage. Feel free to print leaflets exposing what you find fault with. Instigate a boycott of the store you where you were denied service, but the fact remains that the Constitution says the government may pass no law restricting the free exercise of MY religion; number one on the list, first in line, foremost in importance PERIOD.