Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[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. 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 expected to compromise their moral standards to accommodate that which they find repugnant.

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

American citizens should never be turned away from universities and employment opportunities because even though qualified they would upset some nominal quota system, but 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.

Baking a cake, renting an apartment approving employment applications and granting loans are NOT moral decisions. Participation in a ceremony, if only so far as to provide a cake IS, in the case of gay "weddings".
It is irrelevant what YOU feel. The baker should not be compelled to violate his religious tenets.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Someone who stops at a couple dozen bakeries before finding one who refuses to supply a cake for a gay "marriage" doesn't want a cake so much as a controversy, do they?

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Again, a racial or sexist discrimination

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

[Anathema]

And that explains the Japanese Rape of Nanking.

Along with many other activities by conquering peoples over the last 10,000 years or so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, because I would imagine that sign pretty much solves the problem before it arises, since people who oppose same-sex marriage see it and just go elsewhere. Unlike gay activists, they're not generally interested in making a big, public show of butthurt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What a complete load of hoo-ha.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

My God, can you BE any more of a drama queen? If hysterical hyperbole were water, we'd all be fucking drowning at this point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Stunningly enough, a moral code does not require your approval and agreement to be a moral code. It is not invalidated by your desire to label it as "bigotry" or anything else.

Comprehend this: your opinion is irrelevant to everyone but you. Deal with it, narcissist.

 

[peach174]

If I was a Gay person I would be against forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes.
I would rather go to a bakery who has no problem with it rather than going to a baker who is forced to bake the cake and stands up for their religious freedom.
If they were all forced to do it, gay couples would not know which bakeries was against gay marriage. This takes away gay couples freedom.
I would be more afraid to go to any baker at all after that type of law was passed or a court ruling, not knowing how they stand.
You would not know what they might do to that cake. Maybe they would spit in it or leave out ingredients to make it taste bad.
It seems to me that Gay's freedom would be limited by forcing bakers to go against their religious freedom.
It would be freedom for all if both had a choice.

 

[pinqy]

]Baking a cake, renting an apartment approving employment applications and granting loans are NOT moral decisions. Participation in a ceremony, if only so far as to provide a cake IS, in the case of gay "weddings".
It is irrelevant what YOU feel. The baker should not be compelled to violate his religious tenets.

I've been to a lot of wedding ceremonies. Not one had a cake at it. The cake was always at the Reception, which is not the same as the ceremony.

 

[Anathema]

Stunningly enough, a moral code does not require your approval and agreement to be a moral code. It is not invalidated by your desire to label it as "bigotry" or anything else.

You make two mistakes....

1. Believing there is more than one legitimate Moral Code in the world
2. Believing the one legitimate Moral Code places any value on the thoughts, ideas, opinions or other random utterings of a woman.

Comprehend this: your opinion is irrelevant to everyone but you. Deal with it, narcissist.

My opinion extends is relevant to anyone who is within the range of whatever weapon I may have on me at any moment to enforce it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

"We passed THIS law, so that means it's okay for us to pass THIS law! Our remodeling of society in this area justifies doing it everywhere!"

Or maybe you were just wrong the first time, too.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Stunningly enough, a moral code does not require your approval and agreement to be a moral code. It is not invalidated by your desire to label it as "bigotry" or anything else.

Comprehend this: your opinion is irrelevant to everyone but you. Deal with it, narcissist.

Best post of the day!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Don't forget putting shitty reviews of them on Yelp or wherever. Also completely acceptable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

]Baking a cake, renting an apartment approving employment applications and granting loans are NOT moral decisions. Participation in a ceremony, if only so far as to provide a cake IS, in the case of gay "weddings".
It is irrelevant what YOU feel. The baker should not be compelled to violate his religious tenets.

I've been to a lot of wedding ceremonies. Not one had a cake at it. The cake was always at the Reception, which is not the same as the ceremony.

Ooh, hairsplitting. THAT'LL convince people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Stunningly enough, a moral code does not require your approval and agreement to be a moral code. It is not invalidated by your desire to label it as "bigotry" or anything else.

You make two mistakes....

1. Believing there is more than one legitimate Moral Code in the world
2. Believing the one legitimate Moral Code places any value on the thoughts, ideas, opinions or other random utterings of a woman.

Comprehend this: your opinion is irrelevant to everyone but you. Deal with it, narcissist.

My opinion extends is relevant to anyone who is within the range of whatever weapon I may have on me at any moment to enforce it.

You only made one mistake. It was believing you're relevant to the existence of others.

 

[Ernie S.]

]Baking a cake, renting an apartment approving employment applications and granting loans are NOT moral decisions. Participation in a ceremony, if only so far as to provide a cake IS, in the case of gay "weddings".
It is irrelevant what YOU feel. The baker should not be compelled to violate his religious tenets.

I've been to a lot of wedding ceremonies. Not one had a cake at it. The cake was always at the Reception, which is not the same as the ceremony.

And????? Gay weddings offend the moral values of some people. Find a baker that is willing to serve you.

 

[Anathema]

Don't forget putting shitty reviews of them on Yelp or wherever. Also completely acceptable.

Definitely. Makes it much easier for me to find places to eat, when I go to other cities and towns.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Like anyone else, a homosexual couple is not going to want someone who is performing an important service to be forced into it against their will.

There is one (1) reason, and one reason only, for that couple to force them in this context, and that is they choose to punish that person for trying to act on their religious beliefs.

.

 

[pinqy]

]Baking a cake, renting an apartment approving employment applications and granting loans are NOT moral decisions. Participation in a ceremony, if only so far as to provide a cake IS, in the case of gay "weddings".
It is irrelevant what YOU feel. The baker should not be compelled to violate his religious tenets.

I've been to a lot of wedding ceremonies. Not one had a cake at it. The cake was always at the Reception, which is not the same as the ceremony.

And????? Gay weddings offend the moral values of some people. Find a baker that is willing to serve you.

]Baking a cake, renting an apartment approving employment applications and granting loans are NOT moral decisions. Participation in a ceremony, if only so far as to provide a cake IS, in the case of gay "weddings".
It is irrelevant what YOU feel. The baker should not be compelled to violate his religious tenets.

I've been to a lot of wedding ceremonies. Not one had a cake at it. The cake was always at the Reception, which is not the same as the ceremony.

Ooh, hairsplitting. THAT'LL convince people.

It's actually an important point, since a claim has been the objection is not towards homosexuals, but towards the wedding and being seen to support it. The cake isn't part of the wedding, so the argument fails. Baking a cake for a reception is not being in anyway involved with the wedding.