If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Slyhunter]

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that are based on just plain old common sense.

So you are going to take offense to something written in a book thousands of years ago? Who cares?

It is not a book. It is a compendium of writings by unknown authors.

I only care because of those morons who are seeking to have us all, in 21st century U.S.A. , adhere to what appeared to be "common sense" to people in the middle east a few thousands of years ago, as if the experience of humanity in the thousands of years in between didn't teach us anything about "common sense." Remember that most all of this that comes down to us about "common sense" comes from an elite group of males who were privileged enough to be literate and able to write down their views for posterity. Where are the views of women kept illiterate and others kept illiterate as to what "common sense" might suggest? They may have carried a pregnancy and given birth with all of the pain and struggling that this human process entails. But they had no avenue to communicate their basic thoughts.

If the crap being bandied about was legitimate, it would contain the opinions of the entire human experience.

Moreover, when all of this history was taking place in the Middle East and the dregs of the Roman empire, millions of people were living all over the place: China, India, Africa, the yet to be "discovered" places in the western hemisphere, the islands in the Pacific.

Didn't your Supreme Being care enough to send somebody to them?

Did anyone tell all those people about the 40 year flood?

 

[Lysistrata]

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that are based on just plain old common sense.

So you are going to take offense to something written in a book thousands of years ago? Who cares?

It is not a book. It is a compendium of writings by unknown authors.

I only care because of those morons who are seeking to have us all, in 21st century U.S.A. , adhere to what appeared to be "common sense" to people in the middle east a few thousands of years ago, as if the experience of humanity in the thousands of years in between didn't teach us anything about "common sense." Remember that most all of this that comes down to us about "common sense" comes from an elite group of males who were privileged enough to be literate and able to write down their views for posterity. Where are the views of women kept illiterate and others kept illiterate as to what "common sense" might suggest? They may have carried a pregnancy and given birth with all of the pain and struggling that this human process entails. But they had no avenue to communicate their basic thoughts.

If the crap being bandied about was legitimate, it would contain the opinions of the entire human experience.

Moreover, when all of this history was taking place in the Middle East and the dregs of the Roman empire, millions of people were living all over the place: China, India, Africa, the yet to be "discovered" places in the western hemisphere, the islands in the Pacific.

Didn't your Supreme Being care enough to send somebody to them?

Did anyone tell all those people about the 40 year flood?

You are a total idiot if you take your history from the tribal authors who wrote their versions of why these natural occurrences happened.

 

[Slyhunter]

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that are based on just plain old common sense.

So you are going to take offense to something written in a book thousands of years ago? Who cares?

It is not a book. It is a compendium of writings by unknown authors.

I only care because of those morons who are seeking to have us all, in 21st century U.S.A. , adhere to what appeared to be "common sense" to people in the middle east a few thousands of years ago, as if the experience of humanity in the thousands of years in between didn't teach us anything about "common sense." Remember that most all of this that comes down to us about "common sense" comes from an elite group of males who were privileged enough to be literate and able to write down their views for posterity. Where are the views of women kept illiterate and others kept illiterate as to what "common sense" might suggest? They may have carried a pregnancy and given birth with all of the pain and struggling that this human process entails. But they had no avenue to communicate their basic thoughts.

If the crap being bandied about was legitimate, it would contain the opinions of the entire human experience.

Moreover, when all of this history was taking place in the Middle East and the dregs of the Roman empire, millions of people were living all over the place: China, India, Africa, the yet to be "discovered" places in the western hemisphere, the islands in the Pacific.

Didn't your Supreme Being care enough to send somebody to them?

Did anyone tell all those people about the 40 year flood?

You are a total idiot if you take your history from the tribal authors who wrote their versions of why these natural occurrences happened.

For the record, I'm an Agnostic.

 

[imawhosure]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I would never ask a gay baker to make a wedding cake for me, yuck! So he doesn't have to make that choice. And if he said I am GAY, and I refuse to make your cake, I would proclaim, "thank you very much," lololol!

This couple only went to this bimbo's bakery because he advertised himself openly, and I checked his website.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs? It was NOT the cake he refused to make, it was the artwork FOR the cake!

Let me put it to you this way-----------------> You have 40 desks for sale on my floor. I walk in and am a terrorist. You don't know this, and I buy a desk.

Now, lets change it-----------------------------> You have 40 desks on your floor, and I walk in. I say, "I want you to build me a desk, and in womens bones, I want you to spell, Allah Ackbar!" I will supply the bones from dead women of my family.

You gonna build it?

Why not?

You will build it? What if I demand childrens bones, you gonna build that too!

You see, I can NOT demand that you build something special for me using your talents, period! They are YOUR TALENTS! But, if it is just a desk that you have up for sale, I CAN bring suit against you because you refused to sell it to me, just like you can bring suit if I refuse to sell you my house because of the color of your skin. The house is already there.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No one has a constitutional right to force a religious baker to bake a cake that they know the baker will find offensive, especially when there are plenty of other options for getting the cake made.

 

[Slyhunter]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I would never ask a gay baker to make a wedding cake for me, yuck! So he doesn't have to make that choice. And if he said I am GAY, and I refuse to make your cake, I would proclaim, "thank you very much," lololol!

This couple only went to this bimbo's bakery because he advertised himself openly, and I checked his website.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs? It was NOT the cake he refused to make, it was the artwork FOR the cake!

Let me put it to you this way-----------------> You have 40 desks for sale on my floor. I walk in and am a terrorist. You don't know this, and I buy a desk.

Now, lets change it-----------------------------> You have 40 desks on your floor, and I walk in. I say, "I want you to build me a desk, and in womens bones, I want you to spell, Allah Ackbar!" I will supply the bones from dead women of my family.

You gonna build it?

Why not?

You will build it? What if I demand childrens bones, you gonna build that too!

You see, I can NOT demand that you build something special for me using your talents, period! They are YOUR TALENTS! But, if it is just a desk that you have up for sale, I CAN bring suit against you because you refused to sell it to me, just like you can bring suit if I refuse to sell you my house because of the color of your skin. The house is already there.

Damn dude, took a awesome explanation and turned it into total shit by going off the deep end.

The answer is he'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, even the fags.
What he won't do is customize them for just anyone. Only the ones he approves of. Which means he probably won't do a divorce cake artwork either.

 

[Slyhunter]

No one has a constitutional right to force a religious baker to bake a cake that they know the baker will find offensive, especially when there are plenty of other options for getting the cake made.

Nobody has a constitutional right to force an Agnostic baker into designing a cake they find offensive.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No one has a constitutional right to force a religious baker to bake a cake that they know the baker will find offensive, especially when there are plenty of other options for getting the cake made.

Nobody has a constitutional right to force an Agnostic baker into designing a cake they find offensive.

Yes, as long as there other available options for getting the cake baked. But, if the agnostic baker is the only baker in town, then he has to bake the cake. Of course, very, very few towns have only one baker.

 

[imawhosure]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I would never ask a gay baker to make a wedding cake for me, yuck! So he doesn't have to make that choice. And if he said I am GAY, and I refuse to make your cake, I would proclaim, "thank you very much," lololol!

This couple only went to this bimbo's bakery because he advertised himself openly, and I checked his website.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs? It was NOT the cake he refused to make, it was the artwork FOR the cake!

Let me put it to you this way-----------------> You have 40 desks for sale on my floor. I walk in and am a terrorist. You don't know this, and I buy a desk.

Now, lets change it-----------------------------> You have 40 desks on your floor, and I walk in. I say, "I want you to build me a desk, and in womens bones, I want you to spell, Allah Ackbar!" I will supply the bones from dead women of my family.

You gonna build it?

Why not?

You will build it? What if I demand childrens bones, you gonna build that too!

You see, I can NOT demand that you build something special for me using your talents, period! They are YOUR TALENTS! But, if it is just a desk that you have up for sale, I CAN bring suit against you because you refused to sell it to me, just like you can bring suit if I refuse to sell you my house because of the color of your skin. The house is already there.

Damn dude, took a awesome explanation and turned it into total shit by going off the deep end.

The answer is he'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, even the fags.
What he won't do is customize them for just anyone. Only the ones he approves of. Which means he probably won't do a divorce cake artwork either.

Well, you caught me drift, and I caught yours, and we are both correct. That is all that matters-)

 

[Slyhunter]

No one has a constitutional right to force a religious baker to bake a cake that they know the baker will find offensive, especially when there are plenty of other options for getting the cake made.

Nobody has a constitutional right to force an Agnostic baker into designing a cake they find offensive.

Yes, as long as there other available options for getting the cake baked. But, if the agnostic baker is the only baker in town, then he has to bake the cake. Of course, very, very few towns have only one baker.

If a town only has one artist can you force him to paint a picture of two guys butt fucking?

 

[dblack]

There is nothing in the SC ruling that says businesses can now discriminate against whomever, whenever they want to. It says that the Christian man's beliefs should be taken into consideration TOO.

Right. I really didn't intend for this to be discussion of the ruling, but more the overall way we handle civil rights law. Picking and choosing which biases are allowed, and which aren't, is not a proper use of government, in my opinion.

It’s not picking “winners and losers”. What these laws do is protect minorities from discrimination by the majority.

No, they protect everyone from selected kinds of discrimination. And the only way a given kind of discrimination makes it onto the protected classes list is if there is majority support for suppressing it.

The Christian baker thing is a good example. The majority of US voters think gays should be treated equally. Fundamentalists Christians who think gays should be shunned are in the minority. If we were still at a point, socially, where the majority didn't believe in gay rights, we wouldn't be adding sexual preference to the protected classes in the first place.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No one has a constitutional right to force a religious baker to bake a cake that they know the baker will find offensive, especially when there are plenty of other options for getting the cake made.

Nobody has a constitutional right to force an Agnostic baker into designing a cake they find offensive.

Yes, as long as there other available options for getting the cake baked. But, if the agnostic baker is the only baker in town, then he has to bake the cake. Of course, very, very few towns have only one baker.

If a town only has one artist can you force him to paint a picture of two guys butt fucking?

Obviously, no, that would be a very different case. We're talking about baking a cake.

 

[Rustic]

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that are based on just plain old common sense.

So you are going to take offense to something written in a book thousands of years ago? Who cares?

It is not a book. It is a compendium of writings by unknown authors.

I only care because of those morons who are seeking to have us all, in 21st century U.S.A. , adhere to what appeared to be "common sense" to people in the middle east a few thousands of years ago, as if the experience of humanity in the thousands of years in between didn't teach us anything about "common sense." Remember that most all of this that comes down to us about "common sense" comes from an elite group of males who were privileged enough to be literate and able to write down their views for posterity. Where are the views of women kept illiterate and others kept illiterate as to what "common sense" might suggest? They may have carried a pregnancy and given birth with all of the pain and struggling that this human process entails. But they had no avenue to communicate their basic thoughts.

If the crap being bandied about was legitimate, it would contain the opinions of the entire human experience.

Moreover, when all of this history was taking place in the Middle East and the dregs of the Roman empire, millions of people were living all over the place: China, India, Africa, the yet to be "discovered" places in the western hemisphere, the islands in the Pacific.

Didn't your Supreme Being care enough to send somebody to them?

...in your opinion

 

[mikegriffith1]

You're basing your OP on a twisted definition of "discriminate." If a gay couple walks into a bakery and realizes that the baker will find it offensive to bake a gay wedding cake, they are not being "discriminated" against if the baker politely declines and refers them to any of several other bakeries. There is no constitutional right to have your wedding cake baked if the cake will offend the religious values of the baker. They can still get their cake baked and the religious baker is not forced to do something that he finds morally offensive.

 

[AZGAL]

"How exactly would a gay discriminate against a christian?": HOW EXACTLY???: By targeting meek, devout, obvious Christian businesses for Gayzombie apocalypse via humiliation through courts and social media hoping all along that you could change US law by meanspirited stunts and pranks...DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR??? the Gayzombie agenda just got SLAPPED FOR setting up a target to take down.

 

[dblack]

You're basing your OP on a twisted definition of "discriminate." If a gay couple walks into a bakery and realizes that the baker will find it offensive to bake a gay wedding cake, they are not being "discriminated" against if the baker politely declines and refers them to any of several other bakeries.

Nope. You're making assumptions based on the specifics of the recent SC decision. I'm asking a question about the general principles of civil rights law, especially the concepts of protected classes and public accommodations.

There is no constitutional right to have your wedding cake baked ...

You could end it right there. I totally agree.

 

[Silhouette]

You're basing your OP on a twisted definition of "discriminate." If a gay couple walks into a bakery and realizes that the baker will find it offensive to bake a gay wedding cake, they are not being "discriminated" against if the baker politely declines and refers them to any of several other bakeries. There is no constitutional right to have your wedding cake baked if the cake will offend the religious values of the baker. They can still get their cake baked and the religious baker is not forced to do something that he finds morally offensive.

Morally offensive. That's something only allowed with regards to behaviors, not a static thing like gender or race or where one was born. For instance, the Court would've decided much differently if the baker had said "I don't make wedding cakes for blacks because they morally offend me as a race." That would've been a very different outcome.

This USSC decision was about lifestyles, behaviors and how one can't dominate the other in the market place. Behaviors. Pay attention because you're going to hear more about this crucial distinction.

 

[dblack]

"How exactly would a gay discriminate against a christian?": HOW EXACTLY???

You must be lacking in imagination. Here's an example - a gay florist could refuse to arrange flowers for any weddings involving Christians.

 

[Kondor3]

I did not realize that sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals) belonged to a monolithic Religion protected by the First Amendment...

Well whadd'ya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...

===================================================

By the way, it's not just Christianity...

Damned-near every remaining "mainstream" religion on the face of the planet considers homosexuality an Abomination in the eyes of God and Man.

Homosexuality and religion - Wikipedia

All LibTard protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Slyhunter]

No one has a constitutional right to force a religious baker to bake a cake that they know the baker will find offensive, especially when there are plenty of other options for getting the cake made.

Nobody has a constitutional right to force an Agnostic baker into designing a cake they find offensive.

Yes, as long as there other available options for getting the cake baked. But, if the agnostic baker is the only baker in town, then he has to bake the cake. Of course, very, very few towns have only one baker.

If a town only has one artist can you force him to paint a picture of two guys butt fucking?

Obviously, no, that would be a very different case. We're talking about baking a cake.

No you're talking about decorating a cake. They can buy a cake, he'll sell them a cake, just won't decorate it.