If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[LittleNipper]

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.

Yes, it is obvious that they want their cake and eat it too.

 

[Silhouette]

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...

.

Well the Court certainly sees them as a quasi-religion. Or in layman's terms: a cult. And for many years now I've been saying that if they truly wanted Constitutional protections, since theirs are behaviors with dogma etc. they should've applied for tax-exempt status at the very outset of their judicial-legislation campaign.

 

[dblack]

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.

Yes, it is obvious that they want their cake and eat it too.

Are you saying they want it both ways?

 

[easyt65]

Yes, the Federal Government really needs to specifically focus on and crack down on CHRISTIANS....oh wait, they can't because of that 'Constitution' thing that prohibits them from singling out and negatively treating them and their beliefs / practices any different than any other religious groups....like their beloved and protected Islam...or LGBT religion....

 

[featherlite]

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.[/QUOTE]
The collective has no credibility... So gays do have every right to discriminate against Christians.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, and gays can be excommunicated from the church, as any other sinner in denial should.[/QUOTE]

The only person I know of who was excommunicated was ML, and all he did was speak Biblical truth to some specific shady practices within the Catholic Church.

and what about " Blessed is the man who doesnt walk in the council of the ungodly, or stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of scornful"

 

[mikegriffith1]

IOW, if gays don't get everything they want, it's "discrimination." Where in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to buy a wedding cake from bakers who will find the cake morally offensive? Having a wedding cake is not a basic need. Food and lodging are basic needs, but a wedding cake is something very different.

 

[hadit]

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

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings (and allow heterosexual men and women who believe in the Golden Rule the ability to boycott the establishment, as many of us have done to Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A).

Interesting that neither of those institutions have even attempted to deny service or employment to homosexuals.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's very simple: If it's a basic need--such as food, lodging, and medical care--the vendor must serve everyone, even people whose lifestyles he finds abhorrent. But if it's not a basic need but is clearly in the category of want/nice-to-have, then vendors should be allowed some discretion if the sale would be morally offensive to them. Wedding cakes clearly fall under want/nice-to-have.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's very simple: If it's a basic need--such as food, lodging, and medical care--the vendor must serve everyone, even people whose lifestyles he finds abhorrent. But if it's not a basic need but is clearly in the category of want/nice-to-have, then vendors should be allowed some discretion if the sale would be morally offensive to them. Wedding cakes clearly fall under want/nice-to-have.

I agree that this is generally the current state of U.S. Jurisprudence.

I disagree that it is proper. It offends the general principles of liberty and needlessly undermines the unbiased and nondiscriminatory free market.

A quote from the great Milton Friedman:

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

 

[mikegriffith1]

I think motive should be addressed as well. In some cases, it is clear that gay couples have gone looking for Christian vendors in the hope that the vendors would decline to do the transaction (cake sale, wedding photos, flowers, etc.) so that they could then take legal action against the vendors. Now, what do you call that?

 

[AZGAL]

We have to wonder why a gay couple would rather not give money to a gay or gay positive baker? Doesn't take much to realize the gays are choosing devout Christian businesses for targeting.

 

[Silhouette]

We have to wonder why a gay couple would rather not give money to a gay or gay positive baker? Doesn't take much to realize the gays are choosing devout Christian businesses for targeting.

No! They would never agree to marry each other with the sole intent of targeting a Christian business for persecution and as "example to others"! That has NEVER happened I'll bet.

 

[dblack]

It's very simple: If it's a basic need--such as food, lodging, and medical care--the vendor must serve everyone, even people whose lifestyles he finds abhorrent. But if it's not a basic need but is clearly in the category of want/nice-to-have, then vendors should be allowed some discretion if the sale would be morally offensive to them. Wedding cakes clearly fall under want/nice-to-have.

These are irrelevant details from my perspective. The product or service in question doesn't matter, basic need or otherwise. Whether or not homosexuality is intrinsic, or a choice - also irrelevant. We're talking about basic self-determination. If a person doesn't want to serve another, the state has no business forcing them to, regardless of the quality of their reasoning.

I get the desire to purge racism and bigotry from our society - I really do. But government is the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Silhouette]

These are irrelevant details from my perspective. The product or service in question doesn't matter, basic need or otherwise. Whether or not homosexuality is intrinsic, or a choice - also irrelevant. We're talking about basic self-determination. If a person doesn't want to serve another, the state has no business forcing them to, regardless of the quality of their reasoning.

I get the desire to purge racism and bigotry from our society - I really do. But government is the wrong tool for the job.

Sorry. But race is static and cannot be helped. It's been a tool to oppress an actual class of people for far too long. Same with gender. Women won't like to be told at polling places "we don't let your kind vote here"...That's how far it's gone in the past.

But as to LIFESTYLES, that's entirely a different beast. Faith of course will always win out against a deviant sex cult lifestyle that demands the faithful abdicate in order to promote the repugnant lifestyle that has ZERO constitutional protections.

Can you imagine the legal quagmire if just one lifestyle but no others got special Constitutional protections? Egads!

 

[dblack]

These are irrelevant details from my perspective. The product or service in question doesn't matter, basic need or otherwise. Whether or not homosexuality is intrinsic, or a choice - also irrelevant. We're talking about basic self-determination. If a person doesn't want to serve another, the state has no business forcing them to, regardless of the quality of their reasoning.

I get the desire to purge racism and bigotry from our society - I really do. But government is the wrong tool for the job.

Sorry. But race is static and cannot be helped.

Yeah. That's irrelevant in my view. Government should never be allowed to discriminate. Equality under the law is crucial to a free society. But it's not up to government to tell us who to associate with or for what reasons we can decline.

 

[Pop23]

It's very simple: If it's a basic need--such as food, lodging, and medical care--the vendor must serve everyone, even people whose lifestyles he finds abhorrent. But if it's not a basic need but is clearly in the category of want/nice-to-have, then vendors should be allowed some discretion if the sale would be morally offensive to them. Wedding cakes clearly fall under want/nice-to-have.

Indeed. The Baker did not say he would not provide cakes for gays, and likely would provide the cake for gay couples of opposite sex (and yes, that does and has happened). His objection was to supplying wedding cakes to same sex couples. This objection would apply regardless to whether the same sex couple were Homosexual or Heterosexual (and yes, believe it or not, it is legal for same sex Heterosexuals to Marry).

He has never before offered same sex wedding cakes and likely never will, regardless of the sexuality of the couple. It would be a new product that he has never offered, again, regardless of sexuality.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And let us not forget that during the years of debate over gay marriage, gay rights advocates swore up and down that "if you are not gay, gay marriage will not affect you." Remember? I can't count how many times I heard, "Look, why do you care about gay marriage? If you're not gay, then gay marriage won't affect you. It won't change your life one bit. So what's your problem?" Remember?

 

[dblack]

And let us not forget that during the years of debate over gay marriage, gay rights advocates swore up and down that "if you are not gay, gay marriage will not affect you." Remember? I can't count how many times I heard, "Look, why do you care about gay marriage? If you're not gay, then gay marriage won't affect you. It won't change your life one bit. So what's your problem?" Remember?

And this approach only makes it harder to ensure real equal rights. If we take, as a premise, that someone's freedom to do something includes a requirement that everyone else support them in exercising that freedom - then anyone opposed to it will fight back. If on the other hand, we say "you're free to do that, but I want no part of it", we can actually have a free society.

 

[Silhouette]

And let us not forget that during the years of debate over gay marriage, gay rights advocates swore up and down that "if you are not gay, gay marriage will not affect you." Remember? I can't count how many times I heard, "Look, why do you care about gay marriage? If you're not gay, then gay marriage won't affect you. It won't change your life one bit. So what's your problem?" Remember?

Yeah, I remember. Oh, and it won't affect you if you're a child caught up in it either. Remember that too? Only I'm pretty sure a child bound by a contract that erases all hope of them knowing either a father or mother under their roof for life DOES affect them.

 

[dblack]

The poll results we nearly unanimous. But I wonder if all the people who voted yes are being honest. Would you really be ok with business putting up "NO CHRISTIANS" signs?