Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays?

[LordBrownTrout]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

Catering a wedding is no more 'being a participant' than selling hotdogs at a ballgame is being a participant in the game.

By your 'logic' anyone who had a home related business - cleaning carpets, pest control, pool cleaning, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, housekeeping, and on and on,

could refuse to do business with a gay married couple because they were 'participating' in their lifestyle.

So, if there were 10 hot dog stands in new york, you would be cool with govt forcing one of them to attend a gay wedding to serve hot dogs?

If a hotdog vendor offers a wedding catering service, then yes, he should not be able to discriminate against gay weddings.

If gay weddings bother him, then he needs to get out of the wedding catering business.

Wrong, of course. He's not discriminating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Why would someone be in favor of government forcing another person to go against their religious beliefs? It seems govt is being judgmental.

I'm sure people said the same thing back when government gave the finger to some's religious beliefs re: segregation, interracial marriage, and slavery.

Christian arguments defending slavery were common:

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

 

[Iceweasel]

If a hotdog vendor offers a wedding catering service, then yes, he should not be able to discriminate against gay weddings.

If gay weddings bother him, then he needs to get out of the wedding catering business.

OR, we could restore our Constitutional rights where they have been over written by tyrannical leftists like you.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

So that's your excuse for ramming your leftist agenda down people's throats? We had slavery therefore .....

 

[Camp]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

Catering a wedding is no more 'being a participant' than selling hotdogs at a ballgame is being a participant in the game.

By your 'logic' anyone who had a home related business - cleaning carpets, pest control, pool cleaning, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, housekeeping, and on and on,

could refuse to do business with a gay married couple because they were 'participating' in their lifestyle.

So, if there were 10 hot dog stands in new york, you would be cool with govt forcing one of them to attend a gay wedding to serve hot dogs?

Why do you guys always have to come up with ridiculous examples to attempt to make the silly points you try to make? No one in NYC will have a problem finding a hot dog vendor to service a gay wedding and the city would not and could not force anyone to service such a wedding.

They wouldn't? Colorado said a baker must be forced to sell cakes at a gay wedding.

That case has nothing to do with this case or the post about the hot dog vendors in NYC. Every legal case is different and unique, They are not interchangeable to select for you convenience.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Why would someone be in favor of government forcing another person to go against their religious beliefs? It seems govt is being judgmental.

I'm sure people said the same thing back when government gave the finger to some's religious beliefs re: segregation, interracial marriage, and slavery.

It wasn't religion if segregation and slavery were advanced.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

Catering a wedding is no more 'being a participant' than selling hotdogs at a ballgame is being a participant in the game.

By your 'logic' anyone who had a home related business - cleaning carpets, pest control, pool cleaning, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, housekeeping, and on and on,

could refuse to do business with a gay married couple because they were 'participating' in their lifestyle.

So, if there were 10 hot dog stands in new york, you would be cool with govt forcing one of them to attend a gay wedding to serve hot dogs?

Why do you guys always have to come up with ridiculous examples to attempt to make the silly points you try to make? No one in NYC will have a problem finding a hot dog vendor to service a gay wedding and the city would not and could not force anyone to service such a wedding.

They wouldn't? Colorado said a baker must be forced to sell cakes at a gay wedding.

The Colorado baker was only asked to bake a cake for a celebration in Colorado AFTER a gay couple had been married in Massachusetts.

Not that that matters...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

Catering a wedding is no more 'being a participant' than selling hotdogs at a ballgame is being a participant in the game.

By your 'logic' anyone who had a home related business - cleaning carpets, pest control, pool cleaning, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, housekeeping, and on and on,

could refuse to do business with a gay married couple because they were 'participating' in their lifestyle.

So, if there were 10 hot dog stands in new york, you would be cool with govt forcing one of them to attend a gay wedding to serve hot dogs?

Why do you guys always have to come up with ridiculous examples to attempt to make the silly points you try to make? No one in NYC will have a problem finding a hot dog vendor to service a gay wedding and the city would not and could not force anyone to service such a wedding.

They wouldn't? Colorado said a baker must be forced to sell cakes at a gay wedding.

That case has nothing to do with this case or the post about the hot dog vendors in NYC. Every legal case is different and unique, They are not interchangeable to select for you convenience.

No case law precedent? Sure. Unfortunately, NY could now force a vendor to serve whatever group.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny to hear these people trying to draw a distinction between simply selling a product to gays or to serving a meal to gays in an eatery, and the business of catering,

when in fact most of them support the right of a business to refuse any of the above.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Catering a wedding is no more 'being a participant' than selling hotdogs at a ballgame is being a participant in the game.

By your 'logic' anyone who had a home related business - cleaning carpets, pest control, pool cleaning, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, housekeeping, and on and on,

could refuse to do business with a gay married couple because they were 'participating' in their lifestyle.

So, if there were 10 hot dog stands in new york, you would be cool with govt forcing one of them to attend a gay wedding to serve hot dogs?

Why do you guys always have to come up with ridiculous examples to attempt to make the silly points you try to make? No one in NYC will have a problem finding a hot dog vendor to service a gay wedding and the city would not and could not force anyone to service such a wedding.

They wouldn't? Colorado said a baker must be forced to sell cakes at a gay wedding.

That case has nothing to do with this case or the post about the hot dog vendors in NYC. Every legal case is different and unique, They are not interchangeable to select for you convenience.

No case law precedent? Sure. Unfortunately, NY could now force a vendor to serve whatever group.

NYS has a sexual orientation non-discrimination LAW.

Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Katzndogz]

If you are so concerned about slavery why would you want a baker to labor against his will like any other slave?

 

[Camp]

If a hotdog vendor offers a wedding catering service, then yes, he should not be able to discriminate against gay weddings.

If gay weddings bother him, then he needs to get out of the wedding catering business.

OR, we could restore our Constitutional rights where they have been over written by tyrannical leftists like you.

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

So that's your excuse for ramming your leftist agenda down people's throats? We had slavery therefore .....

1. No

2. You're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you are so concerned about slavery why would you want a baker to labor against his will like any other slave?

You're more demented than I thought, and that was already a pretty high bar.

A baker who cannot resist the desire to discriminate can get another job. A slave couldn't. Duh.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Why would someone be in favor of government forcing another person to go against their religious beliefs? It seems govt is being judgmental.

I'm sure people said the same thing back when government gave the finger to some's religious beliefs re: segregation, interracial marriage, and slavery.

It wasn't religion if segregation and slavery were advanced.

You realize of course every Bible advocates both right?

# Not to compel the Hebrew servant to do the work of a slave (Lev. 25:39) (negative).
# Not to sell a Hebrew servant as a slave (Lev. 25:42) (negative).
# To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46) (affirmative).
# Not to surrender a slave, who has fled to the land of Israel, to his owner who lives outside Palestine (Deut. 23:16) (negative).
Not to wrong such a slave (Deut. 23:17)

Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3)
Not to anoint a stranger with the anointing oil (Ex. 30:32)
Not to give flesh of the Paschal lamb to a stranger who lives among you to eat (Ex. 12:45)
# Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16) (negative).
# To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17) (affirmative).
Not to settle idolaters in our land (Ex. 23:33) (negative)

 

[peach174]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

What about all the ones who are against their religious rights?
Are they not judging also?

 

[Katzndogz]

If you are so concerned about slavery why would you want a baker to labor against his will like any other slave?

You're more demented than I thought, and that was already a pretty high bar.

A baker who cannot resist the desire to discriminate can get another job. A slave couldn't. Duh.

Slaves refused to labor all the time. They ran away. Then they were caught and punished. Just like these vendors are punished.

 

[paperview]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

Catering a wedding is no more 'being a participant' than selling hotdogs at a ballgame is being a participant in the game.

By your 'logic' anyone who had a home related business - cleaning carpets, pest control, pool cleaning, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, housekeeping, and on and on,

could refuse to do business with a gay married couple because they were 'participating' in their lifestyle.

They're not even catering a wedding. The wedding part is over when the food comes.

They are catering a party at a hall, or a house.

In the Pizza case, the most they would be doing is

Pizza delivery service.

 

[paperview]

If you are so concerned about slavery why would you want a baker to labor against his will like any other slave?

You're more demented than I thought, and that was already a pretty high bar.

A baker who cannot resist the desire to discriminate can get another job. A slave couldn't. Duh.

Slaves refused to labor all the time. They ran away. Then they were caught and punished. Just like these vendors are punished.

Yup, the vendors are just like runaway slaves, being whipped 50 lashes by Massa.

You guys, I swear....

 

[paperview]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Why would someone be in favor of government forcing another person to go against their religious beliefs? It seems govt is being judgmental.

I'm sure people said the same thing back when government gave the finger to some's religious beliefs re: segregation, interracial marriage, and slavery.

It wasn't religion if segregation and slavery were advanced.

Those millions and millions of people who used religion and the bible to defend slavery and segregation sure thought so - and even to deny them service in open to the public businesses not that long ago.

Who are you to tell them their interpretation of the bible is wrong?