Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Carib Gyal]

Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??

Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.

And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?

We have Wyccans here, but they're Indians. Loincloth and feather Indians. They live way up in the bush by themselves and they come down to town once in a while to sell birds and iguanas and stuff they make.

But I digress.

Would you ask one of them wiccans to bake you a cake for a gay wedding if they were to also bake cakes to sell, and if they refused based upon their belief in what ever it is that wiccans believe in, would you try and get them banned from coming down to sell their cakes, birds and iguanas all because of ?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Would I ask them to bake me a cake for a gay wedding? Sure.

But I'm not in America and we can pretty much do....or not do....what we want to here.

If they refused would you want them banned, and if you don't but others did, would you fight for their freedom of choice in the matter ?

I would understand if they didn't want to for whatever reason. Religious, lazy, didn't like me personally, whatever. But I ain't fighting anybody unless they want to harm me or mine.

But ban them? Nah.

 

[Syriusly]

Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??

No.

I have seen Christmas becoming more and more commercialized, but I haven't seen anyone 'intimidated' about Christmas.

Perhaps some people are really, really, really easily intimidated.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be. The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.

But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?

Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)

Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.

If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.

Don't like it- change the law.

 

[beagle9]

No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.

You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?

Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases. Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.

Colorado Revised Statutes

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.


COCODE​

>>>>

Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.

I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.

It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?" that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.

But sigh, I'll answer anyway.

Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law. Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.

A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers. If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.

A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham. However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.

A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.


>>>>

The key word is Christian, and so if a Christian decides to label his or her business as a Christian Bakery, meaning that they don't engage in any activity that would be against their belief, their charter or their operational standard in which they keep, and the customers are fully aware that they are a Christian Bakery and all, then would you think it right that if I were to walk in and demand or ask for a Cake topper with a Devil, and maybe a demonic symbol on top that they should make it for me, otherwise to accommodate me ? And if the Baker refuses, then should I be able to go and get the feds to force that Bakery to create the topper in which I had ask it to make for me ? I didn't think so, but it's once again your move chess player..

What I think is "right" isn't relevant to the discussion but as I've already shared with you I'll repeat. I think that public accommodation laws as applied to private for-profit businesses should be repealed and the business owner free to refuse service based on whatever criteria they choose to function under. If they don't like black people, they can refuse service. If they don't like white people, they can refuse service. If they don't like Irish people, they can refuse service. If they don't like Muslim people, they can refuse service. If they don't like Christian people, they can refuse service. If they don't like homosexual people, they can refuse service. I don't think it's "right", but then again I don't think government should be dictating such things.

A discussion of what I think things should be and a discussion of the reality of how things are are two different discussions.

Whether a business uses "Christian" in the name of their business, under the law is irrelevant to how the laws function.

And again for your silly example, if a bakery stocks Devil cake toppers and sells them to straight couples, then (in states where sexual orientation is included under anti-discrimination law) they can't refuse to sell them to devil worshipers but sell them to Christians. If they don't stock them at all, then they are not required to sell them to anyone. If a bakery stocks male toppers and separate female toppers and sells them as individual items - they cannot refuse to sell two male or two female toppers to same-sex couples. Now if the bakery ONLY sold single toppers consisting of males and females as one unit - then they wouldn't be required to place a special order to procure single toppers with both figures being male or female. Unless of course special ordering toppers, instead of only selling from stock, is a service they provide to other patrons, in that case they provide such a service and would need to provide that service equally. To not fall into that problem, only sell toppers from stock and don't offer special orders.>>>>

I have to disagree with your broad statements above, because I only think that people would refuse a service based upon the sinfulness or sin that would be a part of the customers request, in which the service may become entangled with in a way that would cause the Christian to become an enabler of that sin in which he or she would be against as a Christian in life. The others mentioned are not that of either sin or a sinfulness in life, so not sure where you came from in that opinion you had given.

 

[beagle9]

It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be. The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.

But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?

Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)

Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.

If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.

Don't like it- change the law.

Sexual preference ? That's the one that just has me scratching my head here, because how on earth did that ever get to be on the protected status class like it did ? I can understand the others, but sexual preference or the sexuality of a person ? How did that (ones sexuality) go from the bed room all the way to the federal governments protected status class ? It's simply amazing when one thinks about it..

 

[Carib Gyal]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

 

[Skylar]

It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be. The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.

But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?

Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)

Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.

If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.

Don't like it- change the law.

Sexual preference ? That's the one that just has me scratching my head here, because how on earth did that ever get to be on the protected status class like it did ? I can understand the others, but sexual preference or the sexuality of a person ? How did that (ones sexuality) go from the bed room all the way to the federal governments protected status class ? It's simply amazing when one thinks about it..

I'm astounded too that anyone would give a crap about someone's sexual orientation when selling them cake. But some people make it an issue. The laws in many states sets minimum codes of conduct for proprietors serving the public. And you have to treat all your customers fairly and equally.

 

[Skylar]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

 

[beagle9]

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

It's a congressional organization. This is interesting, and I think I agree with it, especially the last paragraph:

Non-Black membership

All past and present members of the caucus have been black. In 2006, while running for Congress in a Tennessee district which is 60% black, white candidate Steve Cohen pledged to apply for membership in order to represent his constituents. However, after his election, his application was refused.[7] Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."


Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, said: "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." Clay also issued the following statement:


Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.


Later the same week Representative Tom Tancredo, R-CO., objected to the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference arguing that, "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."

Congressional Black Caucus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Skylar]

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

 

[beagle9]

It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be. The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.

But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?

Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)

Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.

If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.

Don't like it- change the law.

Sexual preference ? That's the one that just has me scratching my head here, because how on earth did that ever get to be on the protected status class like it did ? I can understand the others, but sexual preference or the sexuality of a person ? How did that (ones sexuality) go from the bed room all the way to the federal governments protected status class ? It's simply amazing when one thinks about it..

I'm astounded too that anyone would give a crap about someone's sexual orientation when selling them cake. But some people make it an issue. The laws in many states sets minimum codes of conduct for proprietors serving the public. And you have to treat all your customers fairly and equally.

The gay thing and marriage is new though, so the reaction to it is going to continue to cause problems among some or many, and it is understandable because people hate to see what they always felt that America represented once to them slowly slipping away, and it now going in a direction that is being found as a new and in uncharted waters. No one knows where the boat is now sailing, nor if the course that has been chartered is the right course or not for them to return from... Now in a nation that is fast becoming more and more foriiegn to them all, they are saddened about it all because the war on them continues from many directions now, and on to their dismay it all keeps on going.

 

[Syriusly]

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Exact business I was thinking of.

 

[Syriusly]

People say a lot of things. Being able to back them up is another thing.

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>

And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

No- frankly- if you want it to change- you need to change the law- otherwise you are just hoping that if someone puts a big sign saying "Christian" that no one you disagree with wants to buy something from you.

 

[Skylar]

The gay thing and marriage is new though, so the reaction to it is going to continue to cause problems among some or many, and it is understandable because people hate to see what they always felt that America represented once to them slowly slipping away, and it now going in a direction that is being found as a new and in uncharted waters.

I imagine those who believed in executing gays felt the same way when such laws were abandoned. And that those who supported segregation when such laws were overturned. And those that opposed interracial marriage when those laws were overturned. There will always be those that cling to such things.

But as a Christian, if you feel that society only 'represents you' if they discrimination against someone else, you may want to change the passages of your Bible that you're focusing on.

 

[beagle9]

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon (as a religious people) is sin that is found written within these religious belief systems in which they all hold. Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ? I mean the gay couple should know that a Muslim Bakery wouldn't make them a cake to begin with right, but would they have went in anyway, and all in hopes to expose the bakery in that way, and then in hopes to somehow shut it down ?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold. Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ? I mean the gay couple should know that a Muslim Bakery wouldn't make them a cake to begin with right, but would they have went in anyway, and all in hopes to expose the bakery in that way, and then in hopes to somehow shut it down ?

Again- your argument is with the law.

If you don't like it- change the law.

 

[Skylar]

Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ? Hmmm..

Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

Your Black Muslim Bakery was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with sin as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.

To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.

Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.

Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?

They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.

Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?

 

[beagle9]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

 

[Skylar]

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.

The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.

Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.