Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. .

Real minorities have never ridden any gravy train- they just want to be served like anyone.

And they never will be. At least not by "protected classes" nonsense. You don't really get the point I'm making, do you? Under corporatism, you only get rights if you have significant political influence. Otherwise, you're fucked. Real minorities won't ever get PC status. That privilege is reserved for those who can lobby Congress effectively.

 

[Skylar]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Following that logic, what law couldn't a person ignore on the basis of religious belief? And since the courts have already found that there need be no rational basis for a religious belief, what couldn't a person classify as a religious belief?

And finally, if your religion makes it impossible to do your job....wouldn't it your responsibility to find a job that is consistent with your religious beliefs? And not society to change to meet whatever you choose to believe?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Following that logic, what law couldn't a person ignore on the basis of religious belief?

Any law that infringes upon the means of the innocent to exercise their God-given rights. And that's because the first responsibility of anyone claiming any right, is to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).

 

[Skylar]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Following that logic, what law couldn't a person ignore on the basis of religious belief?

Any law that infringes upon the means of the innocent to exercise their God-given rights.

Infringes according to who? God given according to who?

The courts have never found that PA laws infringe on any right. With the USSC having rejected requests for a writ of cert for cases involving Christians refusing services to gays and being fined for it under PA laws.

So I assume at this point you're gonna start quoting yourself as God again. As you're clearly not finding support for your interpretations of which rights have been violated in the law.

And that's because the first responsibility of anyone claiming any right, is to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).

Requesting a cake from a cake baker isn't an unreasonable act. Nor does it violate anyone's rights. Nixing your entire argument.

 

[Ernie S.]

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Did you read the next phrase?

I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?

No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.

 

[Ernie S.]

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.

 

[Ernie S.]

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words "Gay marriage is wrong" placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is:
Read more at 13 Gay Bakeries Deny Christian s Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake - Freedom Outpost

 

[Skylar]

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America.

They are held to the same law as everyone else is held to. What you're demanding is that there be two sets of laws. A more lenient set of laws exclusively for Christians. And a much harsher law for everyone else.

Um, no. There's the same law for everyone. That's not 'persecution' That's due process.

 

[Ernie S.]

No. I'm just demanding that the 1st Amendment be followed.

 

[Skylar]

No. I'm just demanding that the 1st Amendment be followed.

The 1st amendment doesn't exempt you from any law you don't like. It never has.

 

[dblack]

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.
They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Did you read the next phrase?

I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?

No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.

You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.

"Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yeah, they are.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Did you read the next phrase?

I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?

No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.

You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.

"Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.

It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.

Absolutely! It says laws can't be passed that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.

And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.

 

[dblack]

It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.

Absolutely! It says laws can't be passed that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.

And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.

That's my point in a nutshell. That's exactly what they're doing by including exemptions.

 

[Seawytch]

Absolutely! It says laws can't be passed that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.

And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.

Laws against murder infringe upon someone's religious right to human sacrifice.

 

[Seawytch]

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words "Gay marriage is wrong" placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is:
Read more at 13 Gay Bakeries Deny Christian s Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake - Freedom Outpost

You guys just really don't understand this issue at all do you? Straight Couple A walks in asks for a cake from the catalogue of wedding cakes. Gay Couple B walks in and asks for the same cake Straight Couple A asked for. It is considered discrimination in some places to refuse Couple B the same cake you baked Couple A.

In the instances described in your link, the order was not for a cake from the catalogue, it was for a special order that included hate speech. The bakers did not make the cake for someone and then refuse these Christians because they were Christian. The gay bakers, in fact, offered to make the cake and provide the icing for the customer to make a custom message.

I suppose as a Christian wedding photographer, I should have the right to refuse to photograph:

1) a marriage between people of different races

Daniel 2:43
"As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay."

2) a marriage between a Christian and someone of another faith

2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers."

3) a marriage between a man who divorces his wife and marries another.

Matthew 19:9
"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery.”

4) a marriage between a couple who have had sex before marriage

I Corinthians 6:9-11,

"Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God".

5) a marriage between people who want to be rich

1 Timothy 6:9
"But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare,
into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin
and destruction."

 

[dblack]

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words "Gay marriage is wrong" placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is:
Read more at 13 Gay Bakeries Deny Christian s Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake - Freedom Outpost

You guys just really don't understand this issue at all do you? Straight Couple A walks in asks for a cake from the catalogue of wedding cakes. Gay Couple B walks in and asks for the same cake Straight Couple A asked for. It is considered discrimination in some places to refuse Couple B the same cake you baked Couple A.

No. It's not. It's only considered illegal discrimination if it's done for one of the reasons on that state's protected classes list. The baker can refuse service to Couple B and simply not divulge the reason. That's why this is more correctly debated as a freedom of speech issue, rather than a freedom of religion issue. It's not the discrimination that's illegal - it's the act of refusing service as an expression of disapproval.

I suppose as a Christian wedding photographer, I should have the right to refuse to photograph:

1) a marriage between people of different races

2) a marriage between a Christian and someone of another faith

3) a marriage between a man who divorces his wife and marries another.

4) a marriage between a couple who have had sex before marriage

5) a marriage between people who want to be rich

As a wedding photographer, you should have the right to refuse to photograph anything for any reason you might dream up.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.

LOL.

For the record:
a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.

LOL.

For the record:
a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.

Spot-on.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Ernie S.]

A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.

 

[Ernie S.]

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.

LOL.

For the record:
a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.

Spot-on.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Shut up and make me a ham sandwich!