So Who's Really Being Intolerant ?

[Lonestar_logic]

"So Who's Really Being Intolerant ?"

Conservatives, who seek to discriminate against gay patrons for no other reason than who those patrons are, in violation of just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws that in no way 'violate' religious liberty.

Liar.

It has to do with one thing, providing a product that conflicts with one's religious principles.

Why does a homosexual's desire to purchase a product outweigh a person's right to religious freedom?

Answer: it doesn't.

Go find one of 99 bakers who will provide the product you seek and leave the 1 who cannot, be. They will either flourish or wither and die but will do so while still enjoying their religious freedom.

This whole thing is nothing but homosexuals screaming 'you must see me, hear me, approve of me or you are a hater.'

Diversity of thought? Yeah, right.

Wrong.

There's no legitimate reason to discriminate against a gay patron; it's motivated solely by hate.

There was never any doubt of that fact but this photo of the signing ceremony is incontrovertible proof.

Yes...is see you cleaned your green shirt and got a new rainbow arm band....and that is a nice brick in your hand....going out to discuss freedom of religion?

If my religion does not allow for killing of people or animals, can I refuse service to anyone carrying a firearm?

Yes.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Contrary to nature."

Anything exhibited by nature or non-human animals is "natural" yes? So what about the several hundred species of animals exhibiting homosexual behaviours and preferences? Sounds pretty "natural" to me.

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine

So you are saying that homosexuals are actually animals, Since animals show homosexual tendencies.

Everything alive is an animal.

 

[WinterBorn]

How are they being forced to go against their religious beliefs?? Are THEY being forced to engage in homosexual acts? They are making pizzas, arranging flowers or baking cakes. That is all.

No they are being forced to cater to a group that in their belief system is an abomination and they wish not to.

It is an "abomination"?? Really?? And how do they determine this?

Lev. 18:22 for starters.

I'm sorry, but you will have to find new testament references calling it an abomination. Since almost all the rest of Leviticus is routinely ignored.

I don't think it's ignored. There are I believe three passages in the NT that basically says homosexuality is a sin.

So it is a sin, but not an abomination?

Ok, then let any baker who is without sin refuse to bake the cake.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Contrary to nature."

Anything exhibited by nature or non-human animals is "natural" yes? So what about the several hundred species of animals exhibiting homosexual behaviours and preferences? Sounds pretty "natural" to me.

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine

So you are saying that homosexuals are actually animals, Since animals show homosexual tendencies.

We are all animals.

 

[protectionist]

Of course they're being forced to engage in homosexual behavior, by being part of a homosexual wedding. And being told if they open a business to the public, they open it to everyone in the public, is absolutely outrageous and smacks of fascism. Should every owner of a women's shoe store be required to sell men's shoes too ? Should every seller of guitars have to also sell pianos, to satisfy the piano players ? What they are being paid to do is to make pizza, bakes cakes and arrange flowers, for whom they see fit, within the limitations of their religion, not how some degenerates demand they do it,. And it isn't who is eating the cake that is the issue, it is the store workers having to participate in a homosexual activity. Get it ?

" What they are being paid to do is to make pizza, bakes cakes and arrange flowers, for whom they see fit, within the limitations of their religion, not how some degenerates demand they do it,"

The underlined and bold is the bullshit.

They open a business to the public, they are not required to carry everything in stock that is even vaguely related to their shop, as your ridiculous post suggests. But they are required to do business with the public. They cannot discriminate against gays, blacks, jews, muslims, men, women, or any other subgroup that they decide they find unacceptable.

And the store is not participating in homosexual activity. The homosexual activity will take place on the honeymoon. The bakery is simply baking a cake and being paid by homosexuals.

No....the wedding is the activity....and they are protected from participating by the Constitution...regardless of what the Supreme Court says....they also said separate but equal was right as well..........

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

 

[WinterBorn]

How are christians being discriminated against? By not allowing them to discriminate? lol

If christians do not want to follow the laws of the land, where dealing with people is concerned, then they should do like the Amish. Otherwise, you follow the basic rules.

Forcing them to go against their religious beliefs isn't discriminating them for their beliefs?

How are they being forced to go against their religious beliefs?? Are THEY being forced to engage in homosexual acts? They are making pizzas, arranging flowers or baking cakes. That is all.

They are being forced to go against their religious beliefs, they believe, by having to participate in something which is against their religion (ie. same sex marriage)

They are not participants. They are paid to provide a service. Since they are a business open to the public, they have to follow certain rules.

Its funny that these same people do not object to providing flowers for muslim or hindu weddings. They don't mind making cakes for atheist weddings. They don't mind working on the sabbath. But somehow baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple puts their soul in danger. lmao Absolutely ridiculous.

Just another example of people trying to justify hatred by using their religion. It was done against blacks, jews, and women. It didn't work then and won't work now.

Yes they are. They are doing something to help make a gay wedding take place. And who said these same people do not object to providing flowers for muslim or hindu weddings ? I haven't heard that. Maybe they do object to that. I'm not of the same religion as these people, but even if I was, I wouldn't go around casting judgement on them like you are. Who are you to tell them what they may or may not believe is right for their religion ? Are you some kind of expert on their religion ? I don't even now what their religion is, do you ?

I am not claiming any expertise on religion. I am simply claiming that the laws against businesses discriminating against gays are there for a good reason.

 

[protectionist]

NO. "Anything" exhibited by animals is NOT natural. Homosexuality is exhibited by various species of animals, and being contrary to nature (design of body parts and functions) is thereby not natural.

Homosexuality sounds natural to you, because you don't have a correct definition of "natural".

Natural usage would indicate a perspective relative to pro creation..Yet humans are capable of controlling reproduction unlike animals...Elderly couples get married because of love, not for reproduction...If two humans of the same sex want to live that whey I have no problem with it, because of the hope involved with love between humans...
The toxic shame that religious people addicted to religion spread is not helping the cause of what was Jesus' words when he spoke of loving each other, and that was to treat others, as you would want to be treated....if you love the sinner but hate the sin, how can you show them the light and be a positive force, feeding the soul the bread of God? If you are mean and turn them away?

Natural usage is related to the design of body parts. If I was acting in an unnatural way, I would want and expect to be treated that I was acting unnaturally. If you love the deranged person, you help him to overcome his ailment by explaining it is deranged. You don't help him by encouraging him to continue to act deranged.

Every sexual act that is not aimed at reproduction is, therefore, unnatural. Having sex and using birth control is unnatural. Oral sex between a man and a woman is unnatural.

So lets make sure all those involved in "unnatural acts" are treated the same. M'kay?

Quite a few animals have non-procreative sex. Bottlenose dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees are two that come instantly to mind.

There are several species that use non-reproductive sex as a way of bonding on an emotional level. Humans are not the only animals capable of the emotion of love. We are just the only ones that punish it.

OFF TOPIC

 

[orogenicman]

How are they being forced to go against their religious beliefs?? Are THEY being forced to engage in homosexual acts? They are making pizzas, arranging flowers or baking cakes. That is all.

No they are being forced to cater to a group that in their belief system is an abomination and they wish not to.

It is an "abomination"?? Really?? And how do they determine this?

Lev. 18:22 for starters.

I'm sorry, but you will have to find new testament references calling it an abomination. Since almost all the rest of Leviticus is routinely ignored.

I don't think it's ignored. There are I believe three passages in the NT that basically says homosexuality is a sin.

Christ also said that if you sin with your hand, cut it off. How many hands do you have left?

 

[WinterBorn]

" What they are being paid to do is to make pizza, bakes cakes and arrange flowers, for whom they see fit, within the limitations of their religion, not how some degenerates demand they do it,"

The underlined and bold is the bullshit.

They open a business to the public, they are not required to carry everything in stock that is even vaguely related to their shop, as your ridiculous post suggests. But they are required to do business with the public. They cannot discriminate against gays, blacks, jews, muslims, men, women, or any other subgroup that they decide they find unacceptable.

And the store is not participating in homosexual activity. The homosexual activity will take place on the honeymoon. The bakery is simply baking a cake and being paid by homosexuals.

No....the wedding is the activity....and they are protected from participating by the Constitution...regardless of what the Supreme Court says....they also said separate but equal was right as well..........

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

 

[protectionist]

Forcing them to go against their religious beliefs isn't discriminating them for their beliefs?

How are they being forced to go against their religious beliefs?? Are THEY being forced to engage in homosexual acts? They are making pizzas, arranging flowers or baking cakes. That is all.

They are being forced to go against their religious beliefs, they believe, by having to participate in something which is against their religion (ie. same sex marriage)

They are not participants. They are paid to provide a service. Since they are a business open to the public, they have to follow certain rules.

Its funny that these same people do not object to providing flowers for muslim or hindu weddings. They don't mind making cakes for atheist weddings. They don't mind working on the sabbath. But somehow baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple puts their soul in danger. lmao Absolutely ridiculous.

Just another example of people trying to justify hatred by using their religion. It was done against blacks, jews, and women. It didn't work then and won't work now.

Yes they are. They are doing something to help make a gay wedding take place. And who said these same people do not object to providing flowers for muslim or hindu weddings ? I haven't heard that. Maybe they do object to that. I'm not of the same religion as these people, but even if I was, I wouldn't go around casting judgement on them like you are. Who are you to tell them what they may or may not believe is right for their religion ? Are you some kind of expert on their religion ? I don't even now what their religion is, do you ?

I am not claiming any expertise on religion. I am simply claiming that the laws against businesses discriminating against gays are there for a good reason.

EARTH TO WB: There WAS NO law in Indiana about discriminating against gays. There WAS a law against discriminating against Christians (and any religion)

 

[WinterBorn]

Natural usage would indicate a perspective relative to pro creation..Yet humans are capable of controlling reproduction unlike animals...Elderly couples get married because of love, not for reproduction...If two humans of the same sex want to live that whey I have no problem with it, because of the hope involved with love between humans...
The toxic shame that religious people addicted to religion spread is not helping the cause of what was Jesus' words when he spoke of loving each other, and that was to treat others, as you would want to be treated....if you love the sinner but hate the sin, how can you show them the light and be a positive force, feeding the soul the bread of God? If you are mean and turn them away?

Natural usage is related to the design of body parts. If I was acting in an unnatural way, I would want and expect to be treated that I was acting unnaturally. If you love the deranged person, you help him to overcome his ailment by explaining it is deranged. You don't help him by encouraging him to continue to act deranged.

Every sexual act that is not aimed at reproduction is, therefore, unnatural. Having sex and using birth control is unnatural. Oral sex between a man and a woman is unnatural.

So lets make sure all those involved in "unnatural acts" are treated the same. M'kay?

Quite a few animals have non-procreative sex. Bottlenose dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees are two that come instantly to mind.

There are several species that use non-reproductive sex as a way of bonding on an emotional level. Humans are not the only animals capable of the emotion of love. We are just the only ones that punish it.

OFF TOPIC

Not at all. But I can see that you have decided you are losing the argument and will revert to your typical M.O. of screaming "OFF TOPIC" and closing the thread.

When homosexual activity was called "unnatural" (by you, as a matter of fact), it opened the discussion up to what is natural or unnatural. The quote above is part of that discussion.

 

[G.T.]

No....the wedding is the activity....and they are protected from participating by the Constitution...regardless of what the Supreme Court says....they also said separate but equal was right as well..........

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

Its 60% in the highest current poll.

And another study of like 19 polls has it at 59%.


It was 27% in 1996.

Later social conservative curmudgeon cause number 577.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Forcing them to go against their religious beliefs isn't discriminating them for their beliefs?

When you engage in commerce, you do so voluntarily and are not forced.

If they cant seperate their religion from doing business, they are free to not engage.

Yes and in a free society you should be free to engage in commerce with whoever you choose. The queers can look for another vendor that caters to their abominable lifestyle.

In a completely free society that would certainly be the case. It would also have allowed businesses to bar blacks from sitting at the lunch counter. It would bar jews from doing business with anyone. It would allow realtors to discriminate against people wanting tobuy a home (that they can afford).

Only if being black or Jewish were an abomination according to their beliefs. But we're not talking about blacks or Jews so please stop with the bullshit.

It is not bullshit at all.

I asked how it was determined that homosexuality is an abomination, and I was told it doesn't matter how they determined it.

You decided that the Old testament is relevant. When other laws from the OT are pointed out we are told they OT doesn't count.

Leviticus 18: 22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination

Romans 1:26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,…

1 Corinthians 6:9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…18Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?…

Jude 1:7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. 8Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.…

There are plenty more, do you want them?

 

[protectionist]

No....the wedding is the activity....and they are protected from participating by the Constitution...regardless of what the Supreme Court says....they also said separate but equal was right as well..........

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

I believe in ELECTIONS more than I do of polls. And elections put thousands of governors and legislators in office, who have enacted bans on gay marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

When you engage in commerce, you do so voluntarily and are not forced.

If they cant seperate their religion from doing business, they are free to not engage.

Yes and in a free society you should be free to engage in commerce with whoever you choose. The queers can look for another vendor that caters to their abominable lifestyle.

In a completely free society that would certainly be the case. It would also have allowed businesses to bar blacks from sitting at the lunch counter. It would bar jews from doing business with anyone. It would allow realtors to discriminate against people wanting tobuy a home (that they can afford).

Only if being black or Jewish were an abomination according to their beliefs. But we're not talking about blacks or Jews so please stop with the bullshit.

It is not bullshit at all.

I asked how it was determined that homosexuality is an abomination, and I was told it doesn't matter how they determined it.

You decided that the Old testament is relevant. When other laws from the OT are pointed out we are told they OT doesn't count.

Leviticus 18: 22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination

Romans 1:26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,…

1 Corinthians 6:9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…18Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?…

Jude 1:7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. 8Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.…

There are plenty more, do you want them?

The Lev. quote calls it an "abomination". But I see nothing from the New Testament that does so. Yes, it is a sin, but I specifically asked where they determined it was an abomination. And since we are told that the Old Testament laws do not apply (when referencing other laws in Leviticus), you need to give examples of it being an "abomination" in the NT.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

I believe in ELECTIONS more than I do of polls. And elections put thousands of governors and legislators in office, who have enacted bans on gay marriage.

I believe in the US Constitution. Not mob rule by assholes and hate-mongers.

And you are the one who brought up the numbers of people and the wishes of the population.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

No....the wedding is the activity....and they are protected from participating by the Constitution...regardless of what the Supreme Court says....they also said separate but equal was right as well..........

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

I saw plenty of polls that said Al Gore was going to be POTUS. How did that work out?

 

[2aguy]

"So Who's Really Being Intolerant ?"

Conservatives, who seek to discriminate against gay patrons for no other reason than who those patrons are, in violation of just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws that in no way 'violate' religious liberty.

Liar.

It has to do with one thing, providing a product that conflicts with one's religious principles.

Why does a homosexual's desire to purchase a product outweigh a person's right to religious freedom?

Answer: it doesn't.

Go find one of 99 bakers who will provide the product you seek and leave the 1 who cannot, be. They will either flourish or wither and die but will do so while still enjoying their religious freedom.

This whole thing is nothing but homosexuals screaming 'you must see me, hear me, approve of me or you are a hater.'

Diversity of thought? Yeah, right.

Wrong.

There's no legitimate reason to discriminate against a gay patron; it's motivated solely by hate.

There was never any doubt of that fact but this photo of the signing ceremony is incontrovertible proof.

Yes...is see you cleaned your green shirt and got a new rainbow arm band....and that is a nice brick in your hand....going out to discuss freedom of religion?

If my religion does not allow for killing of people or animals, can I refuse service to anyone carrying a firearm?

Yes...that is why a Jain or a Quaker will probably never open a gun store....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

Its 60% in the highest current poll.

And another study of like 19 polls has it at 59%.


It was 27% in 1996.

Later social conservative curmudgeon cause number 577.

70% 18-29 "ok" with homosexuality in the US, 87% in Canada
The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, the wedding is the activity for which the cake was bought. And the wedding is recognized by the state.

But to claim that the baker is being forced to participate in homosexual activity, simply because he baked a cake for a gay wedding, is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't...considering they are facing fines and jail time..........that is incredibly serious...over one cake.....that could be baked at any other bakery............

They are facing those punishments because they refused to follow the laws that they KNOW exists. They chose to break the law. This is the result.

The "law" is RFRA, which is supposed to have protected the Christians, not the gays. The state is required to have a "compelling reason" to override that RFRA law, in order to do so. And the compelling reason that the state (we the 317 million people of America) must have the gays buy their cake form this one bakery, when they could easily have just gone to another bakery ?

This whole fiasco is a set-up by the gays, to take Christians down, whom they see as opponents to their crusade to establish themselves as fully accepted in society. In the meantime, they are widely NOT accepted, and the American people do NOT have any compelling reason (or desire) to have the Christians be forced to act in opposition to their religious beliefs, which are supposed to be protected by law.

I have seen several polls that have more than 50% of our population approving of gay marriage.

I saw plenty of polls that said Al Gore was going to be POTUS. How did that work out?

Not the same thing and not even close.