What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Coyote]

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to a hetero couple where one of the two partners was already unfaithful before the marriage, then they are also supporting that sin as well, right?

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to a smoker or a drinker, they are supporting that sin as well, right?

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to a Jew or a Buddhist or a Hindu for a wedding, they are supporting sin, right?

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to an obese person, they are supporting a sin, right? For obesity is one of the seven deadly sins in the bible..

You see, using your logic, there is practically no one to whom a Christian should be selling wedding cakes.

That line of logic is just batshit crazy.

They pick and choose which sins and/or "abominations" to target. Why is homosexuality more "sinful" than gluttony or greed? Christ's message was always interlaced with compassion over condemnation. That's what made him so revolutionary. The idea that you "hate the sin, but not the sinner". When you have a business that rves the public...how do you pick and choose in a manner that promotes compassion rather than deliberate hurt? I think that would be a key question for a Christian.

Using the claim of "freedom of religion" to be allowed to openly choose hurt is questionable. What's the intent here?

Using the government to force people to act against their principles can be construed as harm also. During the military draft (conscription) of the Vietnam war we allowed conscientious objectors to avoid combat roles. Religious based, or otherwise.

At some point - the government has to intervene don't you think? At what point does the harm caused by the right to refuse to serve someone of a particular category over rule and individual's right to equal treatment?

Conscientous objectors could avoid combat but they still had to serve in some capacity.

 

[Coyote]

The part above in blue.
I'm an atheist, and I think you should do that every time Ms Becki since those are your principles. No government should force you to do otherwise or allow you to be sued for your principles..

If your state has laws that demand no discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, it would be against the law to refuse someone service based on their race or sexual orientation. I doubt that any state has laws that force you to do business with someone based on something other than race and sexual orientation....so refusing to sew a satanic symbols would not be against the law.

Now the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, could have said he couldn't have it done in time, or used some other excuse, but that particular state has a law against discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, and the baker was defying it by admitting that he was not doing it because of their sexual orientation. When you break the law, you face the consequences. And if you have a business to serve the public, who all pay taxes, then you should honor your duty as a businessman and serve the public, not just those you think are okay in your opinion. The baker was trying to make a statement, and he lost, because more people are in favor of the law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Selling them a cake is not going to taint you or make you want to become gay, but some people take their beliefs a bit too far.

I discriminate everyday. On a personal basis, I don't discriminate based upon race or skin color, but I do discriminate based upon many other things, sexual orientation being one of them. In fact, I suspect that the vast majority of people discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

Please hear me out on this sexual orientation discrimination point.

I am a heterosexual male, so there is no way that I would ever consider dating, having sex with, or marrying another male. Essentially, I have now discriminated against every male on the planet when it comes to dating, sex and marrying. I see nothing wrong with that. Additionally, I am opposed to dating, having sex with or marrying a hard drug addict (think drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crack) Yep, I discriminate against drug addicts.

Those are two examples, but let me return to the first example concerning the dating, sex or marrying a homosexual. The law may say that I am not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, but I'll bet there is not one single person on this board that would say I should be forced by that law to go on a date with homosexual male if I choose to exercise my discrimination concerning not dating a homosexual man.

But there is a difference between discrimmination in personal life such as you are talking about, and in professional capacities.

I personally don't care if two people of the same gender want to associate with each other in any manner they choose as long as it doesn't violate my rights. In my opinion, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anybody they want to based upon their principles. At times, it may not be a wise business decision, but it is theirs to make. If a company doesn't want to do business with somebody based upon their principles let them live or die by that decision, no need for government force.

I have very conflicting feelings about that. I see the point you are making and in theory - agree.

But in real life it's not so easy. If that was practice - would the effects of Jim Crowe for example, have ever changed in many communities where that was the status quo and the entrenched majority view? I think there is a role for government to prevent discrimmination.

A company can refuse service to people inappropriately dressed, based on age, or a bar can refuse to serve someone who is drunk - but those are based on people's actions not what they are. Where do you draw the line?

Ironically the same Arizona law that wanted to allow business' to discrimminate based on religion refused an amendment that would require them to post signs stating they would not serve XYZ.

 

[alan1]

If your state has laws that demand no discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, it would be against the law to refuse someone service based on their race or sexual orientation. I doubt that any state has laws that force you to do business with someone based on something other than race and sexual orientation....so refusing to sew a satanic symbols would not be against the law.

Now the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, could have said he couldn't have it done in time, or used some other excuse, but that particular state has a law against discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, and the baker was defying it by admitting that he was not doing it because of their sexual orientation. When you break the law, you face the consequences. And if you have a business to serve the public, who all pay taxes, then you should honor your duty as a businessman and serve the public, not just those you think are okay in your opinion. The baker was trying to make a statement, and he lost, because more people are in favor of the law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Selling them a cake is not going to taint you or make you want to become gay, but some people take their beliefs a bit too far.

I discriminate everyday. On a personal basis, I don't discriminate based upon race or skin color, but I do discriminate based upon many other things, sexual orientation being one of them. In fact, I suspect that the vast majority of people discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

Please hear me out on this sexual orientation discrimination point.

I am a heterosexual male, so there is no way that I would ever consider dating, having sex with, or marrying another male. Essentially, I have now discriminated against every male on the planet when it comes to dating, sex and marrying. I see nothing wrong with that. Additionally, I am opposed to dating, having sex with or marrying a hard drug addict (think drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crack) Yep, I discriminate against drug addicts.

Those are two examples, but let me return to the first example concerning the dating, sex or marrying a homosexual. The law may say that I am not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, but I'll bet there is not one single person on this board that would say I should be forced by that law to go on a date with homosexual male if I choose to exercise my discrimination concerning not dating a homosexual man.

But there is a difference between discrimmination in personal life such as you are talking about, and in professional capacities.

I personally don't care if two people of the same gender want to associate with each other in any manner they choose as long as it doesn't violate my rights. In my opinion, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anybody they want to based upon their principles. At times, it may not be a wise business decision, but it is theirs to make. If a company doesn't want to do business with somebody based upon their principles let them live or die by that decision, no need for government force.

I have very conflicting feelings about that. I see the point you are making and in theory - agree.

But in real life it's not so easy. If that was practice - would the effects of Jim Crowe for example, have ever changed in many communities where that was the status quo and the entrenched majority view? I think there is a role for government to prevent discrimmination.

A company can refuse service to people inappropriately dressed, based on age, or a bar can refuse to serve someone who is drunk - but those are based on people's actions not what they are. Where do you draw the line?

Ironically the same Arizona law that wanted to allow business' to discrimminate based on religion refused an amendment that would require them to post signs stating they would not serve XYZ.

I agree that personal discrimination as I described is different than business discrimination. But that business owner is still a person, with their own personal beliefs and principles. Why are you or I or the government the better entity to decide what their decision should be?

You said,

A company can refuse service to people inappropriately dressed, based on age, or a bar can refuse to serve someone who is drunk - but those are based on people's actions not what they are. Where do you draw the line?

Age is not an action. It just is. A marriage is an action, be it a heterosexual or homosexual marriage, it is still an action, just like the clothes one wears or being drunk. It doesn't seem like a hard line for me to draw. The baker doesn't want to participate in the action of them (homosexuals) getting married. It's no different than if he had refused service to a person using the action of no shirt or being drunk.

 

[Coyote]

I agree that personal discrimination as I described is different than business discrimination. But that business owner is still a person, with their own personal beliefs and principles. Why are you or I or the government the better entity to decide what their decision should be?

A business is not a person. It's an entity that is subject to regulation by the prevaling laws.

A business owner is a person who can exercise his personal beliefs in his private life not necessarily through his business.

If a business serves the public - should it be able to pick and choose what members of the public it will serve based on reasons that have nothing to do with legality or public safety but purely personal? It seems to me that if a business wishes to choose whom it serves based on "religious" convictions then it should be a private, not public entity under the auspices of a religion - like, labeling themselves a "A Christian Bakery" and making clear what that means rather than picking and choosing.

You said,

A company can refuse service to people inappropriately dressed, based on age, or a bar can refuse to serve someone who is drunk - but those are based on people's actions not what they are. Where do you draw the line?

Age is not an action. It just is. A marriage is an action, be it a heterosexual or homosexual marriage, it is still an action, just like the clothes one wears or being drunk. It doesn't seem like a hard line for me to draw. The baker doesn't want to participate in the action of them (homosexuals) getting married. It's no different than if he had refused service to a person using the action of no shirt or being drunk.

A marriage is a legally defined action. The business wants to pick and choose what kind of marriage it provides a service for within that legal definition. I see a slippery slope in this where the business owner is using "religious protection" to discriminate. What is the difference between that and say, refusing to provide a cake for mixed race or denomination marriages? All of those seem to be unwanted intrusions into privacy of the two people getting married. Once it's legal - then do business' have the right to discriminate against which legal marriages they will choose to provide products for?

Dress codes are universally applied to patrons (other than being gender specific). No one is singled out. Laws about serving drunks have a public safety aspect to it.

 

[alan1]

I agree that personal discrimination as I described is different than business discrimination. But that business owner is still a person, with their own personal beliefs and principles. Why are you or I or the government the better entity to decide what their decision should be?

A business is not a person. It's an entity that is subject to regulation by the prevaling laws.

A business owner is a person who can exercise his personal beliefs in his private life not necessarily through his business.

If a business serves the public - should it be able to pick and choose what members of the public it will serve based on reasons that have nothing to do with legality or public safety but purely personal? It seems to me that if a business wishes to choose whom it serves based on "religious" convictions then it should be a private, not public entity under the auspices of a religion - like, labeling themselves a "A Christian Bakery" and making clear what that means rather than picking and choosing.

You said,

A company can refuse service to people inappropriately dressed, based on age, or a bar can refuse to serve someone who is drunk - but those are based on people's actions not what they are. Where do you draw the line?

Age is not an action. It just is. A marriage is an action, be it a heterosexual or homosexual marriage, it is still an action, just like the clothes one wears or being drunk. It doesn't seem like a hard line for me to draw. The baker doesn't want to participate in the action of them (homosexuals) getting married. It's no different than if he had refused service to a person using the action of no shirt or being drunk.

A marriage is a legally defined action. The business wants to pick and choose what kind of marriage it provides a service for within that legal definition. I see a slippery slope in this where the business owner is using "religious protection" to discriminate. What is the difference between that and say, refusing to provide a cake for mixed race or denomination marriages? All of those seem to be unwanted intrusions into privacy of the two people getting married. Once it's legal - then do business' have the right to discriminate against which legal marriages they will choose to provide products for?

Dress codes are universally applied to patrons (other than being gender specific). No one is singled out. Laws about serving drunks have a public safety aspect to it.

Owning a business means one is allowed to decide what business services they choose to provide, for this example, let's choose a bakery. Let's suppose you own a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes. Now, lets suppose a marrying couple wants you to supply marriage cupcakes instead of a grand wedding cake at their marriage ceremony. Since your expertise is grand cakes but not cupcakes, should your business be forced to service them, service their request? Should you be forced to make cupcakes instead of the grand wedding cakes that you specialize in? I would say no, you should be allowed to discriminate based upon your principle to only present a grand wedding cake. It's your business and you get to decide how it is run.

I see no difference for religious reasons. If you are Jewish, I think it is acceptable for you to refuse to make a wedding cake for an Islamic wedding. It's your business, it's your choice. Would you force a Halal caterer to serve bacon at a wedding reception?

A marriage is a legally defined action. The business wants to pick and choose what kind of marriage it provides a service for within that legal definition.

A restaurant is a legally defined action. A restaurant gets to pick and choose what food it serves. Which can include religious defined restrictions such as Halal.
Is there some sort of government rule that I am unaware of that allows discrimination of food based upon Halal that isn't allowed based upon sexual orientation, when both are religious ideologies?

 

[boedicca]

What's Christian about desiring to force other to act against their own will?

 

[Coyote]

Owning a business means one is allowed to decide what business services they choose to provide, for this example, let's choose a bakery. Let's suppose you own a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes. Now, lets suppose a marrying couple wants you to supply marriage cupcakes instead of a grand wedding cake at their marriage ceremony. Since your expertise is grand cakes but not cupcakes, should your business be forced to service them, service their request? Should you be forced to make cupcakes instead of the grand wedding cakes that you specialize in? I would say no, you should be allowed to discriminate based upon your principle to only present a grand wedding cake. It's your business and you get to decide how it is run.

It's your business - you can choose what to provide yes, but not necessarily who to serve. Not if you are in business to serve the public.

If you specialize in grand cakes and they want cupcakes you can provide a referral becuase you don't carry or make the product.

I see no difference for religious reasons. If you are Jewish, I think it is acceptable for you to refuse to make a wedding cake for an Islamic wedding. It's your business, it's your choice. Would you force a Halal caterer to serve bacon at a wedding reception?

It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business unless you are defined as a religious entity - for example a Christian church can't be forced to perform an Islamic wedding. A Halal caterer can't be forced to serve bacon at a wedding reception because that is not one of the products they offer - it's not the "who" it's the "what". Likewise a kosher caterer can not be forced to offer a non-kosher product and your specialist in grand wedding cakes can not be forced to offer cupcakes if he doesn't make them.

A marriage is a legally defined action. The business wants to pick and choose what kind of marriage it provides a service for within that legal definition.

A restaurant is a legally defined action. A restaurant gets to pick and choose what food it serves. Which can include religious defined restrictions such as Halal.
Is there some sort of government rule that I am unaware of that allows discrimination of food based upon Halal that isn't allowed based upon sexual orientation, when both are religious ideologies?

A restaurant is not a legally defined action - it's a business entity. They can pick and choose what food to serve but not who to serve it to.

 

[Chuckt]

What's Christian about desiring to force other to act against their own will?

That is the point. It is discrimination if they ask me as a baker to write profanity on a cake and I refuse. Somehow it is offensive when I would refuse but I would be willing to make a cake that says "Happy Birthday!"

But if I refuse to write profanity on a cake, somehow it is me forcing my will on them when it is the other way around?

What is good about gays wanting to force their will on me? That is the point.

If you have money, I am more than happy to take your money in exchange for a service.

 

[Stephanie]

Step in my workplace drunk, I can refuse to serve you and also ask you to leave the premises

Become an obnoxious ass I can ask you to leave and sometime ban you from ever coming back to the place of business...

so that makes me Unchristian like?

how pathetic

Why would people want to FORCE themselves on a business that doesn't want to do business with them? It's so pathetic

Well, then, you are obviously not a Capitalist and therefore patently Unamerican.

Were I a Christian business owner, I would want to sell to every non-christian, every gay I could find so that I could show her/him through my words and deeds the love and graciousness of G-d. I would not be holding them to a litmus test.

When you talk about drunk people, Stephanie, you are talking about a state of being that they willfully imposed upon themselves, one that could possibly present a physical danger to you as a businesswoman in your shop. In that case, it is entirely reasonable to throw out someone who poses physical danger to your business.

But a gay person who walks into a bakery or a seamstress shop or a photography shop and wants a product to go with any kind of celebration that he/she plans to celebrate, that person poses absolutely no physical threat to you whatsover and his/her money spends just as well as everyone else's money.

You all stand on your soapboxes and scream "sin, sin, sin" and yet, Jeshuah actually walked among lepers, people who WERE physically a threat to others because of a sickness that can be air/water-born. Why are you not following his example?

It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant and downright hateful SOME Christians have become and I have been scratching my head for a number of years over this.

And then it dawned on me: with the advent of the super fundamentalistic movement in the USA, one thing that unites various factions of Fundamentalism, from Catholic Fundamentalism to Evangelical Fundamentalism, is the need for an image of an "enemy". Apparently, the movement is not strong enough to hold itself together without having a terribly evil enemy to rally it's "troops" against. With AMWAY and the Moral Majority of the late 70s, early 80s, Fundamentalistic Christianity then piggybacked itself onto a more than willing GOP, a party that really wanted to win in 1980 against a born-again Democratic President: Jimmy Carter. Since then, the piggybacking has quite obviously moved to more of a strangle-hold. As Communism faded, the Christian Right needed a new "enemy" and with the advent of more free-thinking, coupled with the explosion of the internet into everyday life, gays then presented themselves as a perfect target. Bingo. Problem solved. Now, instead of hating on evil Communists, most of whom are irrelevant today, Fundie Christians can hate on gays, gays, gays. And they can feel good about themselves for hating on gays, gays gays.

It is really quite sad. The people here who write such hateful screeds are in no way like the real Christians I know in the real world. Yes, they disapprove of Homosexuality, but they show it with their words and kind actions, not with their pockebooks and balance sheets. They are just simply not stupid. They know that they "are in the world, but not of the world".

I am told that there is a phone app called "Grindr". It is often used by gay men to find pick-ups while underway. I don't approve of such a thing, but technology is technology and there are similar dating programs for straight people as well. I prefer the old fashioned way of meeting up with a lovely woman at a bar or meeting up for a blind date through a referral of someone whom I trust. Apparently, grindr, which uses GPS, can even tell you how many feet/meters a potential pick-up is from your current location.

Just to make a point, some Liberals walked around the site of the 2013 CPAC with their Smartphones on and with Grindr installed and were just amazed at the number of young Conservatives online looking for hot gay sex. They repeated this experiment at Liberty University (Fallwell's University) with very similar results. I would bet top-dollar that if you go to any mega-church on any given Sunday morning, one of those super Fundie "speaking in tongues" places and install grindr on your phone and give yourself some phony gay "handle", that you will find just tons of people online DURING the church service, looking for hot gay pickups WHILE the sermon is going on. I bet bottom dollar that this is the case every single Sunday of the year. Hypocrisy pure. They can grind and tweet and FB their gay desires during a service, but don't you dare sell them something!!!

Oh, and btw, when Tea Party avowed racists like Judson Philips are howling about Arizona, then you know the good guys won:

Tea Party Nation: Brewer's Veto Imposed 'Slavery,' Mandatory Penis Cakes For 'Homosexual Weddings' | Right Wing Watch


This thread is just totally amusing, to say the least. May get my vote for one of the best threads of 2014.

[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]

lol, you are obviously a long winded nut job who has a hardon for the Tea party and everyone else...more words doesn't make you seem brilliant or anymore less of a hoses ass...You and people like you are Un-American...

 

[Chuckt]

Owning a business means one is allowed to decide what business services they choose to provide, for this example, let's choose a bakery. Let's suppose you own a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes. Now, lets suppose a marrying couple wants you to supply marriage cupcakes instead of a grand wedding cake at their marriage ceremony. Since your expertise is grand cakes but not cupcakes, should your business be forced to service them, service their request? Should you be forced to make cupcakes instead of the grand wedding cakes that you specialize in? I would say no, you should be allowed to discriminate based upon your principle to only present a grand wedding cake. It's your business and you get to decide how it is run.

It's your business - you can choose what to provide yes, but not necessarily who to serve. Not if you are in business to serve the public.

If you specialize in grand cakes and they want cupcakes you can provide a referral becuase you don't carry or make the product.

I see no difference for religious reasons. If you are Jewish, I think it is acceptable for you to refuse to make a wedding cake for an Islamic wedding. It's your business, it's your choice. Would you force a Halal caterer to serve bacon at a wedding reception?

It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business unless you are defined as a religious entity - for example a Christian church can't be forced to perform an Islamic wedding. A Halal caterer can't be forced to serve bacon at a wedding reception because that is not one of the products they offer - it's not the "who" it's the "what". Likewise a kosher caterer can not be forced to offer a non-kosher product and your specialist in grand wedding cakes can not be forced to offer cupcakes if he doesn't make them.

A marriage is a legally defined action. The business wants to pick and choose what kind of marriage it provides a service for within that legal definition.

A restaurant is a legally defined action. A restaurant gets to pick and choose what food it serves. Which can include religious defined restrictions such as Halal.
Is there some sort of government rule that I am unaware of that allows discrimination of food based upon Halal that isn't allowed based upon sexual orientation, when both are religious ideologies?

A restaurant is not a legally defined action - it's a business entity. They can pick and choose what food to serve but not who to serve it to.

What if an atheist group wants me to write blasphemies on a cake?
What if a Christian wants an atheist to write "I believe in God" on a cake?

Do you see the problem? Not being allowed to say "no" is forcing yourself on other people.

 

[Nosmo King]

What's Christian about desiring to force other to act against their own will?

Are using Christian values to discriminate? Which values would they be? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? Or maybe he without sin should cast the first stone? Or maybe the value that is rooted in This I command you, to love one another.

Hiding behind a warped interpretation of Christian Values in order to foment fear, suspicion, hated and repression is a lot like the Taliban hiding behind the Koran to repress and eliminate those without their own peculiar zeal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If your state has laws that demand no discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, it would be against the law to refuse someone service based on their race or sexual orientation. I doubt that any state has laws that force you to do business with someone based on something other than race and sexual orientation....so refusing to sew a satanic symbols would not be against the law.

Now the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, could have said he couldn't have it done in time, or used some other excuse, but that particular state has a law against discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, and the baker was defying it by admitting that he was not doing it because of their sexual orientation. When you break the law, you face the consequences. And if you have a business to serve the public, who all pay taxes, then you should honor your duty as a businessman and serve the public, not just those you think are okay in your opinion. The baker was trying to make a statement, and he lost, because more people are in favor of the law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Selling them a cake is not going to taint you or make you want to become gay, but some people take their beliefs a bit too far.

This thread is not about the law, it is about the misconception that some people are pure enough to tell other people what is right, and what is wrong.

You're wrong.

It's about how Jesus hated gays, so today's christians can too.

The only people that I have seen that hate gays are the ones that insist that the only people who can bake their wedding cake are people that hate them. The rest of us are pretty sure that, despite the fact that some people don't want to go to the wedding, there are others that have no problem with it, and they will be able to get a cake.

Then again, the OP was about you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If your state has laws that demand no discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, it would be against the law to refuse someone service based on their race or sexual orientation. I doubt that any state has laws that force you to do business with someone based on something other than race and sexual orientation....so refusing to sew a satanic symbols would not be against the law.

Now the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, could have said he couldn't have it done in time, or used some other excuse, but that particular state has a law against discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, and the baker was defying it by admitting that he was not doing it because of their sexual orientation. When you break the law, you face the consequences. And if you have a business to serve the public, who all pay taxes, then you should honor your duty as a businessman and serve the public, not just those you think are okay in your opinion. The baker was trying to make a statement, and he lost, because more people are in favor of the law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Selling them a cake is not going to taint you or make you want to become gay, but some people take their beliefs a bit too far.

This thread is not about the law, it is about the misconception that some people are pure enough to tell other people what is right, and what is wrong.

It is not about being pure enough. It is about being without excuse and knowing better:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

I have the same advice for you that I gave Marc, 1 Cor 8.

 

[Chuckt]

This thread is not about the law, it is about the misconception that some people are pure enough to tell other people what is right, and what is wrong.

It is not about being pure enough. It is about being without excuse and knowing better:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

I have the same advice for you that I gave Marc, 1 Cor 8.

No one took away your right to go to hell but you shouldn't take away my right to tell others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The radical so-called fundamentalists Christians up in Arizona tried to get a law passed that would deny service to people gay or perceived as gay in public and private places of business.

I'd like to know...what's Christlike about that?

What basis, does one build this argument in the first place?

What the radical RW have done in Arizona is prove exactly how UNCHRISTLIKE they really are by trying to pass this law.

Anyone care to show me how that radical bill they were pushing is Christian?

I'd like to know.

One is taught not to enable or support sin. Providing services to a gay wedding is supporting and enabling sin. Marriage means that the State recognizes the two as sexual partners and while being gay is not in and of itself a sin, practicing gay life style and having sex IS.

Shouldn't the business. Repressing rights identify themselves as a Bigoted Business? That way no person could accidentally do business with them if they disagree.

Such Bigoted Businesses must post a sign saying:

Due to our fervent belief in Jesus Christ who preached "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "those without sin cast the first stone", we reserve the right to discriminate against homosexuals"

That way, no 'sinner' would accidentally wander into the shop of such a righteous business owner.

I have no problem with that, as long as the assholes that require them to identify themselves are forced to wear a Nazi cross, or maybe the KKK cross, so that everyone can see what type of people they are, and have the option not to do business with them.

 

[Chuckt]

What's Christian about desiring to force other to act against their own will?

Are using Christian values to discriminate? Which values would they be? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? Or maybe he without sin should cast the first stone? Or maybe the value that is rooted in This I command you, to love one another.

Hiding behind a warped interpretation of Christian Values in order to foment fear, suspicion, hated and repression is a lot like the Taliban hiding behind the Koran to repress and eliminate those without their own peculiar zeal.

Everyone tolerates them. It isn't about love or tolerance. It is about endorsement. They want endorsement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You notice how they have turned this bill into the homosexual bill and against Christians...

don't we all wish we were so special we can create a huge scene over a damn cake?

As with other civil rights cases, the oppressors paint themselves as the oppressed. The logic is: our rights to be hatful bigots are being repressed! This is so unfair, unjust and unAmerican! The nerve of those (fill in the blank, *******, queers, Irish)! They are asking for 'special rights' and taking our rights to be hateful bigots away!

Yes, that is exactly what is happening. The only thing you are confused about is which side is doing the oppression.

Hint: It isn't the side that is being taken to court to force them to comply with laws written by the other side.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This thread is not about the law, it is about the misconception that some people are pure enough to tell other people what is right, and what is wrong.

It is not about being pure enough. It is about being without excuse and knowing better:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

And "doing good" is being kind and loving to everyone, and treating them as you would like them to treat you. You cannot win sinners to Christ by discriminating against them and not showing them love. Serving someone we believe may be in sin does not transfer their sin to us.

Ephesians 4:31-32
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Galatians 6:1 - Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Matthew 7:3-5 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Really? Christians should be kind and loving to everyone, including someone that just shot up the local school and is hiding from the police?

Your problem is that you think your interpretation of the Scripture gives you the right to force other people to obey your laws. Jesus had a lot to say about people like you.

Have you noticed that the idiot that thought he knew enough about the Bible to start this thread, the guy that, unlike you, actually reads it, has abandoned it? The reason for that is that I actually proved to him that, even if he is right, he is wrong. He won't admit it, but he can no longer defend his position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a difference between Christians serving sinners and participating in sinfulness themselves. Christians are merely refusing to perform personal services that would require them to commit what they feel are sins.

How is providing THE SAME SERVICES to heterosexuals as homosexuals committing a sin?

How is never seeing the trees proof you are paying attention?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One is taught not to enable or support sin. Providing services to a gay wedding is supporting and enabling sin. Marriage means that the State recognizes the two as sexual partners and while being gay is not in and of itself a sin, practicing gay life style and having sex IS.

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to a hetero couple where one of the two partners was already unfaithful before the marriage, then they are also supporting that sin as well, right?

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to a smoker or a drinker, they are supporting that sin as well, right?

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to a Jew or a Buddhist or a Hindu for a wedding, they are supporting sin, right?

And every time a Christian sells a wedding cake to an obese person, they are supporting a sin, right? For obesity is one of the seven deadly sins in the bible..

You see, using your logic, there is practically no one to whom a Christian should be selling wedding cakes.

That line of logic is just batshit crazy.

They pick and choose which sins and/or "abominations" to target. Why is homosexuality more "sinful" than gluttony or greed? Christ's message was always interlaced with compassion over condemnation. That's what made him so revolutionary. The idea that you "hate the sin, but not the sinner". When you have a business that serves the public...how do you pick and choose in a manner that promotes compassion rather than deliberate hurt? I think that would be a key question for a Christian.

Using the claim of "freedom of religion" to be allowed to openly choose hurt is questionable. What's the intent here?

We aren't picking this fight, you are.

Perhaps you should think about something, what gives you the right to tell anyone that what they believe is so wrong that you have the right to hold a gun to their head to force them to so something they find offensive? Do we have the right to use that same gun to force you to attend church?