What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[alan1]

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.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.
Yes, they can decide who to serve and who to not serve.
Why should you(or government) be allowed to determine which restrictions are acceptable and which are not? Based upon the principles of the business owner.
It's legal to not wear shoes, it's legal to not wear a shirt (for men), and it's legal for a bakery to deny the shoe-less and shirtless access to their services.

By the way,

It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business

We are talking about PRIVATE business. The public doesn't own them, the government doesn't own them, it is an individual that owns this business, not a public entity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

Yes, and these people would insist that the same rules apply today if the government actually drafted people. Yet, when it comes to people who have other sincere beliefs, they demand that we comply with the diktat of the state.

 

[Chuckt]

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?

One of my firiends had anti-Christian files on his computer which were transferred to a different computer platform and he found out he couldn't read them so he sent me the files.

Why should I convert files that attack my faith?

Or imagine that someone at work wanted to complain about the boss. Should you be required to help him?

 

[Mertex]

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?

Being kind should stop short of participating in activities your conscience tells you are sinful.

So, in your mind, doing business with a homosexual makes you a participant in homosexual behavior?
I guess if you do business with an adulterer, you are also participating in adultery? Or with polygamist, you are participating in their behavior?

These people should stay out of churches, because their being there will most likely infect all the Christians, according to your way of thinking. And, Christians should not even invite them to church, to find out about Christ, because inviting them would mean you are participating in their sinful behavior. Only righteous Christians should go to church, according to your way of thinking.

And, Hospitals of religious affiliation, should not treat sinners, either because, they will then become infected with their sinful behavior?

John 8:1-11
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

That's right, Jesus didn't turn the woman away, or walk away from her because she was a sinner, he called out to the sinners that thought they were without sin to cast the first stone, and none of them did, because they were all sinners, just like we are today.

Christ got the Pharisees not to stone the woman. He didn't get them to help her continue to commit adultery. He told her not to continue in that lifestyle.

The Pharisees got themselves not to stone the woman....Jesus just pointed out their hypocrisy. Likewise today, not baking a cake for a homosexual couple does not keep them from continuing what you think is a sinful behavior. Baking a cake does not make you a participant in their behavior, either.

Christians shouldn't stone gays -- or revile them or any other unloving thing -- but if they truly believe that gay marriage is wrong it is quite reasonable and not unChristian for them to abstain from helping a gay marriage take place.

Denying them rights they feel are their due is being unkind and unfair. Most homosexuals seeking to get married are already living together, so one could say that you are forcing them to stay in a sinful relationship by not allowing them to marry. And many in this Forum are reviling them, calling them hurtful names in a very unloving way. They are putting themselves in God's place in punishing what they think is a sin that doesn't affect them in any way.

P.s., And Muslim barbers shouldn't be forced to cut the hair of women if they feel that is against their religion.

Business people, utilizing public utilities that are provided by tax payers should not be in business if they are going to discriminate based on race. If the state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, then they cannot discriminate based on that, either.
Cutting hair of women that is against their religion, I don't think there is a law against that, and there are many reasons why a barber/beautician might and could refuse to cut someone's hair that would not put them against the law. You are not even within the realm of what this Ariz law was about.

And nuns shouldn't have to pay for birth control.

No woman should have to pay for birth control. If nuns are needing birth control, then they have other sins to worry about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why?

The racial segregation crap you think justifies this was imposed by the government. There were no religious exceptions to that law either, which actually caused a few problems in some churches that actually believed that people, no matter what there skin color, are all equal before God. In other words, if it wasn't for the all powerful government being able to intervene in everything, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Yet you want to continue to use the government to force people to do things, even if they think it is wrong.

Simple rule of thumb, if you have to use force, aka the government, to get your way, you are always going to be on the wrong side.

 

[Mertex]

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.

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.

You are confusing "personal choices" with business practices. We all discriminate when it comes to choosing how we dress, who we have as friends, what we eat, and what entertainment we seek. That has nothing to do with "business"

And you are wrong about a business owner having the right to refuse service to anybody they want if their principles are against their race, and if their state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, they can't discriminate based on that. They can, but if the person files a lawsuit/complaint, then they have to face the consequences.

You can say it is their decision to make all you want, but if their state has a law banning it, they really can't. And we know the nation has a law banning discrimination based on race, so they can't do that either. And, trying to change the law isn't working because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way that you and those who are making these discrimination bills, feel. And, in America, it's majority rule. When you get enough people to agree with you that a business has a right to discriminate, and you get that into law, then you can say that it is his right, the way it stands right now, it isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

People keep spouting that like it is true.

It isn't. A person is defined by law, not biology, human beings are defined by biology. Human beings have rights that exist because they are, persons are given rights by the state. Human beings have their rights, and the rights of persons under the law, businesses have the rights of persons.

I can actually prove to you that you agree with me, if you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Unless you are God, you cannot tell other people what their values should be. If you don't like that, take it up with Management.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are not going to be able to send other people to hell simply because they don't follow your rules.

 

[Mertex]

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

Christians aren't the ones forcing others to act against their own will. They are the ones resisting government laws. Christians are commanded to obey the government. Right now, it is a Fed law not discriminate based on race, so if you are a Christian, you should obey it, or you are going against the laws of God.

Some states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, people living in those states must also obey that law, Christian and non-Christian. But as a Christian, more so because you are commanded to obey the law.

Romans 13:
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Being kind should stop short of participating in activities your conscience tells you are sinful.

So, in your mind, doing business with a homosexual makes you a participant in homosexual behavior?
I guess if you do business with an adulterer, you are also participating in adultery? Or with polygamist, you are participating in their behavior?

These people should stay out of churches, because their being there will most likely infect all the Christians, according to your way of thinking. And, Christians should not even invite them to church, to find out about Christ, because inviting them would mean you are participating in their sinful behavior. Only righteous Christians should go to church, according to your way of thinking.

And, Hospitals of religious affiliation, should not treat sinners, either because, they will then become infected with their sinful behavior?



That's right, Jesus didn't turn the woman away, or walk away from her because she was a sinner, he called out to the sinners that thought they were without sin to cast the first stone, and none of them did, because they were all sinners, just like we are today.




The Pharisees got themselves not to stone the woman....Jesus just pointed out their hypocrisy. Likewise today, not baking a cake for a homosexual couple does not keep them from continuing what you think is a sinful behavior. Baking a cake does not make you a participant in their behavior, either.


Denying them rights they feel are their due is being unkind and unfair. Most homosexuals seeking to get married are already living together, so one could say that you are forcing them to stay in a sinful relationship by not allowing them to marry. And many in this Forum are reviling them, calling them hurtful names in a very unloving way. They are putting themselves in God's place in punishing what they think is a sin that doesn't affect them in any way.

P.s., And Muslim barbers shouldn't be forced to cut the hair of women if they feel that is against their religion.

Business people, utilizing public utilities that are provided by tax payers should not be in business if they are going to discriminate based on race. If the state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, then they cannot discriminate based on that, either.
Cutting hair of women that is against their religion, I don't think there is a law against that, and there are many reasons why a barber/beautician might and could refuse to cut someone's hair that would not put them against the law. You are not even within the realm of what this Ariz law was about.

And nuns shouldn't have to pay for birth control.

No woman should have to pay for birth control. If nuns are needing birth control, then they have other sins to worry about.

You do know that not a single place that was taken to court over this ever refused to serve homosexuals, don't you? The baker that closed down knew the couple, knew they were homosexual, and still let them in to buy cupcakes. The only thing they refused to do was bake a specialty wedding cake for a commitment ceremony. At the time the entire state of Washington, where the bakery was located, was discriminating against gays by not letting them get married, but the only people that got in trouble was a small bakery that wasn't actually discriminating, just exercising its option not to take an order.

Then we have the photographer in New Mexico. When the couple came in they were offered a full range of in studio portraits, which means that the business knew they were gay, and was willing to take their pictures anyway. Yet they got in trouble because they said they would not attend the wedding.

And then we have assholes, like you, who insist that this should be against the law. That people have no business having any opinions that are not approved by the state. Seriously? Should the government be able to tell you what to think? Why?

 

[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.

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.

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.

You are confusing "personal choices" with business practices. We all discriminate when it comes to choosing how we dress, who we have as friends, what we eat, and what entertainment we seek. That has nothing to do with "business"

And you are wrong about a business owner having the right to refuse service to anybody they want if their principles are against their race, and if their state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, they can't discriminate based on that. They can, but if the person files a lawsuit/complaint, then they have to face the consequences.

You can say it is their decision to make all you want, but if their state has a law banning it, they really can't. And we know the nation has a law banning discrimination based on race, so they can't do that either. And, trying to change the law isn't working because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way that you and those who are making these discrimination bills, feel. And, in America, it's majority rule. When you get enough people to agree with you that a business has a right to discriminate, and you get that into law, then you can say that it is his right, the way it stands right now, it isn't.

You are confusing right with might.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Christians aren't the ones forcing others to act against their own will. They are the ones resisting government laws. Christians are commanded to obey the government. Right now, it is a Fed law not discriminate based on race, so if you are a Christian, you should obey it, or you are going against the laws of God.

Some states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, people living in those states must also obey that law, Christian and non-Christian. But as a Christian, more so because you are commanded to obey the law.

Romans 13:
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons.

Christians are not the ones using the government, you are. That means that you are the one using force, imposing your will, and oppressing people. The fact that you think you are right does not justify the oppression.

 

[Mertex]

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!"

There is no law against writing things on a cake that is offensive to you. You are within the law to refuse that. What it appears that most don't get is that this Arizona law would make it possible for a business to disregard the Federal law (that supersede state laws)to discriminate based on race.

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?

No, there is no law precluding you from refusing to write profanity on a cake, so you are making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

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

They are not forcing their homosexuality on you, they are just asking for you to provide a service which you are in the business of doing. You don't like homosexual weddings, don't attend one, but as a business owner (baker) you can't refuse baking a cake for a homosexual if your state prohibits it. In Arizona it was plain to see that legislature was over-reaching, because Arizona doesn't even have a law against sexual orientation, so if you live in Arizona and are a baker, you can decline to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.

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

That's probably the way most businesses operate, but a a few bigoted people, who want to call themselves "Christian" are using their faith to push their bigotry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!"

There is no law against writing things on a cake that is offensive to you. You are within the law to refuse that. What it appears that most don't get is that this Arizona law would make it possible for a business to disregard the Federal law (that supersede state laws)to discriminate based on race.


No, there is no law precluding you from refusing to write profanity on a cake, so you are making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

If I find it offensive to write "Happy Anniversary Bill and Ted" I can refuse, unless they are gay.

Got it.

 

[Mertex]

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.



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 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?

You are missing the point. There is no law that keeps a business from doing something they don't want to do as long as the reason is not because of the race of the person. And, if your state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, then you can't use the reason that they are gay to refuse to do something.
Race/sexual orientation, that's all the law precludes discrimination against......what is so hard about that to understand? And sexual orientation discrimination only applies in states that prohibit it.

Why do you all keep bringing "dress", "drunk", "offensive language" into it......

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

But you can say "no" all you want, it's only when you say "no" because of their race, or if in a state that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, to say "no" because of your sexual orientation that it is breaking the law. And, discrimination against race is a Federal law....that's why you can't do it, the other, well, it depends on your state laws. And the reason is because the majority of people wanted it that way. Majority rule.

 

[Mertex]

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

Christians aren't the ones forcing others to act against their own will. They are the ones resisting government laws. Christians are commanded to obey the government. Right now, it is a Fed law not discriminate based on race, so if you are a Christian, you should obey it, or you are going against the laws of God.

Some states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, people living in those states must also obey that law, Christian and non-Christian. But as a Christian, more so because you are commanded to obey the law.

Romans 13:
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons.

Christians are not the ones using the government, you are. That means that you are the one using force, imposing your will, and oppressing people. The fact that you think you are right does not justify the oppression.

Christians are writing bills that they hope will become part of the "government" - so don't be ignorant, they are using the government. And, ijit, it's not about me or you, it's about the majority of Americans. I didn't write the law, neither did you, although you are willing to vote for a bill that will become part of the government to allow people to discriminate.
So, don't talk to me about oppression, when that is what you are trying to do.

 

[Mertex]

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!"

There is no law against writing things on a cake that is offensive to you. You are within the law to refuse that. What it appears that most don't get is that this Arizona law would make it possible for a business to disregard the Federal law (that supersede state laws)to discriminate based on race.


No, there is no law precluding you from refusing to write profanity on a cake, so you are making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

If I find it offensive to write "Happy Anniversary Bill and Ted" I can refuse, unless they are gay.

Got it.

No, you can refuse, but if you tell them that you are refusing because they are gay, then if they file a complaint, if your state prohibits it, you will have to face the consequences.

Geez, it isn't rocket science......"You can't discriminate based on race" - and if your state prohibits it, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gosh, I've never seen so many people not able to comprehend something so simple.

 

[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.

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.

You are confusing "personal choices" with business practices. We all discriminate when it comes to choosing how we dress, who we have as friends, what we eat, and what entertainment we seek. That has nothing to do with "business"

And you are wrong about a business owner having the right to refuse service to anybody they want if their principles are against their race, and if their state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, they can't discriminate based on that. They can, but if the person files a lawsuit/complaint, then they have to face the consequences.

You can say it is their decision to make all you want, but if their state has a law banning it, they really can't. And we know the nation has a law banning discrimination based on race, so they can't do that either. And, trying to change the law isn't working because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way that you and those who are making these discrimination bills, feel. And, in America, it's majority rule. When you get enough people to agree with you that a business has a right to discriminate, and you get that into law, then you can say that it is his right, the way it stands right now, it isn't.

I'm not confusing anything, I'm expressing my opinion, just as you are.

I specifically focused on the sexual orientation content of this thread because sexual orientation is entirely different than race. Equating the two is being a bit foolish.

And, in America, it's majority rule.

No, America isn't majority rule. A very strong tenet of being a republic form of government is that the majority can not impose its will upon the minority. As a contrast, the minority should not be able to impose their will either.

 

[Mertex]

Being kind should stop short of participating in activities your conscience tells you are sinful.

So, in your mind, doing business with a homosexual makes you a participant in homosexual behavior?
I guess if you do business with an adulterer, you are also participating in adultery? Or with polygamist, you are participating in their behavior?

These people should stay out of churches, because their being there will most likely infect all the Christians, according to your way of thinking. And, Christians should not even invite them to church, to find out about Christ, because inviting them would mean you are participating in their sinful behavior. Only righteous Christians should go to church, according to your way of thinking.

And, Hospitals of religious affiliation, should not treat sinners, either because, they will then become infected with their sinful behavior?



That's right, Jesus didn't turn the woman away, or walk away from her because she was a sinner, he called out to the sinners that thought they were without sin to cast the first stone, and none of them did, because they were all sinners, just like we are today.




The Pharisees got themselves not to stone the woman....Jesus just pointed out their hypocrisy. Likewise today, not baking a cake for a homosexual couple does not keep them from continuing what you think is a sinful behavior. Baking a cake does not make you a participant in their behavior, either.


Denying them rights they feel are their due is being unkind and unfair. Most homosexuals seeking to get married are already living together, so one could say that you are forcing them to stay in a sinful relationship by not allowing them to marry. And many in this Forum are reviling them, calling them hurtful names in a very unloving way. They are putting themselves in God's place in punishing what they think is a sin that doesn't affect them in any way.

Business people, utilizing public utilities that are provided by tax payers should not be in business if they are going to discriminate based on race. If the state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, then they cannot discriminate based on that, either.
Cutting hair of women that is against their religion, I don't think there is a law against that, and there are many reasons why a barber/beautician might and could refuse to cut someone's hair that would not put them against the law. You are not even within the realm of what this Ariz law was about.

And nuns shouldn't have to pay for birth control.

No woman should have to pay for birth control. If nuns are needing birth control, then they have other sins to worry about.

You do know that not a single place that was taken to court over this ever refused to serve homosexuals, don't you? The baker that closed down knew the couple, knew they were homosexual, and still let them in to buy cupcakes. The only thing they refused to do was bake a specialty wedding cake for a commitment ceremony. At the time the entire state of Washington, where the bakery was located, was discriminating against gays by not letting them get married, but the only people that got in trouble was a small bakery that wasn't actually discriminating, just exercising its option not to take an order.

That state had a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. The baker told them "because they were gay" he refused to bake the cake, they sued and won. Not rocket science.

Then we have the photographer in New Mexico. When the couple came in they were offered a full range of in studio portraits, which means that the business knew they were gay, and was willing to take their pictures anyway. Yet they got in trouble because they said they would not attend the wedding.

If their service to others included attending the wedding, then they violated the law. Not rocket science.

And then we have assholes, like you, who insist that this should be against the law. That people have no business having any opinions that are not approved by the state. Seriously? Should the government be able to tell you what to think? Why?

You are the asshole, who doesn't comprehend what is being discussed and who wishes to go against Constitutional law... (wiki:Civil Rights Act....Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution,) and against the state laws in the states who prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, who resorts to name-calling when being handed ass on a platter, and who insists that going against the law should be permissible.

You are not even a true Republican/conservative, because those who are, respect the law of the land and the Constitution, so not only are you an asshole, you are a pseudo conservative law-breaking asshole.