What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[daws101]

since when is not discriminating Un american?
funny how the people ranting about religious freedom have such short memories..
the same bullshit arguments (some believers, not all)are using against serving gays are exactly the same bullshit arguments they used during the civil rights era against blacks...
now, what's un american again?

Do you have a problem with truth?

no, you must! what I posted is fact....

 

[daws101]

???....I never said I was better than that.....I enjoy mocking you as much as anyone else.....

and like "everyone" (all two of you )(appeal to authority) it's ineffective. as a lawyer you should know that mockery is useless unless the "mockie" is effected of deterred in a way favorable to the mocker...
a swing and a miss!

Actually, appeals to authority, AKA citing precedent, is the foundation of any legal argument.

As an idiot, I know that, which makes me wonder why you don't.

you must be an idiot i was referring to php's use of "anyone" as an appeal to authority...anyone is non specific and therefore invalid as a precedent...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there is no legal reason to deny services.

why do you need one?.....I used to have a company that rented apartments....a guy came into the office wearing a T-shirt that said "Fuck Authority".......was I acting illegally when I refused to rent him an apartment on the basis that he obviously would not live by the rules for the apartment complex?.......

Of course not.

But that had nothing to do with public accommodations laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you mean compared to the guy I am arguing against, who claims that no one can reject the business of anyone?.......dude, compared to him I sound like the Chief Justice of the SC......

You have no legal basis to discriminate against homosexuals. Reading no longer seems to be a pre-requisite for the Bar.

actually, reading was a pre-requisite.....we also had to take exams on who the protected classes were under the Civil Rights Act of 64....I also know whether I or my clients are required by law to rent to people who wear shirts that say "Fuck Authority".......or want me to bake gaycake.....

And of course you can’t be compelled to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because such a service is not a part of the standard business practice of a company that rents apartments.

But you can’t refuse to rent them an apartment if such discrimination is prohibited in your jurisdiction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have no legal basis to discriminate against homosexuals. Reading no longer seems to be a pre-requisite for the Bar.

actually, reading was a pre-requisite.....we also had to take exams on who the protected classes were under the Civil Rights Act of 64....I also know whether I or my clients are required by law to rent to people who wear shirts that say "Fuck Authority".......or want me to bake gaycake.....

You perceive potential damage from the t-shirt wearing renter. What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple? If you're going to discriminate and create second class citizens as a result, show cause for damages please.

Is it religion that prohibits bakers and photographers and caterers from providing the same level of service to homosexual clients as heterosexual clients? Is that religion Christianity? Will those Christian vendors be damaged, harmed or otherwise maltreated as a result of providing services to homosexual couples? Is it the same Christianity that teaches do unto others as you would have others do unto you? The same Christianity that teaches those without sin should cast the first stone? The same Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ when he said "this I now command you. To love one another."?

The religious aspect is hypocrisy if indeed Christianity is the religion used as an aegis to hide behind while dispensing hatred fear and suspicion.

Let's put our cards on the table. It's good old fashioned gay bashing all dressed up in ecumenical robes. The same way discrimination was meted out during Jim Crow from the pulpit and state houses of the old south.

True.

It’s nothing more than hatred hiding behind the façade of religious doctrine and dogma.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

since when is not discriminating Un american?
funny how the people ranting about religious freedom have such short memories..
the same bullshit arguments (some believers, not all)are using against serving gays are exactly the same bullshit arguments they used during the civil rights era against blacks...
now, what's un american again?

Do you have a problem with truth?

no, you must! what I posted is fact....

Then you should be able to prove that, not only did slavery never exist in this country, and that there wasn't a war fought over the concept of discrimination, and that no woman was ever denied the right to vote. Once you do all of that, you can prove that an 18 year old can by alcohol, that children can sign legal contracts, and that men can go to a gynecologist for medical care.

That was just your first point, but feel free to insist that what you said is true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and like "everyone" (all two of you )(appeal to authority) it's ineffective. as a lawyer you should know that mockery is useless unless the "mockie" is effected of deterred in a way favorable to the mocker...
a swing and a miss!

Actually, appeals to authority, AKA citing precedent, is the foundation of any legal argument.

As an idiot, I know that, which makes me wonder why you don't.

you must be an idiot i was referring to php's use of "anyone" as an appeal to authority...anyone is non specific and therefore invalid as a precedent...

That was not an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to popularity.

Then again, I am an idiot, so I cannot possibly catch that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

actually, reading was a pre-requisite.....we also had to take exams on who the protected classes were under the Civil Rights Act of 64....I also know whether I or my clients are required by law to rent to people who wear shirts that say "Fuck Authority".......or want me to bake gaycake.....

You perceive potential damage from the t-shirt wearing renter. What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple? If you're going to discriminate and create second class citizens as a result, show cause for damages please.

Is it religion that prohibits bakers and photographers and caterers from providing the same level of service to homosexual clients as heterosexual clients? Is that religion Christianity? Will those Christian vendors be damaged, harmed or otherwise maltreated as a result of providing services to homosexual couples? Is it the same Christianity that teaches do unto others as you would have others do unto you? The same Christianity that teaches those without sin should cast the first stone? The same Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ when he said "this I now command you. To love one another."?

The religious aspect is hypocrisy if indeed Christianity is the religion used as an aegis to hide behind while dispensing hatred fear and suspicion.

Let's put our cards on the table. It's good old fashioned gay bashing all dressed up in ecumenical robes. The same way discrimination was meted out during Jim Crow from the pulpit and state houses of the old south.

True.

It’s nothing more than hatred hiding behind the façade of religious doctrine and dogma.

Have you admitted that Smith is not the proper test for religious burden yet? If not, why are you even posting in this thread?

 

[PostmodernProph]

What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

 

[PostmodernProph]

you just did ,fail that is..
if the bar is so low and you are better than that ,then why answer?

???....I never said I was better than that.....I enjoy mocking you as much as anyone else.....

and like "everyone" (all two of you )(appeal to authority) it's ineffective. as a lawyer you should know that mockery is useless unless the "mockie" is effected of deterred in a way favorable to the mocker...
a swing and a miss!

????.....I have to disagree with that totally......I can enjoy mocking you even if you are too dense to realize you've been mocked......in fact, that may enhance the experience......

 

[PostmodernProph]

and like "everyone" (all two of you )(appeal to authority) it's ineffective. as a lawyer you should know that mockery is useless unless the "mockie" is effected of deterred in a way favorable to the mocker...
a swing and a miss!

Actually, appeals to authority, AKA citing precedent, is the foundation of any legal argument.

As an idiot, I know that, which makes me wonder why you don't.

you must be an idiot i was referring to php's use of "anyone" as an appeal to authority...anyone is non specific and therefore invalid as a precedent...

uh, that wasn't an appeal to authority......I was just saying I didn't consider myself to be above mocking you......

 

[PostmodernProph]

But you can’t refuse to rent them an apartment if such discrimination is prohibited in your jurisdiction.

d'uh.....but when I pointed out that the claim a business man could not refuse service to anyone (hence including those who were NOT protected by discrimination laws) was not correct someone (was it you?) was stupid enough to say my statement showed I wasn't a lawyer.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Actually, appeals to authority, AKA citing precedent, is the foundation of any legal argument.

As an idiot, I know that, which makes me wonder why you don't.

you must be an idiot i was referring to php's use of "anyone" as an appeal to authority...anyone is non specific and therefore invalid as a precedent...

That was not an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to popularity.

well, only to the extent that mocking him is popular.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you must be an idiot i was referring to php's use of "anyone" as an appeal to authority...anyone is non specific and therefore invalid as a precedent...

That was not an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to popularity.

well, only to the extent that mocking him is popular.....

Good point.

Maybe it was an appeal to hedonism.

 

[daws101]

???....I never said I was better than that.....I enjoy mocking you as much as anyone else.....

and like "everyone" (all two of you )(appeal to authority) it's ineffective. as a lawyer you should know that mockery is useless unless the "mockie" is effected of deterred in a way favorable to the mocker...
a swing and a miss!

????.....I have to disagree with that totally......I can enjoy mocking you even if you are too dense to realize you've been mocked......in fact, that may enhance the experience......

never said you could not.. but since it is not having the desired effect feel free to make an ass out of yourself doing it!
being mocked by ass hats just goes with the territory.

 

[daws101]

you must be an idiot i was referring to php's use of "anyone" as an appeal to authority...anyone is non specific and therefore invalid as a precedent...

That was not an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to popularity.

well, only to the extent that mocking him is popular.....

only among the ass hats...

 

[Nosmo King]

What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

 

[Chuckt]

What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

The laws are discriminatory because they say that I cannot practice my religion, ethics or values. You said and agreed that damage is discrimination but you don't care when the laws discriminate against the person who follows religion.

No one is stopping you from going to a different provider. You are only having a problem with someone who doesn't share your viewpoint. That isn't tolerance. I don't go to a Muslim and ask them to change their business practices for me.

 

[Nosmo King]

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

The laws are discriminatory because they say that I cannot practice my religion, ethics or values. You said and agreed that damage is discrimination but you don't care when the laws discriminate against the person who follows religion.

No one is stopping you from going to a different provider. You are only having a problem with someone who doesn't share your viewpoint. That isn't tolerance. I don't go to a Muslim and ask them to change their business practices for me.

Again, bull.

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals. But the hated and fear and suspicion and belittle net of homosexuals is not a tenet of the faith. Hiding behind the robes of Christ to spew hatred is hypocritical at best, blasphemous at worst.

We saw other bigots use the same warped interpretations during Jim Crow.

This is not a religious argument. It's just good old fashioned gay bashing, a sport enjoyed by the dim witted for eons.

 

[Chuckt]

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

The laws are discriminatory because they say that I cannot practice my religion, ethics or values. You said and agreed that damage is discrimination but you don't care when the laws discriminate against the person who follows religion.

No one is stopping you from going to a different provider. You are only having a problem with someone who doesn't share your viewpoint. That isn't tolerance. I don't go to a Muslim and ask them to change their business practices for me.

Again, bull.

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals. But the hated and fear and suspicion and belittle net of homosexuals is not a tenet of the faith. Hiding behind the robes of Christ to spew hatred is hypocritical at best, blasphemous at worst.

We saw other bigots use the same warped interpretations during Jim Crow.

This is not a religious argument. It's just good old fashioned gay bashing, a sport enjoyed by the dim witted for eons.

[MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]

You are making an assumption that is gay bashing instead of a religious argument that one can make. My wife's relative models for a photographer and the pictures are used for gay advertising. We went to the wedding. We understand that it is a difficult issue but don't pretend that we don't think about the implications.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Ask yourself why it is sinful to wish someone God speed? If you wish someone God speed that doesn't have your own Christian interests in mind, I'm participating in their sinful deeds.

2 John 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You are saying that we hate and it has nothing to do with right and wrong or doctrine. Really? You don't know anyone at all.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I know mean and ignorant Christians who would say that it would ruin their witness.

What you are calling for is an illegal law that doesn't protect or respect the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a law that forbids 1 John 1:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22 then you have violated their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional.