Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[BS Filter]

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

If homosexuality is a chosen behavior, so is heterosexuality....when did you choose?

Heterosexuality is natural, that means "by nature". Homosexuality is perversion because it isn't natural. The anus isn't a sex organ, dum dum.

 

[BS Filter]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No one is forcing so-called christians to change their beliefs. In fact, many christian sects have no problem with gay marriage....some do. Which one does the law respect? Answer: only respect the secular law.

Oh....and I want to hear about the government forcing christians to gay marry.

Real Christians believe the Scriptures. There are many that call themselves Christian, but they're what Jesus called wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.

Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?

Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable

I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.

You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.

I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.

hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone

But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?

If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?

It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell

Hypocrisy is actually a sin, just FYI.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" refers to the state of someone's soul, not the quality of their actions. If you've read the Bible, you've seen the multiple admonitions to use discernment regarding actions. There is no judgement of someone's soul inherent in refusing to participate in their actions if you believe that to do so would be sinful.

There is a difference between doing business with people who are committing sins - because everyone is a sinner, so you'd go broke if you only worked with perfect people - and doing business when doing so would involve participating in sinful actions. And, as always, that determination is between the person and God. YOU do not get a vote, nor does anyone have any obligation to explain it to you or get your approval.

but in no way are you participating in any sinful actions as you call them.

If a watchmaker makes a watch for a murderer so he can accurately time the comings and goings of his intended victims he is not committing the sin of murder

If a baker bakes a cake for a party that ends up being an orgy the baker is not committing a sin


You want to pick and choose what sins are acceptable so you can justify your bigotry

Again, that is for neither you nor me to say. You keep wanting to argue about whether or not the baker's beliefs are "true" or "valid" according to YOUR viewpoint, and you can't seem to wrap your mind around the central point: no one else gets a vote on someone's beliefs except him or her and whichever god he or she worships.

You keep saying, "If XYZ, it's not a sin." What level of hubris must you have to think that YOU are the final word on sin? Are you God? Allah? Yahweh? Fill-in-the-blank deity? Are you the baker's pastor? Are you Miss Cleo, that you can tell us what's "really" in the baker's head when he says he would consider making that cake to be a violation of his beliefs? Or are you just engaging in left-think and assuming that YOUR view of the universe is the only correct one, and making assumptions based on the perfect infallibility of your "knowledge"?

I don't give a damn if the baker genuinely, 100% believes in and worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster and considers it a sin to bake any cake that doesn't involve pasta and meatballs. Yes, I think it's utterly ridiculous and crazy from my own personal worldview, but it doesn't change the fact that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to not have to care about what I think of his beliefs.

The baker's obedience to God is between him and God. Before you say another word on what is and is not correct about his beliefs, ask yourself whether you are him or God. If the answer to both is "No", stop talking, because it's none of your business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

The issue was what the customer wanted it for, since in both cases, the bakers had been perfectly happy to sell the customers more generalized products in the past.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Why would it be? You have some notion that illegitimate children aren't allowed to be happy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

You don't get out much, do ya.

I get why you people want to hide behind your religion so as to justify your bigotry

I was raised Catholic but had the good sense to get the hell away from those people

There is no way you can equate baking a cake with committing a sin
There is no way you an equate paying for part of an insurance policy that offers birth control with committing a sin

I get why you want to define what people should believe for them, but trust me, it says a lot worse things about you than your constant use of "bigotry" over and over.

I can't imagine what your personal religious training and feelings about it have to do with the topic at all. This is not your group therapy session, so please refrain from sharing unless it's relevant.

There is no way YOU can equate baking a cake with committing a sin. But YOU are not representative of all possible beliefs, or even of "the only true, acceptable belief". Get over yourself. Personally, I can't equate walking around with my face uncovered with committing a sin, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for other people to genuinely believe it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Here is the wedding cake catalog from Masterpiece Cakeshop -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


Most don't have figurines or writing.


>>>>

Don't care. Any attempt to parse or hairsplit this is to validate your erroneous idea that others need to justify their beliefs to you and get your approval.

 

[bodecea]

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No one is forcing so-called christians to change their beliefs. In fact, many christian sects have no problem with gay marriage....some do. Which one does the law respect? Answer: only respect the secular law.

Oh....and I want to hear about the government forcing christians to gay marry.

Real Christians believe the Scriptures. There are many that call themselves Christian, but they're what Jesus called wolves in sheep's clothing.

That's fine and dandy and each christian sect believes that they are the ones following the scriptures. Each christian sect believes they are the real christians. Many of those sects, not just one or two, are ok with gay marriage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

If homosexuality is a chosen behavior, so is heterosexuality....when did you choose?

Heterosexuality is natural, that means "by nature". Homosexuality is perversion because it isn't natural. The anus isn't a sex organ, dum dum.

Only if you live in a black and white world.

ALL and I do mean ALL human behavior exists on a continuum

 

[Skull Pilot]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

You don't get out much, do ya.

I get why you people want to hide behind your religion so as to justify your bigotry

I was raised Catholic but had the good sense to get the hell away from those people

There is no way you can equate baking a cake with committing a sin
There is no way you an equate paying for part of an insurance policy that offers birth control with committing a sin

I get why you want to define what people should believe for them, but trust me, it says a lot worse things about you than your constant use of "bigotry" over and over.

I can't imagine what your personal religious training and feelings about it have to do with the topic at all. This is not your group therapy session, so please refrain from sharing unless it's relevant.

There is no way YOU can equate baking a cake with committing a sin. But YOU are not representative of all possible beliefs, or even of "the only true, acceptable belief". Get over yourself. Personally, I can't equate walking around with my face uncovered with committing a sin, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for other people to genuinely believe it.

You can't have it both ways.

Either it is a sin to bake a cake for a sinner or it isn't.

you want to say that your soul is in not in jeopardy if you bake a cake for a serial killer but if you bake one for a gay guy you'll be thrown into the fires of hell

IDGAF if you're religious or not but if you actually think about it the above statement is absolutely nonsensical

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Here is the wedding cake catalog from Masterpiece Cakeshop -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


Most don't have figurines or writing.


>>>>

Don't care. Any attempt to parse or hairsplit this is to validate your erroneous idea that others need to justify their beliefs to you and get your approval.

I'm not asking for justification these religious people are saying they are justified in breaking the law. I am telling you why they are not justified in breaking the law

 

[WorldWatcher]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

The issue was what the customer wanted it for, since in both cases, the bakers had been perfectly happy to sell the customers more generalized products in the past.

They wanted a wedding cake, the shop admits they sold wedding cakes. Therefore it wasn't about the product being requested it was about who was requesting the product.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Here is the wedding cake catalog from Masterpiece Cakeshop -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


Most don't have figurines or writing.


>>>>

Don't care. Any attempt to parse or hairsplit this is to validate your erroneous idea that others need to justify their beliefs to you and get your approval.

Please review my previous post before assuming what my ideas are -->> Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?



>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?

Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable

I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.

You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.

I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.

hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone

But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?

If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?

It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell

Hypocrisy is actually a sin, just FYI.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" refers to the state of someone's soul, not the quality of their actions. If you've read the Bible, you've seen the multiple admonitions to use discernment regarding actions. There is no judgement of someone's soul inherent in refusing to participate in their actions if you believe that to do so would be sinful.

There is a difference between doing business with people who are committing sins - because everyone is a sinner, so you'd go broke if you only worked with perfect people - and doing business when doing so would involve participating in sinful actions. And, as always, that determination is between the person and God. YOU do not get a vote, nor does anyone have any obligation to explain it to you or get your approval.

but in no way are you participating in any sinful actions as you call them.

If a watchmaker makes a watch for a murderer so he can accurately time the comings and goings of his intended victims he is not committing the sin of murder

If a baker bakes a cake for a party that ends up being an orgy the baker is not committing a sin


You want to pick and choose what sins are acceptable so you can justify your bigotry

Again, that is for neither you nor me to say. You keep wanting to argue about whether or not the baker's beliefs are "true" or "valid" according to YOUR viewpoint, and you can't seem to wrap your mind around the central point: no one else gets a vote on someone's beliefs except him or her and whichever god he or she worships.

You keep saying, "If XYZ, it's not a sin." What level of hubris must you have to think that YOU are the final word on sin? Are you God? Allah? Yahweh? Fill-in-the-blank deity? Are you the baker's pastor? Are you Miss Cleo, that you can tell us what's "really" in the baker's head when he says he would consider making that cake to be a violation of his beliefs? Or are you just engaging in left-think and assuming that YOUR view of the universe is the only correct one, and making assumptions based on the perfect infallibility of your "knowledge"?

I don't give a damn if the baker genuinely, 100% believes in and worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster and considers it a sin to bake any cake that doesn't involve pasta and meatballs. Yes, I think it's utterly ridiculous and crazy from my own personal worldview, but it doesn't change the fact that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to not have to care about what I think of his beliefs.

The baker's obedience to God is between him and God. Before you say another word on what is and is not correct about his beliefs, ask yourself whether you are him or God. If the answer to both is "No", stop talking, because it's none of your business.

A religious test to be a customer in public accommodation?

 

[danielpalos]

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Here is the wedding cake catalog from Masterpiece Cakeshop -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


Most don't have figurines or writing.


>>>>

Don't care. Any attempt to parse or hairsplit this is to validate your erroneous idea that others need to justify their beliefs to you and get your approval.

Both parties have recourse to our First Amendment, not just the bakers. Public accommodation laws exist for a reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

You don't get out much, do ya.

I get why you people want to hide behind your religion so as to justify your bigotry

I was raised Catholic but had the good sense to get the hell away from those people

There is no way you can equate baking a cake with committing a sin
There is no way you an equate paying for part of an insurance policy that offers birth control with committing a sin

I get why you want to define what people should believe for them, but trust me, it says a lot worse things about you than your constant use of "bigotry" over and over.

I can't imagine what your personal religious training and feelings about it have to do with the topic at all. This is not your group therapy session, so please refrain from sharing unless it's relevant.

There is no way YOU can equate baking a cake with committing a sin. But YOU are not representative of all possible beliefs, or even of "the only true, acceptable belief". Get over yourself. Personally, I can't equate walking around with my face uncovered with committing a sin, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for other people to genuinely believe it.

You can't have it both ways.

Either it is a sin to bake a cake for a sinner or it isn't.

you want to say that your soul is in not in jeopardy if you bake a cake for a serial killer but if you bake one for a gay guy you'll be thrown into the fires of hell

IDGAF if you're religious or not but if you actually think about it the above statement is absolutely nonsensical

Actually, you can have it many ways, because we're not talking about The One Ultimate Truth of Sin here, we're talking about beliefs. You can have as many different beliefs as you have people. See, you want to invalidate people's beliefs because they don't match YOUR belief as to the "one ultimate truth of sin", and you don't seem to get that yours is just as subjective as theirs is. The First Amendment protects freedom of religious belief precisely because the Founding Fathers recognized that we don't even remotely all agree on the subject. Allowing you to rule out the beliefs of others on the basis of "Well, they're wrong" would invalidate the entire spirit and purpose of the First Amendment; and you should consider that THEY think YOU are wrong, so it's a wash.

I'm not saying anything about the state of my soul, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. THAT is the only thing I'm saying, and you should write it down somewhere, because you just don't seem to be comprehending me. MY BELIEFS ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. MY RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. THE BAKER'S BELIEFS AND RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. The First Amendment isn't about sanctioning "correct" beliefs; it's about telling you that EVERY belief is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Tend to your own soul, and stay the hell out of everyone else's unless and until you're omniscient.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

The issue was what the customer wanted it for, since in both cases, the bakers had been perfectly happy to sell the customers more generalized products in the past.

They wanted a wedding cake, the shop admits they sold wedding cakes. Therefore it wasn't about the product being requested it was about who was requesting the product.


>>>>

The product they wanted was a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Believe it or not, that ISN'T the same thing to everyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Here is the wedding cake catalog from Masterpiece Cakeshop -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


Most don't have figurines or writing.


>>>>

Don't care. Any attempt to parse or hairsplit this is to validate your erroneous idea that others need to justify their beliefs to you and get your approval.

Please review my previous post before assuming what my ideas are -->> Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?



>>>>

Please don't assume I think you're an asshole because I just don't comprehend your complexity. I understand you very well; that's WHY I think you're an asshole.

 

[BS Filter]

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No one is forcing so-called christians to change their beliefs. In fact, many christian sects have no problem with gay marriage....some do. Which one does the law respect? Answer: only respect the secular law.

Oh....and I want to hear about the government forcing christians to gay marry.

Real Christians believe the Scriptures. There are many that call themselves Christian, but they're what Jesus called wolves in sheep's clothing.

That's fine and dandy and each christian sect believes that they are the ones following the scriptures. Each christian sect believes they are the real christians. Many of those sects, not just one or two, are ok with gay marriage.

So? The Christians that believe the Bible have Constitutional rights.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please don't assume I think you're an asshole because I just don't comprehend your complexity. I understand you very well; that's WHY I think you're an asshole.

So I'm an asshole for supporting the repeal of Public Accommodation laws returning rights of property and association to private business owners so they can accept or refuse customers based on their own decisions?


OK, I'm an asshole.


>>>>