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

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yeah, I'm aware that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, on this.

However, just as Democrats tend to question the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United decision, I question the court decisions made in favor of the people demanding the gay wedding cakes. That's kinda the purpose of this thread. If you feel that discussing this disagreement is "useless garbage", well, nobody's forcing you to stay and participate

Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....

....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.

In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.

The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.

Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.

Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.

There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.

Now then.

My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.

Mind blown yet?

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

 

[jillian]

Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....

....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.

In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.

The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.

Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.

Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.

There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.

Now then.

My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.

Mind blown yet?

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

 

[BS Filter]

Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.

Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.

There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.

Now then.

My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.

Mind blown yet?

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Before I go any further, I have a request. Either A tell me how someone who doesn't want to put 2 grooms on a cake or doesn't want to offer birth control as a form of compensation for voluntary labor is using force against a victim, or B stop using murder as your metaphor. Until you can establish that it actually applies, you're just making a rhetorical smoke screen and ignoring me when I point out that it's a rhetorical smoke screen.

Anyway, part of the issue here is how you define equality and how you define rights.

Personally, I don't see how anything that I've suggested here has anything to do with equality under the law, which simply means that the law will be evenly applied. If we simply allow people to operate their own businesses as they see fit, who is being treated unfairly? If you wanna open up a shop that sells card games and model airplanes, name it Hobby Foyer, and offer your employees ONLY health plans that include birth control, your business will be protected by the same police and military system as anybody else's, and legally subject to that protection being enforced on exactly the same terms as those Christian business owners. And if someone doesn't want what you offer, they'll be able to decline working for you, just like they can decline working for Hobby Lobby.

I also don't see how any of what I'm suggesting violates anyone's rights. I've thought about this, and there are enough one horse towns in shitty areas throughout parts of the nation that I'll concede that public accommodations laws ought to apply to the extent of human need. If you go into business selling fuel, food, or lodging, I'm of the mind that you shouldn't be allowed to turn people's business away without cause. In the case of a baker who doesn't want to put two grooms on your cake, or the photographer who doesn't wanna go and do a shoot of your wedding, I don't see whose rights are being violated if these people refuse that business. I get that it's a dick move, but I'm not sure where it is from which one derives the right to force any available baker to design a cake in any particular way, or demand that a professional photographer take on some particular project simply on the grounds that they are a photographer. Not only did I not realize that was a right, but I was actually under the impression that subjugating another human being was abolished after that whole tiff between the North and the South back in the day. Does it not apply to business owners, or Christians?

Aside from rights, if I don't put two grooms on your cake, I haven't hurt you. If you're looking for a job and I've got an add in the classifieds, and then you find out that I don't offer health plans that include birth control, I haven't hurt you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

So your beliefs are none of my business but the beliefs of your customers are your business?

What the fuck do you care if you bake a cake for a killer, a rapist, an adulterer or a gay guy?

The act of baking and selling a cake is not a sin in any religion

Yeah, amazingly enough, this has nothing to do with the customers' beliefs. I realize it's hard for people to believe, but everything is not about them. This is about THE BAKER and HIS beliefs, and only that. He's doing his thing, and in no way trying to change them doing THEIR thing. He just doesn't want to participate in it.

One more time: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO OR DON'T CARE ABOUT. You don't get to tell them anything on that subject.

You also don't get to dictate what is and isn't a sin, and what "any religion" does or doesn't teach. You aren't God, you aren't the Pope, you aren't the head of any religious denomination, YOU AREN'T DECIDING. Stop fucking trying to deal yourself in to approving or disapproving other people's beliefs, and telling them whether or not those CAN BE their beliefs based on your opinion.

The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect beliefs you agree with; it exists to protect those you don't agree with. And you're making it painfully, excruciatingly obvious WHY the First Amendment is necessary.

the first amendment has nothing to do with public accommodation laws

The first amendment only mentions the free exercise of religion. Baking a cake is not exercising a religion it is baking a cake to be sold in a business that is government by public accommodation laws.

If the baker believes that all Back people should be served from the back alley entrance and be charged 3 times more for everything he would be just as wrong as the guy claiming that the very act of conducting his business for "certain people" violates his religion

Now show me where in any written religious scripture that says it is a sin to conduct any business with a sinner.

I know there's nothing about baking cakes being a sin written in any scripture

The First Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with public accommodation laws, when you insist that public accommodation laws require people to act against their beliefs and that you have a right to define their beliefs because you personally don't think they should believe something that conflicts with your public accommodation ideas.

Oh my freaking God, what IS it with people and running to the blacks? You know how I can tell an idea is left-think bullshit? Because the triumphant "Aha!" argument will always involve using black people as human shields.

Understand the difference between believing "This is bad behavior" versus "Therefore, the government must force people to behave otherwise." SOME bad behavior, like killing people or robbing them, needs to be stopped by the government. Other behavior, like racism, not so much, at least not in this day and age. So no, your "Aha!" moment of being supremely convinced that I'm ALL in favor of the government forcing racists to serve black people has fallen flat. I would much prefer that they be openly repugnant in their racism, so that I and virtually everyone else in the country can avoid giving them our money. I have no desire to be funding people who secretly hold such nasty views because the government forces them to pretend otherwise.

I don't have to "show you where" anything. I'm not trying to convert you, or convince you to agree on the subject of sin, and for me to try to "prove" to you that it's a sin would invalidate my entire argument, which is that IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Asking me to justify the baker's beliefs to support the argument that you're not entitled to a justification is nonsensical.

I don't give a shit what you "know" or don't "know" about the Scripture, because again, YOU DON'T GET A VOTE. PLEASE stop wasting my time with your constant "Yes, but his beliefs are wrong" posts. They are empty air, because AT NO POINT IN TIME has this ever been about whether or his beliefs can be proven "right" to other people's standards; it's about the fact that HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THEM WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT. The fact that people DON'T agree on beliefs is exactly why they're protected.

So please, when you start firing out your next post, just save us all some time like this (the parts in all caps should be shouted loudly:

"It's not a sin . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"The scriptures don't say . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"Show me where . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"No religion says . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

Because the only answer you are EVER going to get to your attempts to debate whether or not the baker SHOULD believe something is exactly that: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Public accommodation laws are not about beliefs they are about equal treatment of the public in businesses open to the public.

And they can believe whatever the fuck they want what they can't do is violate the law with no consequences. The whole baking a cake for certain people is a sin thing is the purest most unadulterated bullshit I have ever seen outside of a political campaign

Hey I can believe that I should only do business with blondes with blue eyes and big tits but that doesn't mean I am justified in declining service to everyone else

 

[Esmeralda]

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

How is expecting to be treated like any other customer activism? They were asking for the same accomodation the bakers made for every other customer. They were not asking them to do something illegal.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.

Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.

There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.

Now then.

My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.

Mind blown yet?

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Against whom am I being bigoted? You're making assumptions and talking out your ass.

As far as accommodating the public, you're only legally required to accommodate them equally. I don't see how you're discriminating by not putting two grooms on a cake. It's not like those bakers were selling two-groom-cakes to straight couples. You're basically saying that anybody who isn't willing to act as an absolute slave to any potential customer shouldn't be allowed to self employ. That's fuckin retarded.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Anybody care to address this with an actual argument?

There is nothing to argue. No one is asking you to give up your beliefs. Beliefs reside between your own two ears. Behavior is another issue. Behavior effects others. It is your behavior that you are being asked to change. Your behavior towards others should reflect how you would like others to behave towards you . You beliefs are not a valid excuse to treat others badly.

 

[dblack]

We shouldn't have to abandon any beliefs to run a business. Nor should we have to give up our rights to decide who we'll work for or who we won't. The 'public accommodations' conceit is just a wedge for socialists who want all business controlled by government.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

If someone in the wedding business (any aspect) has a problem with certain kinds of weddings of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....they need to get in another line of work.

How is it that you feel entitled to your personal ideals deciding who is or isn't qualified to sell their services to other people? Does the utter arrogance of that mind set simply not occur to you, or have you actually reached a point where you consciously feel like you're so wise that you ought to rule over everyone, simply for the good of the world?

 

[Taz]

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?

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

 

[bodecea]

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Anybody care to address this with an actual argument?

There is nothing to argue. No one is asking you to give up your beliefs. Beliefs reside between your own two ears. Behavior is another issue. Behavior effects others. It is your behavior that you are being asked to change. Your behavior towards others should reflect how you would like others to behave towards you . You beliefs are not a valid excuse to treat others badly.

Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.

Refusing a voluntary business contract because you don't want to put two grooms on a cake or photograph a gay wedding isn't treating others badly.

Also, if you're of the mind that belief and action are things that exist independently from one another, I have to wonder if you're a sociopath.

 

[bodecea]

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.

If someone in the wedding business (any aspect) has a problem with certain kinds of weddings of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....they need to get in another line of work.

How is it that you feel entitled to your personal ideals deciding who is or isn't qualified to sell their services to other people? Does the utter arrogance of that mind set simply not occur to you, or have you actually reached a point where you consciously feel like you're so wise that you ought to rule over everyone, simply for the good of the world?

No arrogance...if you can't serve the public as per business PA laws, health laws, safety laws because of your "religious beliefs"...why are you in that line of work in the first place? It's stupid. Just as stupid as muslim taxi drivers who say their "religious beliefs" keep them from serving people with pets or alcohol? Why the heck are they in that line of work then?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

If not offering birth control as compensation for a voluntary labor contract is something that you qualify as being unkind to others, then your beliefs are bullshit.

 

[BS Filter]

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots. Leftist activists would have citizens paying taxes to provide everything for everyone if they could do it. Ya'll want a nanny government wiping your butt from birth to the grave.

 

[dblack]

Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots.

That doesn't work. The come back with guns. That's the point of passing laws in the first place.

 

[Taz]

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?

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

If not offering birth control as compensation for a voluntary labor contract is something that you qualify as being unkind to others, then your beliefs are bullshit.

If being against birth control is a religious belief of yours, then for sure, you're confused.

 

[BS Filter]

Operating your own business your own way is akin to shoving your beliefs down someone else's throats?

Or is going into someone else's business, that they put together, that you don't own and didn't build, and expecting them to cater to -your- beliefs, on the other hand. . . there's nothing pushy or imposing about that, amirite?!

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots.

That doesn't work. The come back with guns. That's the point of passing laws in the first place.

Works for me. I live in a rural part of the country where everyone pretty much minds their own business and leave people alone.

 

[dblack]

if you open a business that is open to the public, you have to accommodate the public.

you can rant about this until your bigot head explodes. if you can't accommodate the public, don't open a business.

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots.

That doesn't work. The come back with guns. That's the point of passing laws in the first place.

Works for me. I live in a rural part of the country where everyone pretty much minds their own business and leave people alone.

I'm afraid we can't just ignore it anymore. We've got to fight the stupidity or it will consume us.