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

[Skull Pilot]

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So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?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

If you want an exemption from any law then it is you that has to provide proof that the exemption is justified. If I kill in self defense it is up to me to prove it was self defense so exemption from the murder laws an be applied

So if you don't want to build a house for a gay couple it is up to you to prove that doing so violates your religious bent by providing proof from your religious manual whatever it may be.

Or you could make your business a club where customers have to pay a fee to be a member and you only provide services to your members. I'm sure you can find enough bigots to join you.

 

[BS Filter]

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So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?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

That's what this forum is for, and voting for common sense conservatives.

 

[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.

If you want an exemption from any law then it is you that has to provide proof that the exemption is justified. If I kill in self defense it is up to me to prove it was self defense so exemption from the murder laws an be applied

So if you don't want to build a house for a gay couple it is up to you to prove that doing so violates your religious bent by providing proof from your religious manual whatever it may be.

Or you could make your business a club where customers have to pay a fee to be a member and you only provide services to your members. I'm sure you can find enough bigots to join you.

Naw, I'm not going to submit to perverts and fascists. Come and get me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

Ah, so the very fact that the law forces others to act according to your morals makes you feel justified in the idea that the law ought to force others to act according to your morals. Fair enough, I guess. Shallow as shit, but fair enough.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Bullshit! And I explained why.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

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

If the beliefs of the customer are none of your business then why can't bakers be forced to make Hitler cakes?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

Which is the problem with religion.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.

 

[dblack]

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

Which is the problem with religion.

And freedom. Both must be crushed!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, other animals do it.

So yes.

Are you going to respond to the points I made?

You didn't make any points. You don't understand why Christians have the belief that homosexuality is an abomination to their God. You don't respect their belief. Until you understand why Christians have the belief and respect their belief, you're not going to understand why Christians refuse to go along with promotion of same-sex marriage.

I'm supposed to respect their "belief".

Bullshit. Their "belief" if fucking bigotry of the worst kind. They use their religion to justify bigotry.

The simple fact is, they have this book called the Bible which says lots of things, and they cherry pick to their heart's content.

John 8:3-8:11

"3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst,

4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?"

Well, you have Moses saying that an adulterer should be stoned to death and you have Jesus not saying she shouldn't be stoned to death.

What Jesus talks about is judging people.

"15 You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man."

Deuteronomy 21:18-21:21

"21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Basically talks about stoning a son to death if he doesn't listen to his parents.

Leviticus 20:13

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death."

Blasphemy and you should be stoned to death.

Exodus 31:15

"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

If you work on the sabbath, you'll be stoned to death.

So, they don't stone gay people to death which is what they're told to do. They don't stone bad sons, they don't stone those who work on the sabbath and they don't stone to death those who blasphemy.

So, they've cherry picked the Bible. They don't follow the parts they find inconvenient.

Mark 12:31

"And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these."

Okay, so you should treat thy neighbor as thyself.

Would you want to be stopped from being able to buy in a shop? No. So you should not stop others.

Again, cherry picking.

So don't come all fucking sanctimonious with me. These people are bigots and they hide behind cherry picked verses of the Bible and nothing more.

You're ignorant of the Scriptures. You're like a little kid playing with a stick of dynamite. You don't rightly divide the Word. You're evil.

Oh am I really?

Because I don't cherry pick the scriptures in the manner that's convenient for you, I'm ignorant.

Right......

It's funny you know. There are hundreds of Christian Churches out there.

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia

I can't be bothered to list them all for you, here's the wikipedia page if you really need to know how many there are.

Each one preaches something different. Each one says the Bible means something different.

So, the chances are they're ALL ignorant of the Bible. Or they're all cherry picking their way through.

I've met gay Christians. I've even been to church with gay Christians in THEIR church. This church did not say gay people are bad, or evil, or sinners, or that they should be stoned to death, or that they should be stopped from shopping in stores.

I suppose they're ignorant simply because they don't follow YOUR interpretation (I mean cherry picking really) of the Bible.

Christophobic bigot.

Ah, I see the time for the ignore list has come.

 

[bodecea]

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.

It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.

However no one offered or requested any writing or figures on wedding cakes.

BTW...the 21st century is calling....almost no one puts figures on their wedding cakes anymore.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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

If the beliefs of the customer are none of your business then why can't bakers be forced to make Hitler cakes?

What exactly does a Hitler cake look like?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Ah, so the very fact that the law forces others to act according to your morals makes you feel justified in the idea that the law ought to force others to act according to your morals. Fair enough, I guess. Shallow as shit, but fair enough.

My morals? Actually, American morals. Equal treatment for all. You seem to be saying that those are not YOUR morals.

 

[dblack]

It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.

Don't be obtuse. Of course it's discrimination. The question is whether government should be in charge of regulating discrimination.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Bullshit! And I explained why.

No, you simply explained that actions affect others and beliefs don't. What I'm saying is that a person's actions and beliefs don't exist separately from one another, despite the fact that they are different things.

You said "Nobody is asking you to give up your beliefs". That's what I was disputing by pointing this out. Being asked to act against your beliefs is, to some degree, being asked to give them up.

Now, if your beliefs require you to victimize other people, then fuck your beliefs. I absolutely agree that people shouldn't be able to use force or coercion against other human beings and call it religious practice.

That said, refusing to make a cake with two grooms or refusing to offer birth control as labor compensation doesn't force or coerce anyone to do anything. There is nobody being victimized by these actions.

 

[OnePercenter]

It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.

Don't be obtuse. Of course it's discrimination. The question is whether government should be in charge of regulating discrimination.

If not the government, then whom, business?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

Ah, so the very fact that the law forces others to act according to your morals makes you feel justified in the idea that the law ought to force others to act according to your morals. Fair enough, I guess. Shallow as shit, but fair enough.

My morals? Actually, American morals. Equal treatment for all. You seem to be saying that those are not YOUR morals.

You're equivocating. My morals state that people shouldn't be using force against each other. Laws that uphold that coincide with my morals, but I don't support laws that subjugate one human to the whims of another without due cause.

The bit that I find arrogant is the idea that laws ought to force people to perform specific actions that you believe to be their moral obligations.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.

Don't be obtuse. Of course it's discrimination. The question is whether government should be in charge of regulating discrimination.

Discrimination, from a legal standpoint, means discriminating against a person based on that person's identity. If you're willing to do business with the person in question and offer them exactly the same product that you're offering everyone else, you're not discriminating between customers, you're discriminating between different types of products that you're willing or not willing to produce.

When you conflate these two concepts in order to "win" the argument, you're the one being obtuse, Mr. Dufresne.