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

[Tilly]

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?)

She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?

 

[Lastamender]

Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.

And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .
... that's sharia....christian sharia.

And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .

And we also have idiots who do not respect the consequences of elections. If they(Christians) can achieve their goals politically there really is not much you can do about it.

Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia. If you have 80% of a state vote to make everyone go to church on Sunday.....how long do you think that law will apply?

Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia.

Then what are you worried about? All this crap for nothing? You just like to hear yourself talk.

Now you simply are whimpering for no reason?

Your are right, there is no reason involved in anything you say.

 

[bodecea]

And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .
... that's sharia....christian sharia.

And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .

And we also have idiots who do not respect the consequences of elections. If they(Christians) can achieve their goals politically there really is not much you can do about it.

Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia. If you have 80% of a state vote to make everyone go to church on Sunday.....how long do you think that law will apply?

Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia.

Then what are you worried about? All this crap for nothing? You just like to hear yourself talk.

Now you simply are whimpering for no reason?

Your are right, there is no reason involved in anything you say.

I'm right....you ARE whimpering. Ok.

 

[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?

Neither? I guess it's inconceivable to you that discrimination is a deeply personal issue, and not something that should be subject to 'regulation'.

Wrong, it's a legal issue.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

 

[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.

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

 

[Tilly]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

What in the hell makes you think the rest of us are any more exempt from unpleasant experiences than gay people are? Hell, I rack up at least one encounter with an asshole every time I leave the fucking house. So what? Butch the fuck up and learn what most adults do: no one is entitled to universal approbation, or to always feel spiffy. Cecilie's Rule #1: Humans suck.

No one has to "create an environment" where people have to think about the possibility of unpleasantness entering their lives. We have that environment by default; it's called "a world where other people exist".

Agreed.
Hell is other people ....

 

[Tilly]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

You’re only humiliated if you want to be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

What in the hell makes you think the rest of us are any more exempt from unpleasant experiences than gay people are? Hell, I rack up at least one encounter with an asshole every time I leave the fucking house. So what? Butch the fuck up and learn what most adults do: no one is entitled to universal approbation, or to always feel spiffy. Cecilie's Rule #1: Humans suck.

No one has to "create an environment" where people have to think about the possibility of unpleasantness entering their lives. We have that environment by default; it's called "a world where other people exist".

Agreed.
Hell is other people ....

I assume that if I were to go to Hell, I would end up having to ride a crowded city bus for all eternity.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

Yes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's good law for everyone. When a law causes harm to one innocent person, it's bad law.

 

[bodecea]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

What in the hell makes you think the rest of us are any more exempt from unpleasant experiences than gay people are? Hell, I rack up at least one encounter with an asshole every time I leave the fucking house. So what? Butch the fuck up and learn what most adults do: no one is entitled to universal approbation, or to always feel spiffy. Cecilie's Rule #1: Humans suck.

No one has to "create an environment" where people have to think about the possibility of unpleasantness entering their lives. We have that environment by default; it's called "a world where other people exist".

Agreed.
Hell is other people ....

I assume that if I were to go to Hell, I would end up having to ride a crowded city bus for all eternity.

So...what have you actively done to get your state legislature to repeal the PA laws you say are immoral?

 

[bodecea]

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

Yes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's good law for everyone. When a law causes harm to one innocent person, it's bad law.

Then...what have you actively been doing to get this so-called bad PA law repealed in your state?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertising:

Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

"Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design. Call or come in. We look forward to serving you!"
You are blaming the wrong people. Don't try to shove the responsibility on the would-be customers, who were legitimately there and who properly reported their experience to the state human-rights commission. Why do you think that people should shoulder the burden for people like phillips, drive all over the place, and possibly be subjected to more mistreatment, and keep silent to protect his conduct?They are not responsible for phillip's thoughts. He is. The onus is on him. If he wants to stay in business, he needs to get his personal shit together. It's not the responsibility of the general public to mollycoddle him.

And, actually, the case ended up in court when this guy challenged the decision of the state commission. The couple did not haul him into court. He hauled the state commission into court. He is entirely responsible for being in court and for his livelihood.

Whoa up there, Dobbins. "Drive all over the place"? What is this, 1980? Do we not have Internet and telephones and all manner of devices to find this shit out without "driving all over the place"? If you can't find a listing of gay-friendly, or even GAY-OWNED, bakeries and other wedding service providers, on the Internet within five minutes, you're more tech-clueless than my 80-year-old mother, or you're just not trying.

And can we please dispense with the quaint, and utterly dishonest, fiction that this couple didn't know prior to asking what this baker's beliefs were, and that they didn't ask SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of getting their feewings hurt so they could pitch a hissy fit about it? Puh-frigging-leeze.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

Do NOT try to split hairs with me, you myopic, self-absorbed, mewling snowflake. Your heroes run to the ACLU and the Colorado Civil Rights Division, get a judge's decision against Mr. Phillips, and you want to play like HE started it because he appealed the decision.

There is not enough "fuck you" in the world for your little semantic games and sense of entitlement. "Merely", my ass.

Secondly, Phillips is only "solely responsible for the situation" if you assume that you have a right to the labors of others, regardless of their wishes, and he is somehow outrageous for thinking he has any choice in the matter. While I'm aware that you DO assume that, I'm still going to have to maintain that you're full of shit, and you and the gay couple need to get over yourselves.

No one said anything about "hiding his misconduct and shielding him". The couple DOES have an obligation to act like rational, civilized adults, no matter how much leftist twits like you want to scream and stamp your feet while demanding the right to never be either of those things. Believe it or not, gay people are not living in some special little victim bubble where they are the only people who ever experience annoyance, frustration, and unpleasantness. It's just that most of us don't get our panties in a ruffle and carry on like our lives have been unalterably ruined because of it.

Why can't YOU understand that the responsibility lies with the people who react to minor annoyances as though it were just shy of the Pearl Harbor attack? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS ONTO THE PUBLIC.

You continue to act as if the rest of us bear some responsibility to support your cult and whatever whimsies it comes up with. phillips signed on with his business license. He did this of his own free will. I know that you cultheads think that the general public should kiss your ass, but this is not how it works. Settle this within your cult. If you folks get your panties in a wad, think it out. Yeah, you might experience annoyance, frustration, or unpleasantness as a result of your own actions, not the actions of others. What goes on in your cult should have no bearing on the rest of us. Stop expecting to be mollycoddled. Nobody owes you anything.

No one's asking you to "support" anything. We're asking you to leave us the fuck alone and stop trying to force us to do stuff we don't want to do. Sorry if that's too onerous and intrusive for you. Except I'm not sorry; I'm kinda hoping it gives you an aneurysm from the stress of realizing you are utterly uninteresting and undesirable company for someone, somewhere in the world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?)

She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?

I say let Darwinism and natural selection take care of the problem, but for all their professed love of evolution, leftists never actually want to live by it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Neither? I guess it's inconceivable to you that discrimination is a deeply personal issue, and not something that should be subject to 'regulation'.

Wrong, it's a legal issue.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

Only because you ass napkins made it one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

You’re only humiliated if you want to be.

View attachment 183732

Yeah, they also claim to admire Gandhi, but they forget one of his most famous quotes: "No one can hurt me without my permission."

 

[BS Filter]

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

Yes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's good law for everyone. When a law causes harm to one innocent person, it's bad law.

Then...what have you actively been doing to get this so-called bad PA law repealed in your state?

Giving money to Christian lawyers working on the Supreme Court case

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

Yes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's good law for everyone. When a law causes harm to one innocent person, it's bad law.

Then...what have you actively been doing to get this so-called bad PA law repealed in your state?

I donate to The American Center for Law and Justice. Do you know who they are?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Neither? I guess it's inconceivable to you that discrimination is a deeply personal issue, and not something that should be subject to 'regulation'.

Wrong, it's a legal issue.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

 

[BS Filter]

The activists and their queer friends are always crying about others forcing their beliefs on them, then the asswipes go out of their way to target Christian businesses and destroy them if they don't submit. Hypocritical trash. Don't compromise with the vermin. Destroy them.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

Yes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's good law for everyone. When a law causes harm to one innocent person, it's bad law.

Then...what have you actively been doing to get this so-called bad PA law repealed in your state?

Giving money to Christian lawyers working on the Supreme Court case

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.

I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".

The law is bogus?

Yes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's good law for everyone. When a law causes harm to one innocent person, it's bad law.

Then...what have you actively been doing to get this so-called bad PA law repealed in your state?

I donate to The American Center for Law and Justice. Do you know who they are?

Yep, I do....how's that working out for you in getting rid of your state's PA laws?

 

[bodecea]

The activists and their queer friends are always crying about others forcing their beliefs on them, then the asswipes go out of their way to target Christian businesses and destroy them if they don't submit. Hypocritical trash. Don't compromise with the vermin. Destroy them.

Imagine all those christian businesses destroyed.....what is it? In the 1000s? 100,000s?