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

[dblack]

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

 

[irosie91]

In that they are forcing through government power private individuals to do things they do not want to do because other private individuals want them to do it, they very much touch on any number of rights held by private individuals. I have a right to choose not to associate with other people; they do NOT have a right to force others to associate with them. Because of this, public accommodation laws, in and of themselves, violate the Constitution. It is one thing to say that public sector entities, such as government agencies, must service everyone. It is entirely another to say that private sector entities must do so.

Furthermore, to say, "They can believe what they want; they just can't practice it" is to say "They cannot believe it". A major problem with left-think on this subject is that it conflates "belief" with "thought", and assumes that one's beliefs are merely thoughts in one's head, divorced from one's actions. The exact opposite is the truth: one's beliefs are NOT what one thinks, or even what one says. What a person DOES is the truest measure of what he believes, particularly when circumstances are most difficult. The First Amendment recognizes this by guaranteeing not only "freedom of religion" but also "the free exercise thereof".

You are still arrogating to yourself the right to approve the beliefs of others. You are saying, "They have the right to believe what they want, so long as it is acceptable to most people." The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect belief that is generally acceptable to society at large; if it's acceptable to most people, it doesn't NEED protection, because it won't be attacked. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect belief that most people find repugnant.

And yeah, I actually think you should be free to restrict your business only to well-endowed blondes, if that's what you want to do. Of course, I also think you should be free to avail yourself of bankruptcy court when your business closes two months later. What I DON'T think is that you should be legally required to pretend that you like skinny brunettes if you don't choose to.

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising his first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

 

[dblack]

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising hos first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising hos first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

 

[dblack]

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising hos first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising hos first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

 

[irosie91]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

 

[dblack]

It has to do with people. People own and operate businesses. The idea that we have to give up our rights as individuals for the "privilege" of conducting business is an abysmal concession to the statists.

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising hos first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

Don't equivocate. Suing someone does involve the police. That's what make it different than simply asking them for money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you'd be just fine will all anti discrimination laws being repealed.

You wouldn't care if you got fired just because you were a woman because your boss is just exercising hos first amendment rights?

You wouldn't care if women got fired because they got pregnant because the boss is just exercising his rights?

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

Don't equivocate. Suing someone does involve the police. That's what make it different than simply asking them for money.

It doesn't it involves the courts.

 

[dblack]

I wouldn't be 'fine' with any of that. But I wouldn't want to get the police involved.

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

Don't equivocate. Suing someone does involve the police. That's what make it different than simply asking them for money.

It doesn't it involves the courts.

LOL.... and if you defy the orders of the court? You've never worked this out before?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

Let me ask you this

Are you OK with your boss firing you for no other reason than he believes his religion says it's a sin for a woman to work?

It's his first amendment right isn't it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You don't have to get the police involved to sue someone

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

Don't equivocate. Suing someone does involve the police. That's what make it different than simply asking them for money.

It doesn't it involves the courts.

LOL.... and if you defy the orders of the court? You've never worked this out before?

You are proposing a hypothetical for what might happen after a person is sued

 

[dblack]

If they don't pay up you do. That's sort of the point.

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

Don't equivocate. Suing someone does involve the police. That's what make it different than simply asking them for money.

It doesn't it involves the courts.

LOL.... and if you defy the orders of the court? You've never worked this out before?

You are proposing a hypothetical for what might happen after a person is sued

I'm highlighting the fact that courts and laws are backed by coercion. People want to hide behind regulations as though they aren't "really" forcing anyone to do anything. And that's just a copout. Whenever we ask government to solve our problems for us, we're getting the police involved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Pay for what?

If people do not pay for a product that is stealing it has nothing to do with refusing service to anyone

Don't equivocate. Suing someone does involve the police. That's what make it different than simply asking them for money.

It doesn't it involves the courts.

LOL.... and if you defy the orders of the court? You've never worked this out before?

You are proposing a hypothetical for what might happen after a person is sued

I'm highlighting the fact that courts and laws are backed by coercion. People want to hide behind regulations as though they aren't "really" forcing anyone to do anything. And that's just a copout. Whenever we ask government to solve our problems for us, we're getting the police involved.

The police will only get involved if a person violates the order of a judge.

It is not a given that a person will violate the judges order.

The threat that the police will be called in is just that a threat so as to ensure compliance

 

[dblack]

The threat that the police will be called in is just that a threat so as to ensure compliance

Heh ... ok. You think that's not 'involved', that that's not coercion?

Anyway, not much point in quibbling. If you don't get that distinction, you're not going to follow any of my reasoning.

 

[irosie91]

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

Let me ask you this

Are you OK with your boss firing you for no other reason than he believes his religion says it's a sin for a woman to work?

It's his first amendment right isn't it?

absolutely not. There are laws against illegal termination.
If a person FIRES an employee because he DISCOVERS
that the employee is a homosexual---that is illegal too. If
a portrait artist refuses, based on his own concepts of morality, to do a nude portrait of me----THAT IS NOT
illegal. You are kinda dim. If I am asked to medically clear an eleven year old kid to TRAIN IN BOXING-----that is legal because I have a reason------repeated blows to the head
damages the brain (even if the kid is black) If I refuse to
treat a kid for a sore throat----BECAUSE THE KID IS BLACK----that is illegal

 

[dblack]

absolutely not. There are laws against illegal termination.
If a person FIRES an employee because he DISCOVERS
that the employee is a homosexual---that is illegal too.

The question is whether it should be illegal. If a baker can refuse to serve a customer on moral grounds, why can't employer?