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

[irosie91]

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?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

 

[dblack]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

 

[irosie91]

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?

you keep beating a dead horse-------the issue I presented is if someone can be FORCED by law to engage in an activity which he considers immoral. The answer is no. A professional person is not a SLAVE. An employer is not
SERVING an employee. Your juxtapositions a re idiotic

 

[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?

you keep beating a dead horse-------the issue I presented is if someone can be FORCED by law to engage in an activity which he considers immoral. The answer is no. A professional person is not a SLAVE. An employer is not
SERVING an employee. Your juxtapositions a re idiotic

How so? I'm simply pointing out that you're being inconsistent and hypocritical.

 

[irosie91]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

 

[irosie91]

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?

you keep beating a dead horse-------the issue I presented is if someone can be FORCED by law to engage in an activity which he considers immoral. The answer is no. A professional person is not a SLAVE. An employer is not
SERVING an employee. Your juxtapositions a re idiotic

How so? I'm simply pointing out that you're being inconsistent and hypocritical.

you have failed so far

 

[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?

you keep beating a dead horse-------the issue I presented is if someone can be FORCED by law to engage in an activity which he considers immoral. The answer is no. A professional person is not a SLAVE. An employer is not
SERVING an employee. Your juxtapositions a re idiotic

How so? I'm simply pointing out that you're being inconsistent and hypocritical.

you have failed so far

Well, you seem to agree that moral decisions should be personal - that, at least in the specific case of a baker making cakes for weddings, government shouldn't be allowed to second-guess their morals. But you think it's ok in all these other circumstances.

Let me ask you this, if a baker refused to do cakes for Christian weddings, would you support that?

 

[dblack]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

How is that any different than the laws that are being applied to the baker?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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.

I disagree with your reasoning.

If the police are not physically called into action they are not involved other than to be used as a thre

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

OK well there are public accommodation laws and you have no problem with people breaking those laws.
Isn't what a person "believes" to be a sin more important than following the laws?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

 

[Skull Pilot]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

and lawmakers have decided that public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the public

 

[irosie91]

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?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

no-----your use of the word "sinner" is not valid. The
the situation of the artist is his OWN SIN. If the artist
considers it a sin to paint a nude of a child vs the nude
of an adult-----his position is valid. If the artist agrees
to paint a man and women in amorous embrace---but
not a man and a man------his concept of his OWN morality
is valid. The term "sinner" is overbroad. Bacon is food---
if a diner in a restaurant declines to eat bacon-----that is
also a valid choice even if he has agree to eat FOOD
in a restaurant

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

no-----your use of the word "sinner" is not valid. The
the situation of the artist is his OWN SIN. If the artist
considers it a sin to paint a nude of a child vs the nude
of an adult-----his position is valid. If the artist agrees
to paint a man and women in amorous embrace---but
not a man and a man------his concept of his OWN morality
is valid. The term "sinner" is overbroad. Bacon is food---
if a diner in a restaurant declines to eat bacon-----that is
also a valid choice even if he has agree to eat FOOD
in a restaurant

But the reason given for refusing to bake a cake was that homosexuality is a sin. It seems to be the only sin that warrants the refusal of service

And now I'll bring it back what if a person believes he is committing a sin by hiring women? What if he truly believes his immortal soul will be in danger if he hires women?

 

[irosie91]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

and lawmakers have decided that public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the public

what are you calling "accommodation" ? If the baker refused to sell a cake to a person because the person
is a homosexual---THAT IS DENIAL OF A PUBLIC
ACCOMODATION----but the baker cannot be forced
to create a cake that he considers immoral. That is why
I have stated that the proposed situation did not provide
enough INFORMATION

 

[Skull Pilot]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

and lawmakers have decided that public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the public

what are you calling "accommodation" ? If the baker refused to sell a cake to a person because the person
is a homosexual---THAT IS DENIAL OF A PUBLIC
ACCOMODATION----but the baker cannot be forced
to create a cake that he considers immoral. That is why
I have stated that the proposed situation did not provide
enough INFORMATION

So now the cake is immoral?

The cake he would bake for a gay couple is in no way different from the cake he would bake for any other wedding.

 

[irosie91]

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?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

no-----your use of the word "sinner" is not valid. The
the situation of the artist is his OWN SIN. If the artist
considers it a sin to paint a nude of a child vs the nude
of an adult-----his position is valid. If the artist agrees
to paint a man and women in amorous embrace---but
not a man and a man------his concept of his OWN morality
is valid. The term "sinner" is overbroad. Bacon is food---
if a diner in a restaurant declines to eat bacon-----that is
also a valid choice even if he has agree to eat FOOD
in a restaurant

But the reason given for refusing to bake a cake was that homosexuality is a sin. It seems to be the only sin that warrants the refusal of service

And now I'll bring it back what if a person believes he is committing a sin by hiring women? What if he truly believes his immortal soul will be in danger if he hires women?

then he should not have HIRED her to begin with. If a
person wants a female caretaker for his 100 year old mother-----he need not take the application of a man

 

[irosie91]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

and lawmakers have decided that public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the public

what are you calling "accommodation" ? If the baker refused to sell a cake to a person because the person
is a homosexual---THAT IS DENIAL OF A PUBLIC
ACCOMODATION----but the baker cannot be forced
to create a cake that he considers immoral. That is why
I have stated that the proposed situation did not provide
enough INFORMATION

So now the cake is immoral?

The cake he would bake for a gay couple is in no way different from the cake he would bake for any other wedding.

In that ^^^^ case-----he is breaking the law

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

no-----your use of the word "sinner" is not valid. The
the situation of the artist is his OWN SIN. If the artist
considers it a sin to paint a nude of a child vs the nude
of an adult-----his position is valid. If the artist agrees
to paint a man and women in amorous embrace---but
not a man and a man------his concept of his OWN morality
is valid. The term "sinner" is overbroad. Bacon is food---
if a diner in a restaurant declines to eat bacon-----that is
also a valid choice even if he has agree to eat FOOD
in a restaurant

But the reason given for refusing to bake a cake was that homosexuality is a sin. It seems to be the only sin that warrants the refusal of service

And now I'll bring it back what if a person believes he is committing a sin by hiring women? What if he truly believes his immortal soul will be in danger if he hires women?

then he should not have HIRED her to begin with. If a
person wants a female caretaker for his 100 year old mother-----he need not take the application of a man

What if he recently converted to his new religion that says it is a sin to hire women?
And in a business owner refuses to even take applications from women he is breaking the law but you say he should be able to break that law with no consequences if he thinks it is a sin right?

I don't think the same employment laws apply to a person contracting the services of a caretaker because that person is not legally a business but rather a consumer

 

[dblack]

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.

A threat is still coercion. It's still, very much, being involved. But again, this is just semantics. The question is whether we should use the law to dictate matters of personal conscience. If no rights are being violated, government has no business getting involved.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>