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

[Taz]

Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away.

 

[task0778]

I do not believe that religious freedom allows anyone to practice any form of discrimination if you are open to the public. Private practice is one thing, but public accommodation is another. The same should be true for freedom of speech and one's political affiliation.

 

[bodecea]

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

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

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

Something is legal.....yes. If you don't think it's moral...don't get into a business where the business law says you have to do it or be fined.

If you do not believe in shedding blood, why would you go into the military? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe in transporting people with alcohol or pets, why would you become a taxi driver? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe that every marriage of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is valid, why would you go into the wedding business? No one is forcing you.

 

[dblack]

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

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

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

Something is legal.....yes. If you don't think it's moral...don't get into a business where the business law says you have to do it or be fined.

If you do not believe in shedding blood, why would you go into the military? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe in transporting people with alcohol or pets, why would you become a taxi driver? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe that every marriage of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is valid, why would you go into the wedding business? No one is forcing you.

Despite the claims of closet socialists, starting a business isn't a pact to "serve the public". And no one should be forced to forfeit their individual rights for the "privilege" of operating a business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

Who on Earth told you that Creationists Christians are the "majority", numbnuts?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

A real Christian wouldn't operate that way. Nor would Jesus.

I'm dubious that you even know what YOU think, or WHETHER you think, for that matter. I don't believe for a second that you can speak to what a "real Christian" would do, let alone Jesus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

A real Christian wouldn't operate that way. Nor would Jesus.

Do we want the law deciding who the "real" Christians are?

Anyone business owner who would refuse something to someone else isn't a real Christian. Jesus never turned anyone away.

Actually untrue. I know, everyone is staggered from the shock of realizing that Taz wouldn't recognize the Bible if you slapped him in the head with one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

Not according to public accommodation laws.

But answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

Short answer no, not unless it's for a job where a specific religion is required like at a Catholic school or some other similar situation.

Otherwise? No. Your religion has very little to do with how you do your job.

But if a person can refuse service to a person because of religious his personal beliefs why can't an employer hire or fire an employee for the same reason?

You assume that everyone automatically believes that employers should be told by the government who to hire and not hire.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

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

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

Do you want to talk about the real world or your own little utopia?
If your employer fired you because he believes (between him and god as you put it) that hiring women is a sin that you would be just fine with that?

Did I already answer your little "Gotcha!" question? Why yes, I did. So while you're prancing around, demanding this answer and that response and the other agreement from everyone, Torquemada, why don't you explain to me why you have yet to acknowledge any point I've made, but instead keep "responding" by loudly shouting your assertions and opinions over and over?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away.

You're mistaken. As usual.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do not believe that religious freedom allows anyone to practice any form of discrimination if you are open to the public. Private practice is one thing, but public accommodation is another. The same should be true for freedom of speech and one's political affiliation.

"The same should be true for freedom of speech . . ." The same what? The same "you only have what freedom I want to have"? Is that the "same" you're talking about?

 

[bodecea]

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

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

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

Something is legal.....yes. If you don't think it's moral...don't get into a business where the business law says you have to do it or be fined.

If you do not believe in shedding blood, why would you go into the military? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe in transporting people with alcohol or pets, why would you become a taxi driver? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe that every marriage of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is valid, why would you go into the wedding business? No one is forcing you.

Despite the claims of closet socialists, starting a business isn't a pact to "serve the public". And no one should be forced to forfeit their individual rights for the "privilege" of operating a business.

You do if you want a business license.

 

[bodecea]

Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away.

You're mistaken. As usual.

Oh....you know this, how?

 

[dblack]

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

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

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

Something is legal.....yes. If you don't think it's moral...don't get into a business where the business law says you have to do it or be fined.

If you do not believe in shedding blood, why would you go into the military? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe in transporting people with alcohol or pets, why would you become a taxi driver? No one is forcing you.
If you do not believe that every marriage of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is valid, why would you go into the wedding business? No one is forcing you.

Despite the claims of closet socialists, starting a business isn't a pact to "serve the public". And no one should be forced to forfeit their individual rights for the "privilege" of operating a business.

You do if you want a business license.

Yep. We're all aware of the law. We're discussing whether it should be the law. Try to follow along.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

No one's "avoiding" your question. We're giving it exactly the respect and attention it deserves, which is none, because YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO HAVE IT ANSWERED.

THEN STOP FUCKING RESPONDING TO MY FUCKING POSTS YOU FUCKING TWAT

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

You certainly do spend a lot of time demanding things from people just as if you have a right to them. You must be frustrated a good deal.

And you refuse to answer a simple question

If I decide having a twat like you work for me is a sin then can I fire you for that reason alone?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"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?

No one's "avoiding" your question. We're giving it exactly the respect and attention it deserves, which is none, because YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO HAVE IT ANSWERED.

THEN STOP FUCKING RESPONDING TO MY FUCKING POSTS YOU FUCKING TWAT

More left-think. "Say what I want to hear, or stop talking so that my opinion is the only one heard."

Sorry, Sparky. The answer to your question remains "You have no right to ask", and I will keep saying it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

You certainly do spend a lot of time demanding things from people just as if you have a right to them. You must be frustrated a good deal.

And you refuse to answer a simple question

If I decide having a twat like you work for me is a sin then can I fire you for that reason alone?

"Simple" is not the operative point. "Inappropriate" is. You're damned right I'm not going to answer a question, however "simple", about things that are none of your fucking business. "Did you and your spouse have sex last night?" is also a simple question, but that doesn't make you entitled to an answer.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, if you would stop doing victory dances over "I have the perfect Gotcha! question!", you would notice that I answered it the FIRST time you asked it, and every time you've asked since then has been superfluous.

And no, I will not repeat my answer.

 

[task0778]

I do not believe that religious freedom allows anyone to practice any form of discrimination if you are open to the public. Private practice is one thing, but public accommodation is another. The same should be true for freedom of speech and one's political affiliation.

"The same should be true for freedom of speech . . ." The same what? The same "you only have what freedom I want to have"? Is that the "same" you're talking about?

I was trying to say that no one should be denied their 1st Amendment rights to free speech based on their political affiliation. Which does seem to happen these days on many college campuses and other venues.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do not believe that religious freedom allows anyone to practice any form of discrimination if you are open to the public. Private practice is one thing, but public accommodation is another. The same should be true for freedom of speech and one's political affiliation.

"The same should be true for freedom of speech . . ." The same what? The same "you only have what freedom I want to have"? Is that the "same" you're talking about?

I was trying to say that no one should be denied their 1st Amendment rights to free speech based on their political affiliation. Which does seem to happen these days on many college campuses and other venues.

Ahhh. I think where I got confused was your first line about "religious freedom doesn't allow discrimination if you are open to the public." And I have no idea where you're drawing the imaginary line of "private practice" and "public accommodation". I frankly think it's ludicrous to describe ANY privately-owned and -run business as a "public accommodation". Government offices are public accommodations, because they're owned and funded by the public, which gives everyone in the public the right to access to them. But the simple fact of engaging in commerce does not convey any sort of ownership or entitlement to my products and services on anyone and everyone who has money.

It's basically saying there's private clubs, and everything else is under the control of the state, with nothing in between. I'm not comfortable with that. Privately-owned and -run businesses are the in-between, and they should be in-between, and their right to make decisions about what business transactions to enter into and what ones not to should be recognized.