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

[Taz]

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

Why? Why do that have to have their reasons straight? Is it the job of government to make sure we are reasoning properly?

Isn't it the job of the gov't to insure it's citizens are treated fairly? Seems reasonable to me.

Treated fairly by the government sure, but to be the arbiter of every private citizen's dealings? No.

The laws in question are not being the arbiter of every private citizen's dealings. It is simply a set of anti-discrimination laws that businesses have to abide by.

Exactly, laws telling people to play nice. Total bullshit. If I don't want to serve someone because he stinks, I should be able to toss him out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look up "civil disobedience", dimwit.

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Civil disobedience, you mean like in Ferguson?

What part of the word "civil" did you need explained, dimwit?

So it's civil to be openly anti-gay?

As long as you do it without violence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would you open a bakery and refuse to make a cake for a same sex couple? It just doesn't make any sense. Would Jesus have said "no, you can't eat my food, because I don't like faggots!"?

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

Why? Why do that have to have their reasons straight? Is it the job of government to make sure we are reasoning properly?

Isn't it the job of the gov't to insure it's citizens are treated fairly? Seems reasonable to me.

No, as a matter of fact, it's NOT the government's job to insure "fairness" from other private individuals.

 

[Taz]

Why would you open a bakery and refuse to make a cake for a same sex couple? It just doesn't make any sense. Would Jesus have said "no, you can't eat my food, because I don't like faggots!"?

Off the top of my head, I'd say it's because you want to make cakes for regular, heterosexual couples.

And the baker never said a word about "I don't like faggots". That's just your projection, and tells us more about what lives in YOUR heart than what lives in his.

He doesn't like gays so he wouldn't bake them a cake.

Thank you for sharing your childish, simplistic view on things, but no one asked.

He didn't agree with that particular event. He offered to sell them other sorts of cakes, just not that one. Clearly, the gays themselves were not the problem.

He doesn't like gays so he wouldn't make them their gay cake. Clearly, the baker isn't homophobic and everything is normal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would you open a bakery and refuse to make a cake for a same sex couple? It just doesn't make any sense. Would Jesus have said "no, you can't eat my food, because I don't like faggots!"?

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

Why? Why do they have to have their reasons straight? Is it the job of government to make sure we are reasoning properly?

No, but if you don't want to look like a fool, you should have a real reason. Ya, I know, they're too stupid to know how stupid they are. Same old, same old...

It's really beyond you to understand that many people don't actually CARE about the opinions of others.

 

[Taz]

Why would you open a bakery and refuse to make a cake for a same sex couple? It just doesn't make any sense. Would Jesus have said "no, you can't eat my food, because I don't like faggots!"?

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

So it's your job to mandate good business decisions now? And PLEASE stop citing to us your insane imaginings of who and what Jesus was. There is not a single person on this planet who would EVER ask you for religious advice, or be stupid enough to value it when it's given without request.

Jesus was likely gay himself, so wouldn't have turned down a gay person for food...
And it's dumb to open up a business and not serve everyone. So start baking those cakes, you grumpy old bitch.

More projection. It's dumb for you to talk when your brain isn't engaged, but no one is disputing your right to make an ass out of yourself publicly.

There's no proof that gay was hetero, he only slept with a woman once, and that means he didn't like it so was probably gay. So stop projecting that Jesus was hetero.

 

[dblack]

No, as a matter of fact, it's NOT the government's job to insure "fairness" from other private individuals.

I do think this single principle is the core of the argument. We see it in many different issues. Some people see the government as the 'coach' of society, rather than the 'referee'.

 

[Taz]

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Civil disobedience, you mean like in Ferguson?

What part of the word "civil" did you need explained, dimwit?

So it's civil to be openly anti-gay?

As long as you do it without violence.

So as long as my sign is nice, I can hang one in my store window that says "we don't serve blacks"?

 

[Taz]

Why would you open a bakery and refuse to make a cake for a same sex couple? It just doesn't make any sense. Would Jesus have said "no, you can't eat my food, because I don't like faggots!"?

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

Why? Why do they have to have their reasons straight? Is it the job of government to make sure we are reasoning properly?

No, but if you don't want to look like a fool, you should have a real reason. Ya, I know, they're too stupid to know how stupid they are. Same old, same old...

It's really beyond you to understand that many people don't actually CARE about the opinions of others.

You care about what I think, that much is clear.

 

[dblack]

It doesn't make sense to me either. And, from what I know about Jesus, it doesn't sound like what he would do.

But why does that matter? Should bakers should be legally required to be like Jesus? Should it be against the law to be a bigoted hypocrite?

I know this thread is mostly a pissing match between gay rights advocates and homophobes, but the principle at stake is very serious. Because our country began 'broken' (because it was built, in part, on a foundation of slavery), we've been lured down a path that has government dictating matters of conscience and personal association, and I think that's a really bad precedent.

The "protected classes" approach to civil rights law isn't about protecting equal rights. It's about targeting specific kinds of bias for suppression.

I can agree that if you open a business, you should be able to turn down customers for whatever reason you feel like. I'm just saying that economically, it makes no sense, and if done for religious reason, it also makes no sense, because Christians should be following Jesus, who never turned down anyone because they were gay. So like, get your fucking reasons straight, lol.

Why? Why do they have to have their reasons straight? Is it the job of government to make sure we are reasoning properly?

No, but if you don't want to look like a fool, you should have a real reason. Ya, I know, they're too stupid to know how stupid they are. Same old, same old...

It's really beyond you to understand that many people don't actually CARE about the opinions of others.

You care about what I think, that much is clear.

When people want to turn their opinions into laws, it can't be avoided.

 

[BS Filter]

Look up "civil disobedience", dimwit.

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

Likewise. Y'all need to remember that conservative Christians are well armed.

If you want to take up arms, you are free to do so. But, like I said, don't whine about the consequences.

If ya'll want to act like fascists, then be prepared for the consequences. This is America, not Nazi Germany.

Ok. If you think shooting people rather than making a cake or working to change a law is acceptable, then arm up. I don't see that as the answer to this particular question. But that is just my opinion.

I also don't think you will get enough numbers to make a difference. And the media will compare you to muslims wanting Sharia Law.

You think we care what the media says? You better take your silly game of threats and intimidation down the road, pal. Leave people alone.

 

[BS Filter]

Look up "civil disobedience", dimwit.

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Civil disobedience, you mean like in Ferguson?

What part of the word "civil" did you need explained, dimwit?

If you insist it will be "civil", you might want to speak to one of your cohorts who posted "Y'all need to remember that conservative Christians are well armed". That doesn't sound particularly civil. Civil war maybe.

Destroying a person's livelihood because he won't submit to your perversion is fascist. Don't talk to me about what's civil.

 

[forkup]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

 

[dblack]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

 

[forkup]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

Of course there's a difference. I purposefully used an extreme to make my point. My question would be what do you feel would be an acceptable amount of discriminating against people because of your religious beliefs?

 

[BS Filter]

Amazing. The first amendment. ...."free exercise thereof". Do you understand that phrase?

And baking a cake or abiding by rules you agreed to follow is stopping you from freely exercising your religion? How is that? You are not becoming a homosexual. You are not marrying someone of the same gender. You are baking a freakin cake. Thats it.

Of course, when you buy your business license you agree to follow all relevant federal state and local laws concerning the business. Does backing out of that agreement not constitute lying? THAT is an act that is actually against your religion.

Look up "civil disobedience", dimwit.

I know what civil disobedience means. But if you go that route, don't whine about the consequences.

No one's "whining about the consequences", dumbass. We're following through on the entire POINT of civil disobedience, which is to point out that the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Ok then, when you get a big fine, just pay it and keep going. Or work on changing the law, bitch.

We ain't paying your fines, and the law will be changed. You pushy queers can go to hell.

 

[danielpalos]

Your religious based bigotry is duly noted.

For-profit means just that. You are not in it for the sake of morals or you would be doing business on a not-for-profit basis.

That's strictly your opinion. However, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states citizens must abandon their religious beliefs when doing business. Christophobic bigot.

Only if you appeal to ignorance in a vacuum of special pleading. Everyone has a First Amendment, not just bakers.

You're confused here. You can't force anyone to deny their religious beliefs.

Why are bakers?

You're very confused.

i am not the one with nothing but fallacy for a rebuttal. i have, "morals".

 

[danielpalos]

A business license implies adherence to some fixed Standards.

Yes, but a business license doesn't mean you have to abandon your religious beliefs to submit to perverts.

Your religious based bigotry is duly noted.

For-profit means just that. You are not in it for the sake of morals or you would be doing business on a not-for-profit basis.

That's strictly your opinion. However, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states citizens must abandon their religious beliefs when doing business. Christophobic bigot.

Only if you appeal to ignorance in a vacuum of special pleading. Everyone has a First Amendment, not just bakers.

Never said they didn't. You're flailing now.

whence any basis for complaint on the part of the bakers, on a for-profit basis?

 

[dblack]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

Of course there's a difference. I purposefully used an extreme to make my point. My question would be what do you feel would be an acceptable amount of discriminating against people because of your religious beliefs?

Well, discrimination has nothing to do with slavery, so I'm not sure I see your point. I don't believe discrimination should be regulated by the government at all. Our personal preferences on who we associate with should never be dictated by law.

 

[forkup]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

Of course there's a difference. I purposefully used an extreme to make my point. My question would be what do you feel would be an acceptable amount of discriminating against people because of your religious beliefs?

Well, discrimination has nothing to do with slavery, so I'm not sure I see your point. I don't believe discrimination should be regulated by the government at all. Our personal preferenActuces on who we associate with should never be dictated by law.

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination. I feel you are not equal to me so I have a RIGHT to keep you in bondage. Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?