Why would a gay shopper in Arizona know their merchant is an anti-gay Christian?

[kaz]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

 

[Moonglow]

Why would a gay shopper in Arizona know their merchant is an anti-gay Christian?

They were going to get tattoos on their forehead...

 

[martybegan]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

There are two forms of business we need to discuss here. Counter-top service, i.e. you walk in, buy something, and then walk out, and order service, where you place an order for some specific item or service, and it is provided.

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate. a persons orientation does not come up in the transaction. A business SHOULD be able to kick out anyone ACTING inappropriately, but the transaction does not have anything to do with religious belief, and I think most proponents of religious exemption laws agree with this.

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

 

[kaz]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

 

[kaz]

Why would a gay shopper in Arizona know their merchant is an anti-gay Christian?

They were going to get tattoos on their forehead...

Your usual pointless, witless contribution to a discussion, thanks for that.

 

[g5000]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

 

[Edgetho]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

But that is precisely what happened.

The butt-rangers asked the baker to bake a cake in the shape of a giant phallus with what looked like another man performing fellatio on it in one instance. In another, the butt-rangers demanded penis-shaped candles. In another the butt-rangers demanded a cake baked in the shape of a giant penis.

Not only that, but there is reason to believe that the butt-rangers sought out Christian bakers in order to make a political point after the expected refusal.

Until the last few years, I had a rather benign "Who gives a shit" attitude toward gays.

Anymore, I'm getting really sick of them.

I would think that Bakers wouldn't want to give an entire wedding party diarrhea.

Would they...

That would be pretty shitty of them I crack myself up

 

[bodecea]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

Of course not. When business's break established laws, they are fined.

 

[kaz]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

But that is precisely what happened.

The butt-rangers asked the baker to bake a cake in the shape of a giant phallus with what looked like another man performing fellatio on it in one instance. In another, the butt-rangers demanded penis-shaped candles. In another the butt-rangers demanded a cake baked in the shape of a giant penis.

Not only that, but there is reason to believe that the butt-rangers sought out Christian bakers in order to make a political point after the expected refusal.

Until the last few years, I had a rather benign "Who gives a shit" attitude toward gays.

Anymore, I'm getting really sick of them.

I would think that Bakers wouldn't want to give an entire wedding party diarrhea.

Would they...

That would be pretty shitty of them I crack myself up

Fair enough, but my question wasn't about isolated cases, it's about in general why it should be an issue. I also acknowledge to Marty that in those cases, I do get a polite no.

 

[kaz]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

Of course not. When business's break established laws, they are fined.

So you are saying it's a voluntary fine? There is no enforcement with guns? I'm going to have to call bull to your ridiculous claim.

 

[kaz]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

I appreciate the demonstration that anti-Christians are angry and intolerant, but that isn't what the intent of the OP was. Granted it wasn't a surprise to have the point demonstrated though...

 

[g5000]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

But that is precisely what happened.

The butt-rangers asked the baker to bake a cake in the shape of a giant phallus with what looked like another man performing fellatio on it in one instance. In another, the butt-rangers demanded penis-shaped candles. In another the butt-rangers demanded a cake baked in the shape of a giant penis.

Not only that, but there is reason to believe that the butt-rangers sought out Christian bakers in order to make a political point after the expected refusal.

Until the last few years, I had a rather benign "Who gives a shit" attitude toward gays.

Anymore, I'm getting really sick of them.

I would think that Bakers wouldn't want to give an entire wedding party diarrhea.

Would they...

That would be pretty shitty of them I crack myself up

What if some heterosexuals wanted a penis shaped cake for a bachelorette party? Would the baker have made it for them?

 

[g5000]

If you use the Lord's name in vain, we'll bake you a cake.

If you never go to church, we'll back you a cake.

If you are a gluttonous fat bastard, we'll bake you TWO cakes.

If you are an alcoholic, we'll bake you a rum cake.

But if you are a fag, fuck you. Respect the Jesus fish!

 

[martybegan]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

Do all those things happen at a wedding? Are there gluttony weddings? Stealing weddings?

A gay wedding is a gay wedding, the entire purpose of the wedding is against certain scriptures and belief structures. And the "sin" is being entered into willingly and without remorse.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?



From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

But that is precisely what happened.

The butt-rangers asked the baker to bake a cake in the shape of a giant phallus with what looked like another man performing fellatio on it in one instance. In another, the butt-rangers demanded penis-shaped candles. In another the butt-rangers demanded a cake baked in the shape of a giant penis.

Not only that, but there is reason to believe that the butt-rangers sought out Christian bakers in order to make a political point after the expected refusal.

Until the last few years, I had a rather benign "Who gives a shit" attitude toward gays.

Anymore, I'm getting really sick of them.

I would think that Bakers wouldn't want to give an entire wedding party diarrhea.

Would they...

That would be pretty shitty of them I crack myself up

What if some heterosexuals wanted a penis shaped cake for a bachelorette party? Would the baker have made it for them?

I have a feeling the answer would be "no"

 

[g5000]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

Do all those things happen at a wedding? Are there gluttony weddings? Stealing weddings?

A gay wedding is a gay wedding, the entire purpose of the wedding is against certain scriptures and belief structures. And the "sin" is being entered into willingly and without remorse.

Isn't not going to church a willful thing done without remorse?

Isn't using the goddam Lord's name in vain a willful thing done without remorse?

Isn't drinking to excess willful?

A couple of fat people come in and ask for a wedding cake...

 

[martybegan]

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate

I agree with you they are likely to not know, but by "not be able to" you don't seriously mean government with guns should be able to with force a business to do business with anyone, do you?

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

From the government side, we agree, government should not be able to force anyone. From a Christian side, the photographer is a great example of an applicable situation. Forcing them to actually attend a gay wedding is wrong. I don't from a Christian side see an issue with the baker unless they are asking them to bake an inappropriate cake. But that could happen at a straight wedding too.

It seems like the bill's intent is more than services at gay weddings.

The government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. To me that gives them the ability to place regulations on businesses that cater to travel. States have the same ability to regulate in state sales of vital services. I wouldn't think force would be needed, as most counter-top businesses would have to be suicidal to refuse service based on sex/creed/color/orientation purely. Also the products are standard usually, and the transactions are equal, pay cash, get X, and the categories don't come into play.

In the 2nd case you are more dealing with niche markets, and actual interaction into the lifestyle of the client. I don't see a compelling government interest in forcing someone to a) participate or provide in something they don't want to or b) make them stop providing the product or service entirely.

 

[martybegan]

If adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital fornication, taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing, drinking to excess, gluttony, bearing false witness, not honoring the Sabbath, and listening to hip hop music are all against your religion, I'd say you would have to close up shop if you were going to discriminate against anyone and everyone who violated your beliefs.

To single out one particular kind of sinner for special discriminatory treatment is just being a most un-Christian hypocritical asshole.

Do all those things happen at a wedding? Are there gluttony weddings? Stealing weddings?

A gay wedding is a gay wedding, the entire purpose of the wedding is against certain scriptures and belief structures. And the "sin" is being entered into willingly and without remorse.

Isn't not going to church a willful thing done without remorse?

Isn't using the goddam Lord's name in vain a willful thing done without remorse?

Isn't drinking to excess willful?

A couple of fat people come in and ask for a wedding cake...

it can be willful, but a pentinent person will ask for forgiveness. It is also not a constant state. One is not constantly cursing, or drinking, or gluttonous. One is constantly gay.

I doubt you will find gay people who are getting married that will all of a sudden give a rats ass about asking for forgiveness for a "sin."

To me the reason behind it, or how it is applied is not my concern. I personally have no issue with gay marriage as long as it is voted in by the legislature. What I have a problem with is forcing people to interact with something they do not want to interact with. Only government should be forced to do that.

 

[rightwinger]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

There are two forms of business we need to discuss here. Counter-top service, i.e. you walk in, buy something, and then walk out, and order service, where you place an order for some specific item or service, and it is provided.

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate. a persons orientation does not come up in the transaction. A business SHOULD be able to kick out anyone ACTING inappropriately, but the transaction does not have anything to do with religious belief, and I think most proponents of religious exemption laws agree with this.

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

Don't we have the same issue with a photographer who does not want to participate in a mixed race or mixed religion marriage?

He is not there to approve of the marriage, just to document the proceedings

 

[martybegan]

I am a very theologically liberal Christian, but I come from a very Conservative family and consequently have gone to Conservative churches most of my life. And I've moved across the country living in eight states and have family in many more. I've gone to a lot of conservative churches in a lot of places.

My experience across that spectrum is that it would be not a Christian act to not serve a gay or to be in any way rude or inhospitable to them. And approaching people in public to tell them you disprove of them is ineffective and inhospitable and probably counterproductive. They believe in showing sinners love, not intolerance and disapproval.

Now I advocated no business owner should ever be forced with government guns to deal with anyone, but I do have a hard time with that side of the equation. Why would a gay patron of an establishment owned by a Christian get anything less than Christian service?

There are two forms of business we need to discuss here. Counter-top service, i.e. you walk in, buy something, and then walk out, and order service, where you place an order for some specific item or service, and it is provided.

I agree that most forms of counter-top service should not be able to discriminate. a persons orientation does not come up in the transaction. A business SHOULD be able to kick out anyone ACTING inappropriately, but the transaction does not have anything to do with religious belief, and I think most proponents of religious exemption laws agree with this.

The 2nd type of business, the custom order one, is the problem. Here we have the photographer and baker examples, and here they have to participate in something they have a religious qualm about. It is here the government should not be able to force someone to comply, or force them out of the business.

Don't we have the same issue with a photographer who does not want to participate in a mixed race or mixed religion marriage?

He is not there to approve of the marriage, just to document the proceedings

You do, but typically black couples don't ask Klansmen to photograph their weddings.

Also, there is zero prohibition in religious texts about mixed race marriages. ZERO. All the crap made up before during and after the civil war was stretched hooey. There is definitive prohibition on homosexual activity in the bible.

it boils down to do you want to force people to either a) perform a non-vital private service that makes them uncomfortable or b) not be able to perform that service at all? because that's the choice you are giving those people right now.