Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

[genuineoriginal]

If that is not true, in what sense can you choose your orientation?

You can always choose to fixate on or to act on your sexual perversions.

You can also choose not to fixate on nor to act on your sexual perversions.

 

[TracerBullet]

You can always choose to fixate on or to act on your sexual perversions.

You can also choose not to fixate on nor to act on your sexual perversions.

Yes, i'm sure you do fixate on yours. However that has nothing to do with orientation

 

[republicanchick]

I think one of the problems here is the fundamentalists want to have an exemption only for cases like this. But what they fail to understand is that as soon as you grant a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws to one group, every other religious group is going to demand the same thing.

wrong

do not want exemption

Christians do not want to be FORCED (there's an un-American word 4 ya) to do something (do business w/) that goes against our beliefs

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a gay person (or any person) has a right to force a Christian (or anyone) to do whatever he asks

 

[Town Heretic]

wrong

do not want exemption

Christians do not want to be FORCED (there's an un-American word 4 ya) to do something (do business w/) that goes against our beliefs

If your beliefs support a discriminatory practice unrelated to a legitimate business purpose then don't go into business, or go form a club.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a gay person (or any person) has a right to force a Christian (or anyone) to do whatever he asks

And literally no one is suggesting that. So that's a relief all around. lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

do not want exemption

Um...yes you do. The law says you can't discriminate against gays. You want to discriminate against gays. IOW, you want that provision of the law to not apply to you.

Christians do not want to be FORCED (there's an un-American word 4 ya) to do something (do business w/) that goes against our beliefs

The right to practice your religion is not absolute. If practicing your religion = breaking the law, then the gov't has to decide whether to exempt you from that law, or make you follow the law like everyone else.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a gay person (or any person) has a right to force a Christian (or anyone) to do whatever he asks

And no one has demanded such a thing.

 

[Dialogos]

Two couples walk into the business...one an opposite-sex couple and the other a same-sex couple. Both request a cake for their wedding. The baker makes one for the opposite sex couple but refuses the same-sex couple.

The only reason one couple was served and the other wasn't is because of their sexual orientation.

Wrong.

If it was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then the baker wouldn't sell any products to a gay patron.

But this isn't the case, the Baker isn't refusing all services to all homosexuals. The proprietor is more than willing to sell their non-wedding products and services to the general public without question.

So they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation they are discriminating on the basis of their own deeply help religious beliefs which precludes them from participating in a ceremony that violates their beliefs.

And the decisions against proprietors in cases like these have been based on the assumption that one has the obligation to tolerate some infringements on their religious freedom in order to accommodate the desires of minority and to "accommodate the contrasting values of others." (Justice Bosson, Opinion on Elane Photography case)
The reason the baker is willing to to make the cake for the opposite sex couple is because participation in a so called same sex wedding violates their faith.

That's illegal. I realize you fundamentalists don't like that, but I care as much about that as I do the Christian baker who refuses to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples.

False analogy for all the reasons you have been provided and have ignored.

And would you extend that courtesy to every single religious belief out there? Christians who believe their god wants the races kept separate doesn't have to serve non-whites? Christians who believe in Christian Identity don't have to serve Jews? Muslims don't have to serve infidels?

False analogies. The baker isn't refusing to provide all services to homosexuals because they are homosexual he is refusing to participate in a religious ceremony that he finds objectionable on the basis of their homosexuality. Phillips has never been accused of refusing to bake a birthday cake for a lesbian.

And do we extend this to every private business? Banks can refuse home loans for all the above reasons? Landlords can refuse to rent for all the above reasons? Bus drivers can refuse transportation for all the above reasons?

More false analogies.
Is loaning money a religious activity?
Is renting property or driving a bus part of a religious ceremony?

Its really pretty easy to see the distinction that so many people refuse to see because they don't want to see it.

Serving coffee at a diner, driving a bus, renting property and filling out paperwork for home loans are not inherently religious activities but a wedding is.

IOW, you want a society where anyone can discriminate against anyone else, so long as they claim "religious beliefs".

You can push that straw man around all you like, but its not the argument I am making or the arguments that the proprietors of those business are making either. None of them are pushing for the right to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. They are pushing for the right to abstain from supporting or advocating causes they don't endorse and religious ceremonies they find objectionable on the basis of their own religious beliefs.

Not only that, do we also allow this in public accommodations? Can gov't officials also discriminate against anyone they want?

Apparently they can abuse their position with impunity, just ask Mayor Annise Parker.

I'm sure you see it that way, but society is trending the opposite direction. Some day, I'm pretty sure you guys will be looked back on the same way we look back on Christian white supremacists of the early-mid 1900's.

I care even less than you think about what "society" thinks of me today or what a neo-fascist America of tomorrow might look back and think about what I believe today.

Historically speaking, the less "socially acceptable" Christianity became, the faster it grew. If this is one aspect of the persecution of the church in the west, then we will hold fast our faith.

During the persecutions of the early church, Christians were burned alive not because they said Jesus was Lord but because they refuse to say Caesar is Lord. In our time, Christians are beginning to endure persecution not for saying that traditional marriage is right but for refusing to say that gay marriage is right.

Christian racists make the exact same arguments.

Polygamists make the same arguments as homosexuals for why their marriages should be legalized.

Pedophiles make the same arguments that homosexuals make for why their sexual preference should be normalized.

Why should we grant legal protection to homosexuals but not polygamists and pedophiles?

 

[Jedidiah]

If that is not true, in what sense can you choose your orientation?

In the same sense as I choose anything else. You are familiar with choosing ? Or are you so saturated in fatalism that you consider choice an illusion ?

Do you believe, as the late Robin Williams did, that there is no distinction between lust and biology ?

 

[gcthomas]

Do you believe, as the late Robin Williams did, that there is no distinction between lust and biology ?

Lust, as an emotional response, is not something you can reasonably control or choose. So orientation is affected by deep seated causes. The nature nurture debate is pointless all cases.

 

[republicanchick]

Um...yes you do. The law says you can't discriminate against gays.

the law of God trumps the laws of man

You want to discriminate against gays. IOW, you want that provision of the law to not apply to you.

you don't care about discriminating against Christians if it means gays will be able to discriminate against them. OK... your choice to have that mindset

The right to practice your religion is not absolute. If practicing your religion = breaking the law, then the gov't has to decide whether to exempt you from that law, or make you follow the law like everyone else.


thing.

again, the law of God (some call it the natural law) trumps stupid lib-made laws


+

 

[Angel4Truth]

Lust, as an emotional response, is not something you can reasonably control or choose. So orientation is affected by deep seated causes. The nature nurture debate is pointless all cases.

yes, its called sin.

 

[republicanchick]

Lust, as an emotional response, is not something you can reasonably control or choose.

not if you are outside Christ's Church (I have to agree)

So orientation is affected by deep seated causes. The nature nurture debate is pointless all cases.

it doesn't matter. gay acts are perverse and should not be encouraged by laws or anything else

 

[Jedidiah]

Lust, as an emotional response, is not something you can reasonably control or choose. So orientation is affected by deep seated causes. The nature nurture debate is pointless all cases.

Are you hopelessly inured in your fatalism ?

Lust is a choice. Always has been, always will be. Nothing determined or biological about it. Lust is a free act of the will. You do believe in free will ? No ? Another Sam Harris disciple....

 

[gcthomas]

the law of God trumps the laws of man

That assumption is where the bakers are going wrong. You don't live in a Christian Taleban theocracy, but a modern liberal Democracy.

Get used to it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wrong.

If it was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then the baker wouldn't sell any products to a gay patron.

But this isn't the case, the Baker isn't refusing all services to all homosexuals. The proprietor is more than willing to sell their non-wedding products and services to the general public without question.

Nope, sorry that just doesn't hold any legal weight at all. The baker will bake a wedding cake for an opposite sex couple, but not for a same sex couple. The only difference between the two is their sexual orientation. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is illegal.

Just because you don't discriminate against gays all the time, doesn't mean you never do.

And the decisions against proprietors in cases like these have been based on the assumption that one has the obligation to tolerate some infringements on their religious freedom in order to accommodate the desires of minority and to "accommodate the contrasting values of others." (Justice Bosson, Opinion on Elane Photography case)
The reason the baker is willing to to make the cake for the opposite sex couple is because participation in a so called same sex wedding violates their faith.

And the courts rejected that argument.

"In the court's view, saying you'll photograph gay people but not gay marriages would the same as a restaurant offering a full menu to male customers, refusing to serve entrees to women, and defending itself by saying women could order appetizers."

Like I said, all you're offering are failed legal arguments.

False analogy for all the reasons you have been provided and have ignored.

The courts are disagreeing with you and agreeing with me. Again, I realize you don't like that fact, but that's not my concern.

False analogies. The baker isn't refusing to provide all services to homosexuals because they are homosexual he is refusing to participate in a religious ceremony that he finds objectionable on the basis of their homosexuality. Phillips has never been accused of refusing to bake a birthday cake for a lesbian.

Nope....the courts are agreeing with me.

Is loaning money a religious activity?
Is renting property or driving a bus part of a religious ceremony?

By the same token, neither is baking a cake. So you're shooting down your own argument here. :rotfl:

Serving coffee at a diner, driving a bus, renting property and filling out paperwork for home loans are not inherently religious activities but a wedding is.

So atheists can't have weddings?

You can push that straw man around all you like, but its not the argument I am making or the arguments that the proprietors of those business are making either. None of them are pushing for the right to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity.

Um, yes they are. That you even try to argue otherwise is simply bizarre.

They are pushing for the right to abstain from supporting or advocating causes they don't endorse and religious ceremonies they find objectionable on the basis of their own religious beliefs.

Their religious beliefs in the context of running a public business puts them squarely in violation of the law. So they have a few options: 1) be given an exemption from the law, 2) get the law repealed, 3) go out of business, or 4) abide by the law.

#1 has been rejected by the courts. #2 is trending the opposite direction (away from discrimination). So #3 and #4 are all that's left.

Apparently they can abuse their position with impunity, just ask Mayor Annise Parker.

You didn't answer the question. Can gov't officials discriminate against anyone they want?

I care even less than you think about what "society" thinks of me today or what a neo-fascist America of tomorrow might look back and think about what I believe today.

I'm pretty sure that's a common sentiment among all bigots.

Polygamists make the same arguments as homosexuals for why their marriages should be legalized.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see them make some ground on that.

Pedophiles make the same arguments that homosexuals make for why their sexual preference should be normalized.

Why should we grant legal protection to homosexuals but not polygamists and pedophiles?

Seriously? You're that slow that you don't understand the difference between consenting adults and an adult and an underage minor?

 

[Jose Fly]

the law of God trumps the laws of man

So you want to overturn the current gov't and replace it with a fundamentalist Christian theocracy?

you don't care about discriminating against Christians if it means gays will be able to discriminate against them. OK... your choice to have that mindset

Christians aren't being discriminated against. They're being held to the exact same laws as everyone else.

again, the law of God (some call it the natural law) trumps stupid lib-made laws

You sound like the Taliban.

 

[TracerBullet]

Wrong.

If it was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then the baker wouldn't sell any products to a gay patron.

But this isn't the case, the Baker isn't refusing all services to all homosexuals. The proprietor is more than willing to sell their non-wedding products and services to the general public without question.

So they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation they are discriminating on the basis of their own deeply help religious beliefs which precludes them from participating in a ceremony that violates their beliefs.

That is like saying that blacks weren't discriminated against because they could send their children to segregated schools or sit in the back of the bus.

 

[TracerBullet]

Polygamists make the same arguments as homosexuals for why their marriages should be legalized.

Pedophiles make the same arguments that homosexuals make for why their sexual preference should be normalized.

Evidence?

Why should we grant legal protection to homosexuals but not polygamists and pedophiles?

is there any reason to associate these groups with a minority outside of an attempt to justify hate and discrimination?

 

[TracerBullet]

In the same sense as I choose anything else. You are familiar with choosing ? Or are you so saturated in fatalism that you consider choice an illusion ?

Do you believe, as the late Robin Williams did, that there is no distinction between lust and biology ?

its just like choosing the color of your skin.

 

[TracerBullet]

Are you hopelessly inured in your fatalism ?

Lust is a choice. Always has been, always will be. Nothing determined or biological about it. Lust is a free act of the will. You do believe in free will ? No ? Another Sam Harris disciple....

Acting on lust is a choice.

Are you married? Was lust the only reason you got married?

 

[Jedidiah]

its just like choosing the color of your skin.

Har har. Very revealing.