What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

[Lon]

I prefer the phrasing "an expression of faith" over the phrasing "an expression of religious values."

Biblical Judaism was a Religion (must do rituals).

Biblical Christianity is a faith (in Christ's finished work).

But no biggie, that is my preference.

But yours is an interesting question.

I vote Pro-Life. Partly because I always did as a secular person. But now also as a person of faith in Christ.

At the same time, "the right to bear arms" is a secular view.

I wholeheartedly hold to it.

I appreciate the theology tenor, btw, it is just that this particular is in the 'political' section so I think it caters more to your civic mindedness. As with you, it is a tightrope walk for me as well, but I'm trying to discuss this in the politics without overtly drawing upon the reality that I am in this world but 'not of it.' I yet have a responsibility, for leaving a nation 'as best as I can leave and affect it' for children and children's children, as a good steward. I think you relate to that here as well.

But the Scripture teaches the Believer is to view him or herself as a lamb ever ready for the slaughter. And that wrath is to be God's.

True. But wise as serpents as well. When it comes to freedoms, I don't think anybody can defeat a Christian, just eliminate them.

I am well aware of the dichotomy.

Me too, not that I wholly grasp every nuance, but I'm aware there is a need to walk faithfully with Christ looking for a home whose Builder and Maker is God. I also would like my great grandkids to experience a rich walk with Christ. Unmolested? I do hope they make a positive impact on their world.

I do not ignorantly assert otherwise - as the so called Right, I supposedly belong to does.

And I'm fine with that.

I need this fleshed out a bit to understand it, please (see how to do this without blaming the person talking, Anna?) and thank you.

The ACLU?

At times I'd like to strangle them.

Other times I'm grateful they're around.

That'd be a lot of necks. I've never been grateful they are here. I'm pretty sure they've given me no benefit at all.

But they are of this world.

I believe so too. I don't envision Christians working for them.

Their standard is of this world.

Which is why I don't envision any Christians involved with them (among other reasons).

Both when great, and when not so great.

I'm not quite following this particular either, if it is of any consequence.

What can one expect from such - sympathy for "the things of God" or "sympathy for the Devil"?

Ya know what I mean?

That's why I'm convinced that identifying values, and giving the ACLU a hard time when they trounce such values, simply because they come from some group they don't like, is the right tack. They need to be put in their place when they trounce a GOOD value simply because they believe it is 'religious.' No, in fact, it doesn't matter if they like Christians or Muslims. They need to realize there are appropriate quotes from the Bible and Koran for society. OTHERWISE, they are ONLY allowing ideas from atheists and secular sources thus favoring and ONLY supporting a lack of faith in society. They are inept to realize it.

 

[Idolater]

I vote Pro-Life. Partly because I always did as a secular person. But now also as a person of faith in Christ.

At the same time, "the right to bear arms" is a secular view.

I wholeheartedly hold to it.

You are objectively right to do so, because the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, is founded upon the inalienable right to life, which also supports the other eponymous 'Pro-Life' movement, along with those of us who defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms from all infringements. While I can see it as 'a secular view,' I nonetheless support it from a very strongly held position of faith, that we do possess the inalienable right to live.

 

[Danoh]

I appreciate the theology tenor, btw, it is just that this particular is in the 'political' section so I think it caters more to your civic mindedness. As with you, it is a tightrope walk for me as well, but I'm trying to discuss this in the politics without overtly drawing upon the reality that I am in this world but 'not of it.' I yet have a responsibility, for leaving a nation 'as best as I can leave and affect it' for children and children's children, as a good steward. I think you relate to that here as well.

True. But wise as serpents as well. When it comes to freedoms, I don't think anybody can defeat a Christian, just eliminate them.

Me too, not that I wholly grasp every nuance, but I'm aware there is a need to walk faithfully with Christ looking for a home whose Builder and Maker is God. I also would like my great grandkids to experience a rich walk with Christ. Unmolested? I do hope they make a positive impact on their world.
I need this fleshed out a bit to understand it, please (see how to do this without blaming the person talking, Anna?) and thank you.

That'd be a lot of necks. I've never been grateful they are here. I'm pretty sure they've given me no benefit at all.


I believe so too. I don't envision Christians working for them.


Which is why I don't envision any Christians involved with them (among other reasons).


I'm not quite following this particular either, if it is of any consequence.



That's why I'm convinced that identifying values, and giving the ACLU a hard time when they trounce such values, simply because they come from some group they don't like, is the right tack. They need to be put in their place when they trounce a GOOD value simply because they believe it is 'religious.' No, in fact, it doesn't matter if they like Christians or Muslims. They need to realize there are appropriate quotes from the Bible and Koran for society. OTHERWISE, they are ONLY allowing ideas from atheists and secular sources thus favoring and ONLY supporting a lack of faith in society. They are inept to realize it.

Lol, you're being as skewed in outlook as you are asserting "they" are.

For there is no "they" within the ACLU.

Rather "kinds."

As with any group, movement, or what have you, not all within the ACLU agree with one another, on one thing or another.

As for your remark to anna, there, although I find myself at odds with her on some convictions and or positions here and there (we're night and day on Hilary, for example), at the same time, I have always found hers one heck of a sharp and more than all around well-informed mind, as well as one of the most attempting at fair play of all, on all of TOL.

And you yourself well know by now that I am not one to so easily dispense such an accolade.

Take that how you might, or might not.

I have nothing but the highest of respect for her.

 

[Lon]

Lol, you're being as skewed in outlook as you are asserting "they" are.

For there is no "they" within the ACLU.

Rather "kinds."

As with any group, movement, or what have you, not all within the ACLU agree with one another, on one thing or another.

:nono: Politically, they are all on the same page and have to be. Their disagreements over wall paint have nothing to do with this thread. I have to disagree with you on this one. No choice. This is the political section and this is a political issue so I believe I have it pretty close if not exactly right.

As for your remark to anna, there, although I find myself at odds with her on some convictions and or positions here and there (we're night and day on Hilary, for example), at the same time, I have always found hers one heck of a sharp and more than all around well-informed mind, as well as one of the most attempting at fair play of all, on all of TOL.

:think:

And you yourself well know by now that I am not one to so easily dispense such an accolade.

Take that how you might, or might not.

I have nothing but the highest of respect for her.

It wasn't a respect issue. It is about this being a political and social issue, not a psychological or specifically minority issue. She 'tried' to blame me for miscommunication and then for failing to explain 'family values.' She was a bit snarky about it while she was at it. I have no problem with that, I'm not the one who put who on ignore. She can act like she wasn't emoting over that, but it was nothing but. She wasn't doing fair play. She is sharp on what she studies, not very empathetic or astute about majority issues. When she made her change on TOL, she immediately befriended atheists and shunned those who were or thought they were at least friendly if not friends with her. She did that. Not me. She gave me a hard time, back then, for not sticking up for her. The thing is, I HAD stuck up for her several times AND I was unaware of what she was going through that she was complaining about and that caused her crisis. Again, I'm not the one who changed. I care very much for her. While I really don't like liberal or leftist politics, I have many in my extended family who are. My own mother is a democrat. I love her very much, just disagree politically, not spiritually (for the most part). -Lon

 

[Danoh]

:nono: Politically, they are all on the same page and have to be. Their disagreements over wall paint have nothing to do with this thread. I have to disagree with you on this one. No choice. This is the political section and this is a political issue so I believe I have it pretty close if not exactly right.

:think:


It wasn't a respect issue. It is about this being a political and social issue, not a psychological or specifically minority issue. She 'tried' to blame me for miscommunication and then for failing to explain 'family values.' She was a bit snarky about it while she was at it. I have no problem with that, I'm not the one who put who on ignore. She can act like she wasn't emoting over that, but it was nothing but. She wasn't doing fair play. She is sharp on what she studies, not very empathetic or astute about majority issues. When she made her change on TOL, she immediately befriended atheists and shunned those who were or thought they were at least friendly if not friends with her. She did that. Not me. She gave me a hard time, back then, for not sticking up for her. The thing is, I HAD stuck up for her several times AND I was unaware of what she was going through that she was complaining about and that caused her crisis. Again, I'm not the one who changed. I care very much for her. While I really don't like liberal or leftist politics, I have many in my extended family who are. My own mother is a democrat. I love her very much, just disagree politically, not spiritually (for the most part). -Lon

"My own mother is a democrat..."

Good time for a flying frying pan from her at her son, right about now, for that remark about her.

:chuckle:

Moms, gotta love em.

 

[annabenedetti]

It wasn't a respect issue. It is about this being a political and social issue, not a psychological or specifically minority issue. She 'tried' to blame me for miscommunication

I'm taking you off ignore temporarily to ask you to get back to the OP topic and stop inaccurately portraying me as if you know me. You don't. Maybe you could do us both a favor and get back to what people would rather discuss instead of making mountains out of molehills?

I "tried" to blame you? No, I told you you didn't make any sense. You didn't. It's my opinion, not a character flaw.

and then for failing to explain 'family values.'

Because you weren't, and it seems clear why, since your subsequent posts bore that out. "Family values" informing societal values are only a good thing if they're values Christian conservatives approve of, and/or don't consider sinful. That's not how the Constitution works, and I'm thankful for that.

She was a bit snarky about it while she was at it

Egads!

I have no problem with that,

Actually, I think you do.

I'm not the one who put who on ignore. She can act like she wasn't emoting over that, but it was nothing but. She wasn't doing fair play.

:chuckle: I'm not the one saying 'No fair! She put me on ignore and I wasn't done talking at her yet!"

She is sharp on what she studies, not very empathetic or astute about majority issues.

Oooh.... snarky. :chuckle:

When she made her change on TOL, she immediately befriended atheists and shunned those who were or thought they were at least friendly if not friends with her. She did that. Not me.

1. This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, does it Lon? You've made this more than personal.
2. The friends I have here who're atheists I've always been glad to have as friends, nothing "immediate" about it. Your statement is untrue.
3. Anyone I've shunned here is none of your business, and still has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

She gave me a hard time, back then, for not sticking up for her.

To the best of my knowledge and memory, I've never asked anyone to stick up for me, or given anyone a hard time for not sticking up for me.... and in what way, for pete's sake? We're acquaintances at best, Lon, we don't share a friendship the way I share it with my close friends here. You and I rarely cross paths, and in fact in this thread you posted to me first.

The thing is, I HAD stuck up for her several times AND I was unaware of what she was going through that she was complaining about and that caused her crisis.

Again, context? What crisis are you talking about? Of faith? If so, I haven't made the "change" you think I've made - again - because you don't know me. I don't consider myself an agnostic or an atheist, I'm a mostly non-practicing Catholic dealing with doubt. Why are you continuously bringing this up when it has nothing to do with anything but trying to find any reason to explain just how aggrieved you are?

Again, I'm not the one who changed. I care very much for her.

No you don't, Lon. If you did, you wouldn't be doing this.

All I wanted from you was clarity. I never received it, by the way.

Now would you just drop this and go back to talking to someone else about religious liberty?




Oh, and the ACLU is spot on. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they didn't speak the truth about the establishment clause.

 

[Rusha]

Anna doesn't hold malice towards you either. I doubt she holds malice towards anybody frankly and is far more understanding and level headed than I am to be quite honest. So there's that...

Indeed ...Anna doesn't have a malicious bone in her body. I am lucky to be blessed with her friendship.

 

[Lon]

I'm taking you off ignore temporarily to ask you to get back to the OP topic and stop inaccurately portraying me as if you know me. You don't. Maybe you could do us both a favor and get back to what people would rather discuss instead of making mountains out of molehills?

I "tried" to blame you? No, I told you you didn't make any sense. You didn't. It's my opinion, not a character flaw.

I didn't say trying to blame me for your inability to decipher was a character flaw, nor that it was your fault. Could those be involved? Sure, but that's what you took home whether it was true or not.

Because you weren't, and it seems clear why, since your subsequent posts bore that out. "Family values" informing societal values are only a good thing if they're values Christian conservatives approve of, and/or don't consider sinful. That's not how the Constitution works, and I'm thankful for that.

Incorrect. You, conversely jumped the gun as if you know me as well. Sorry, you were and are trying to marginalize and posture. I come from a family. You come from a family. There are inherent values having been raised in such. Again, you were and are trying to make it an 'us/them' issue. As I said, the UCLA attacks Christian freedom, and other freedoms.

Egads!



Actually, I think you do.

Er, no. I wasn't the one putting the other on ignore NOR taking them off temporarily. What I DO know about you, is how you speak to me. That's enough and I surely do know that person.

:chuckle: I'm not the one saying 'No fair! She put me on ignore and I wasn't done talking at her yet!"

You are attempting marginalization. I don't care for it. You go ahead and chuckle it away. I know where my heart is, and frankly, I know where yours is at the moment. It is writing in internet ink. Its here for anybody to see if they want to take a look. It doesn't require mind reading. It just is what it is, and those words are yours.

Oooh.... snarky. :chuckle:

And the point? None but being exactly that, right? Admit it. It is here for everyone looking. It's clear. No mindreading required.

1. This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, does it Lon? You've made this more than personal.

No, I was talking to Quip. You made it personal, so much so that when I came back with why I thought you were doing this, you put me on ignore. It isn't the first time. You've done this before, and almost over something similar. You simply don't like Christians much. You are in good company, but I've never dished on your hurt, actually had come to your defense at times, and yet, still have this same blanket treatment. Yeah, it looks like scapegoating. Much on TOL does. As long as you are willing to talk about it and work it out, whatever the outcome, I find that better than doing marginalizing or polarizing tactics. As soon as you put me on ignore, you are part of the social problem, not the solution. We often don't get those in any of our debates/discussions, but it is always my attempt. So yes, I can be frustrated, especially if I actually like the person I'm debating.

2. The friends I have here who're atheists I've always been glad to have as friends, nothing "immediate" about it. Your statement is untrue.

I disagree. Your demeanor toward me, and other Christians was dramatic. I'm not really going to harp on this, but I'm going to always wonder what set you off in threads like this. It does come from left field every time. This one? Yeah,

3. Anyone I've shunned here is none of your business, and still has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

It had to do with 'me' at that point, so is my business. Anybody else? :idunno: I agree, not my concern.

To the best of my knowledge and memory, I've never asked anyone to stick up for me, or given anyone a hard time for not sticking up for me....

I'd have to look it up. Unless the thread was purged, its here on TOL still.

and in what way, for pete's sake? We're acquaintances at best, Lon, we don't share a friendship the way I share it with my close friends here. You and I rarely cross paths, and in fact in this thread you posted to me first.

Fair enough, but you did give me a hard time for not sticking up for you, and never notice when I actually did. I try to treat most in a friendly manner. I came in on this thread specifically to say that religious freedom is and needs to be as equitable for the majority as with any and everybody else and that we get lost in personal concessions that aren't important most of the time. They tend to be whims rather than needs and so the majority pays and society becomes 'secular' all the while shunning family values. As I said to Danoh, it is ludicrous to remove a Koran quote from public eyes merely because it is Muslim because in the end, it isn't Muslim at all, it expresses all of our values and should never be removed from a wall. It was about taking care of people. The ACLU has no business, and the court system has no business removing quotes simply because someone religious posted it.

Again, context? What crisis are you talking about? Of faith? If so, I haven't made the "change" you think I've made - again - because you don't know me. I don't consider myself an agnostic or an atheist, I'm a mostly non-practicing Catholic dealing with doubt. Why are you continuously bringing this up when it has nothing to do with anything but trying to find any reason to explain just how aggrieved you are?

At least you are talking to me about it. It made an impression on me, SPECIFICALLY because you'd said I had not stuck up for you. Without that? I'd have hardly noticed. I took it to heart, prayed for you, and tried to do what I thought you were asking me to do at that time. Whatever it was, it looked like 'crisis' to me at the time.

No you don't, Lon. If you did, you wouldn't be doing this.

So you never argued with your mother or father? Kids? No? That means you or I no longer care? :think:

All I wanted from you was clarity. I never received it, by the way.

Well, you had me on ignore. I gave it to Arthur Brain in thread :Z

Now would you just drop this and go back to talking to someone else about religious liberty?

Yes.

Oh, and the ACLU is spot on. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they didn't speak the truth about the establishment clause.

We strongly disagree, and THAT IS the subject of this thread! :up:

 

[Lon]

You just lazed your way through this, offering vague thoughts, platitudes, and baseless observations about Obama's "sociological education," to the point that I wonder why you responded to me at all.

Indeed ...Anna doesn't have a malicious bone in her body. I am lucky to be blessed with her friendship.

Must be just you... ...and Arthur, and Danoh. Are you guys reading the same stuff I am? Maybe just never directed at you? :think:

 

[Lon]

"My own mother is a democrat..."

Good time for a flying frying pan from her at her son, right about now, for that remark about her.

:chuckle:

Moms, gotta love em.

Why? (not the gotta love 'em part)

She's a democrat, I'm not. I'm neither ashamed to say for her or myself :idunno:

 

[Rusha]

Must be just you... ...and Arthur, and Danoh. Are you guys reading the same stuff I am? Maybe just never directed at you? :think:

Yes, it's the same stuff. I stand by my statement.

 

[Lon]

Yes, it's the same stuff. I stand by my statement.

Thanks, just wanted to know what passes for civil and not malicious. :up:

 

[Rusha]

Thanks, just wanted to know what passes for civil and not malicious. :up:

You're welcome. :thumb:

 

[annabenedetti]

Er, no. I wasn't the one putting the other on ignore NOR taking them off temporarily.

Non-issue and completely irrelevant. I can put you on ignore one day and take you off the next and what you think about it doesn't factor into the equation. Sorry.

You are attempting marginalization. I don't care for it.

No I'm not. In fact, what an odd thing to say.

You go ahead and chuckle it away.

I did, and don't need your permission to find humor where it's to be found.

I know where my heart is, and frankly, I know where yours is at the moment.

No, you don't know where my heart is at the moment. Stop assuming you know me or my heart. You don't.

It is writing in internet ink. Its here for anybody to see if they want to take a look. It doesn't require mind reading. It just is what it is, and those words are yours.

I have no problem with the words I've said. Maybe, though, you've forgotten your enthusiastic contributions?

It chagrins me that someone your age falls to victim-hood and self-interest. Sociologically conscious, responsible adult citizens aren't just looking to themselves.

Since your big move, you've become LESS socially conscious than I'd found you before.

You just don't get it. You've been on an egocentric road for a few years now. There was a time you were better than writing off people when you became an embittered person. That road ends on bad terms. TRY to be Savvy.

I've seen it. I think you came after her conversion.... She has become fragile since her move and 'thinks' TOL is responsible for it. :nono:

Anna butted in with the post I qutoed NOT to her. She was rude and snarky then has the audacity [!!] to put me on ignore.

mean-spirited and snarky manner

After all that, Lon, it was kind of humorous to read this:

I am often left wondering why I get this kind of feedback.

:chuckle:

No, I was talking to Quip.

This is an open discussion board. I'm free to reply to whomever I want but as it happens, you posted to me first, then you included me in a post to quip and that's what I responded to. And frankly, in all of this you said much worse to quip although I admire the way he handles it. Totally unruffled.

I'd have to look it up. Unless the thread was purged, its here on TOL still.

Fair enough, but you did give me a hard time for not sticking up for you, and never notice when I actually did.

At least you are talking to me about it. It made an impression on me, SPECIFICALLY because you'd said I had not stuck up for you.

You'd have to support that with some kind of representative post because it just wouldn't be my way. I fight my own battles, and when friends come by to lend a helping hand I appreciate their support but I don't ever expect it, let alone demand it. That's not how I do things, and it's kind of an odd thing for you bring into the conversation.

I disagree. Your demeanor toward me, and other Christians was dramatic. I'm not really going to harp on this, but I'm going to always wonder what set you off in threads like this. It does come from left field every time.

You can disagree (about my "immediately befriending atheists") all you want, but it won't make your saying it anything other than untrue. I'm saying clearly that yours isn't a a true statement and you simply don't know what you're talking about there.

Yes.

Good. So maybe stop discussing me and get back to the OP. As for myself, I'll be unsubscribing.

 

[Lon]

Non-issue and completely irrelevant. I can put you on ignore one day and take you off the next and what you think about it doesn't factor into the equation. Sorry.

Not convincing, nor is it just your business. I was involved. You don't get to say how that affects me. I over analyze myself, so you too, at times, especially given the context. I already don't like 'us/them' conflict as it is. It is never about me at that point, just whom I represent

No I'm not. In fact, what an odd thing to say.

:chuckle: I'm not the one saying 'No fair! She put me on ignore and I wasn't done talking at her yet!"

Seems to marginalize to me and little else. I don't want to get overtly nitpicky, but I'm not imagining things. They are what they are, but it at least looks like a statement meant to try and quiet another to me? Was the chuckle and quote supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy? :idunno:

I did, and don't need your permission to find humor where it's to be found.

Regarding me? I think that's more personal than you realize. You 'aimed' it at me else you'd have just chuckled to yourself instead of making a point of expressing it. I'm decent at analysis. I know what things mean.

No, you don't know where my heart is at the moment. Stop assuming you know me or my heart. You don't.

As I said, when you express it to me, I know exactly what words mean and generally, the intent is pretty clear.

I have no problem with the words I've said. Maybe, though, you've forgotten your enthusiastic contributions?

No. Let me state them again if necessary. Not one of them was mean-spirited. Again, I tend to call what I see.

​

After all that, Lon, it was kind of humorous to read this:



:chuckle:

As with above, conveying such has intent.

This is an open discussion board. I'm free to reply to whomever I want but as it happens, you posted to me first, then you included me in a post to quip and that's what I responded to. And frankly, in all of this you said much worse to quip although I admire the way he handles it. Totally unruffled.

He gives as good as he gets and better. I know who I'm talking to, people are not that hard to read. They really aren't.

You'd have to support that with some kind of representative post because it just wouldn't be my way. I fight my own battles, and when friends come by to lend a helping hand I appreciate their support but I don't ever expect it, let alone demand it. That's not how I do things, and it's kind of an odd thing for you bring into the conversation.

It is going to have to wait until I get my search features back. I'm waiting until the annual TOL-a-Thon.

You can disagree (about my "immediately befriending atheists") all you want, but it won't make your saying it anything other than untrue. I'm saying clearly that yours isn't a a true statement and you simply don't know what you're talking about there.

Fine. As I said, there was a change. Whatever your friendships, it at least 'seemed' that way, to more than I as well. Again, I'd have to have my paid membership before I could substantiate it, but my memory is pretty good.

Good. So maybe stop discussing me and get back to the OP. As for myself, I'll be unsubscribing.

 

[Lon]

Do you believe that a baker's religious liberty is threatened when he is forced to provide to the public that which he holds out to the public for sale? Because it has always struck me that any law permitting me to deny a customer service for a non-business reason is a de facto segregation law waiting for popular enforcement.

It can be, but what if I don't cuss? Am I required to place an expletive on a cake since I'm open to the public? Are the lines drawn willy nilly, or with better clarity than this? How is it made fair? What if someone wants something unsuitable for children? When DO I have a right to opt out??? Is it reasonable, or has the court mandated willy nilly pseudo-ethics?

 

[Town Heretic]

It can be, but what if I don't cuss? Am I required to place an expletive on a cake since I'm open to the public?

Not if you deny everyone that same consideration. Similarly, you aren't required to build a seven tier cake if you don't offer it to the public.

BUT, if you do offer curses and extra tiers to one, then you must afford another the same opportunity.

Are the lines drawn willy nilly, or with better clarity than this? How is it made fair? What if someone wants something unsuitable for children? When DO I have a right to opt out??? Is it reasonable, or has the court mandated willy nilly pseudo-ethics?

I don't find it complicated at all, supra. It's as easy as being consistent in your practice.

 

[Lon]

Not if you deny everyone that same consideration. Similarly, you aren't required to build a seven tier cake if you don't offer it to the public.

BUT, if you do offer curses and extra tiers to one, then you must afford another the same opportunity.


I don't find it complicated at all, supra. It's as easy as being consistent in your practice.

I yet think it is. What if I don't do same-sex wedding cakes nor buy those figurines?

How accommodating do I need to be? For the record, I'd sell a basic cake to anybody walking in the door. Like a few in the news, I might not do custom work, specifically if it called for a compromise on my personal values. That's why it is complicated to me: some issues 'can' cause a compromise of actions against one's values.

 

[Town Heretic]

I yet think it is.

I'm confident I can rebut that. Let's go.

What if I don't do same-sex wedding cakes nor buy those figurines?

That's just rephrasing a discriminatory practice as a job description. Either you make and sell wedding cakes or you don't. That's the business practice. If you don't have any same sex figurines and don't stock them then you can probably get a pass on that one. You can't be made to carry inventory.

How accommodating do I need to be?

Like I said, if you sell cakes you don't get to not sell cakes because you don't like the buyer. You need a legitimate business practice.

For the record, I'd sell a basic cake to anybody walking in the door.

And if you're a baker who sells cakes you should.

Like a few in the news, I might not do custom work, specifically if it called for a compromise on my personal values.

Depends on the request. If you do custom work and the work requested is comparable to the work you've done for others you favor, then you should be required to do that.

That's why it is complicated to me: some issues 'can' cause a compromise of actions against one's values.

Nothing in that was complicated, Lon. And we don't say to the racist, "Well, if you feel strongly about it, discriminate away!" Not even if they believe black people bear the mark of Cain and should be shunned.

 

[Eeset]

I would not want to eat a cake baked by someone who didn't want to bake it.