Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
When it comes down to it, I don’t believe businesses — even small businesses —are people and shouldn’t necessarily have the same rights and protections as people do. So as a business, the bakery needs to be punished in some way for its discriminatory practices.
👆
Originally posted by Firefly218
Being gay has nothing to do with religion
Woefully ignorant and wrong.
Read what you said and then ask yourself if your absolute statement is correct. Absolute statements are almost always wrong. <-Notice that this is not an absolute statement.
If what you said was correct, then being gay and religion would not have a relationship. Unfortunately and fortunately, it has had a close relationship for millennia.
Unless, of course, you still want to shit on gay people who are religious and gay people who have been persecuted, tortured, and killed due to religion.
Originally posted by dadudemonBeing gay is generally biological or genetic, it's not something a person chooses voluntarily. Meanwhile, religion is an ideology a person chooses to follow.
Woefully ignorant and wrong.Read what you said and then ask yourself if your absolute statement is correct. Absolute statements are almost always wrong. <-Notice that this is not an absolute statement.
If what you said was correct, then being gay and religion would not have a relationship. Unfortunately and fortunately, it has had a close relationship for millennia.
Unless, of course, you still want to shit on gay people who are religious and gay people who have been persecuted, tortured, and killed due to religion.
It is possible to be gay and choose Christianity, but Christianity itself is not the source of the gayness.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Being gay is generally biological or genetic, it's not something a person chooses voluntarily. Meanwhile, religion is an ideology a person chooses to follow.It is possible to be gay and choose Christianity, but Christianity itself is not the source of the gayness.
While that is correct, there is a close relationship between religion and sexuality across almost all cultures and people through time.
Originally posted by dadudemonI don't like what youre ssaying. There is no close relationship between sexuality and religion, becuase religion was made to oppress people's sexuality **** it man. Religion exists to make people straight and tell them to only have sex with the opposite gender.
While that is correct, there is a close relationship between religion and sexuality across almost all cultures and people through time.
Originally posted by EmperordmbHe's not an ARTIST, he's as asstwat. He is against the existence of gay people and against their right to marry and find love. He doesn't deserve to have his rights defended if the rights of gay people to marry are not defended
I'm not arguing from a place of religion here, I'm arguing from the place of nobody should be forced to use their personal expression in a way they disagree with. An artist should be able to deny a commission for any reason they see fit because they should have total and unrestricted control over their expression.That IMO is a principle that supersedes and should supersede anti-discrimination policy, and I hope that's how SCOTUS rules.
Originally posted by dadudemonSure, religion and sexuality have interacted and dealt with each other since the beginning of humanity. But that doesn't mean sexuality is determined by religion, you are born with sexuality.
While that is correct, there is a close relationship between religion and sexuality across almost all cultures and people through time.
Originally posted by CentaurSuperman
He's not an ARTIST, he's as asstwat. He is against the existence of gay people and against their right to marry and find love. He doesn't deserve to have his rights defended if the rights of gay people to marry are not defended
You remind me of the baker, just taken up a few notches.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
You hear that AdamPOE? You don't have to make me a wedding cake if you decide to be a baker.
If I was a baker, and you requested I bake a cake for your wedding, I would bake you two. That is why this Atheist/Gay/Satanist is a better Christian than you are.
"Bake for Them Two" by Jessica KantrowitzIn Jesus’ time, the nation of Israel was under Roman rule. The Israelites were allowed to live there and practice their faith for the most part, but they had to pay taxes to Caesar and obey the Roman laws.
To the Israelites, the Romans were evil and ungodly. They had no place ruling over God’s chosen people in God’s chosen nation. That land had been promised to Moses and his descendants when God brought them out of Egypt. Their very presence in the land was blasphemous.
One of the Roman laws stated that any man could be required to drop what he was doing and carry a Roman soldier’s equipment for him for up to a mile. In the Sermon on the Mount, with his followers gathered around him, Jesus referenced that law and told his followers what they should do in that case:
“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” —Matthew 5:41
Go with them two miles. That was not the advice that most of the people in the crowd that day had been hoping for. That was not the conclusion that they would have come to on their own, following this man that they hoped would lead them to victory over the Romans. That was certainly not respecting their religious beliefs — go with them two! What if their neighbors saw! What if seeing them carrying the Roman’s equipment caused other Jews to think the Roman oppression was okay? What if there was other work that needed to be done — good work, charity work even, but they spent all that time carrying equipment for the evil oppressor? But Jesus is not worried about any of that:
“If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also,” he said. “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself) and a gay couple comes into your shop and asks you to bake a cake for their wedding, what should you do? If God causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the wedding days of straight and gay couples, then what is our responsibility? If it is against the law to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, but you believe strongly that their lifestyle is immoral, what should you do?
Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
If you are wondering if it is worth being sued and losing your business to stand up for what you believe is right, if you miss the look of hurt in the couple’s eyes when you refuse them and only see an angry, media-driven, ACLU-led mob attacking the small business owner who is only standing up for what you believe in, what should you do?
Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
Jesus said, not only should you follow the law of the land — the law which in America for the most part prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation — not only should you do the minimum you have to do, you should go the extra mile. (Yes, that’s where that expression comes from!) Do *twice* what the law requires.
If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.
Christians, our Jesus said to not only follow the law, but to rise to a higher standard of love. Christians should be the FIRST people baking cakes — for everyone who asks us. We should be known for our cake baking. People should be saying, “There go those crazy Christians again, baking cakes for everyone. They just won’t quit!” Then, when we share the reason for our wild, all-inclusive love, people will want to hear it. “Let your light shine before others,” said Jesus, “that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
Christians, when we dig our heels in and insist on our right to discriminate, we are hurting people — we are hurting so many people, so deeply. Behind the ACLU and the liberal media are real people, who have been hurt again and again in the name of Christ. Christians, you and I have hurt them. I know most of us have really good intentions, but we are making Jesus the last thing they want to hear about.
If we “snatch one person from the fire” by refusing to condone behavior we believe is immoral, but send hundreds and thousands of others fleeing churches and Christianity entirely, what have we really accomplished? Someone else will make that cake and fewer and fewer people will look to Christianity for love and hope. We will have won a battle that we were never called to fight in the first place, but lost the war.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Yes ^^^ 👆 these are the Christians I can get behind. Spread love and joy, not discrimination
He's not spreading discrimination. He wasn't preaching his beliefs to anybody. Stop with the over dramatic bs lol.
You could be exaggerating, but this is just the problem I see where people always take something and then ramp it up to over 9000 for no reason.
Originally posted by Surtur
He's not spreading discrimination. He wasn't preaching his beliefs to anybody. Stop with the over dramatic bs lol.You could be exaggerating, but this is just the problem I see where people always take something and then ramp it up to over 9000 for no reason.
The law in Colorado requires public accommodations to provide all the goods and services they offer to all members of the general public without regard to sexual orientation.
The baker is deliberately breaking the law, which is ipso facto discrimination. And he is citing his religious beliefs as the justification, which is absolutely proselytization.
That is precisely what, "I will not serve you, because of my religious beliefs," is: spreading discrimination while preaching religious beliefs.
Get ****ing real.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If I was a baker, and you requested I bake a cake for your wedding, I would bake you two. That is why this Atheist/Gay/Satanist is a better Christian than you are.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm a Christian, I think the anti-gay shit is stupid and I disagree with it.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Again, if I were the baker I would've gladly made the gay couple the cake and told them "congratulations, I hope you have a nice wedding." I'm not opposed to homosexuality or gay marriage
You're not exactly saying you'd willingly do anything in that position that I wouldn't be willing to do, so that's not really a substantiated claim.
We don't really disagree how we would've handled things if we were the baker, we just disagree on policy.
I agree he should've made the choice to bake the cake, but that's not a decision I think the government should have the power to compel him to make.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Yes ^^^ 👆 these are the Christians I can get behind. Spread love and joy, not discrimination
Again, I don't disagree that he should've baked them the cake, I just don't think he should be compelled to do it by threat of force.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The law in Colorado requires public accommodations to provide all the goods and services they offer to all members of the general public without regard to sexual orientation.The baker is deliberately breaking the law, which is ipso facto discrimination. And he is citing his religious beliefs as the justification, which is absolutely proselytization.
That is precisely what, "I will not serve you, because of my religious beliefs," is: spreading discrimination while preaching religious beliefs.
Get ****ing real.
No, he's not spreading his beliefs. He is not telling anybody this is the way to be. Nobody is going to be all "I love gays, oh shit this baker won't sell to gays? F*ck em!".
This over dramatic bullshit is getting old. Hell Justice Kennedy called it out in court.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean my dude I specifically said I had no problem with homosexuality and would gladly bake a cake for a gay wedding if I were in that dude's position.You're not exactly saying you'd willingly do anything in that position that I wouldn't be willing to do, so that's not really a substantiated claim.
We don't really disagree how we would've handled things if we were the baker, we just disagree on policy.
I agree he should've made the choice to bake the cake, but that's not a decision I think the government should have the power to compel him to make.
Yeah, well, the people of Colorado disagree. That is why the enacted through their elected representatives a law the requires this man to serve them. A law that is based on over 50 years of American jurisprudence.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, well, the people of Colorado disagree. That is why the enacted through their elected representatives a law the requires this man to serve them. A law that is based on over 50 years of American jurisprudence.
I don't disagree with you that discrimination shouldn't happen, but I disagree even more with the use of force to exert control over anyone's personal expression.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThat is precisely what, "I will not serve you, because of my religious beliefs," is: spreading discrimination while preaching religious beliefs.
Get ****ing real.
I thought it was he wouldn't bake a cake for their wedding is the problem, apparently he didn't have a problem serving them any of the baked goods he currently had to offer.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah they disagree, I disagree with them based on 228 years of American jurisprudence, I view it as an issue of personal expression and thus the first amendment, and I both believe that state legislation should be subordinate to a constitutionally guaranteed right, and that the principle of free speech is more important than compelled anti-discrimination.I don't disagree with you that discrimination shouldn't happen, but I disagree even more with the use of force to exert control over anyone's personal expression.
The preceding 175 years of precedent are the basis for the last 53 years of antidiscrimination law.
You may disagree with antidiscrimination law on principle, but that is not a position reflected in case or statute.