Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The involuntary servitude argument would never fly when talking about commercial merchants being compensated for their work. That's just stupid.
The Muslim argument is also stupid. The law only says you can not discriminate who you offer services to. It does not say what those services are.
The law cannot compel me as a private contractor (and the baker was a private contractor, baking custom wedding cakes, not selling off the shelf cakes that anyone could walk in and buy) to provide service to someone I don't wish to work for, for whatever reason. If it does, that becomes "involuntary servitude" under the Thirteenth amendment.
In my former work, doing ceramic tile installation, I occasionally turned down a job that I didn't want to do (various reasons). The law cannot force me to do work for somebody just because they asked me to.
If a neo Nazi couple walked into a Jewish bakery and demanded that they bake them a cake for their Nazi themed wedding or ralley, and the owners refused, would that be discrimination too?
What the customers will use the cake for is irrelevant. But you can certainly discriminate against neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazi does not fall into a legally protected class.
Quote:
As for the supposedly anti-gay Arizona bill, there is nothing in it that is anti-gay, it doesn't even mention gays or homosexuals ANYWHERE in the bill. I read it, it's only about 2 pages. Obviously none of you did. Stop beliving everything media tells you to believe.
I read the bill several times. Why don't you explain to me what the bill did, including its effect.
In a piece by Erick Erickson over at Red State, the question of "involuntary servitude" is once again raised in a case concerning a "Gay Wedding." The question is, "should a Christian who believes a wedding can only be between a man and a woman be forced to provide goods and services to a "gay wedding?"" Would this not be "involuntary servitude," a violation of the 13th Amendment?
I raised this point in a thread on Arizona's proposed law (now vetoed by Governor Brewer’s cowardice) a while back, based on the observation of another writer, whom I believe (if memory serves) is an attorney. That writer was referring to the case of the Christian bakery that baked custom wedding cakes, and refused to provide a cake for a "gay" couple, because of his Christian beliefs. The client sued, the court ruled against the baker, and the baker was forced out of business. Similar cases involve a photographer who refused to photograph a “gay wedding” and a florist who refused to do the flower arranging for a “gay wedding.” In each case, they argued that because of their religious beliefs, they could not provide the requested service.
These court cases relied on a religious liberty argument based on the First Amendment. As Erick points out, "committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work they can share the gospel and glorify God." Erick points out that the claim of "gay rights" activists is that Jesus would have baked the cake; so Christian bakers should too. However, Jesus "affirmed in the Gospel of Matthew that marriage is between one man and one woman. He also told the various sinners he encountered to “sin no more.” So it becomes highly dubious that Christ would bake a cake for a “gay wedding,” and he most certainly would not preside over the service."
But the other constitutional question involves the Thirteenth Amendment question of involuntary servitude. How can a person be forced to provide a service against his will? If a Christian is forced against his will to participate in a ceremony, which he believes to be debauchery, that it dishonors God, and that such participation would be causing him to sin, is that not involuntary servitude?
Should a Muslim or Jewish caterer be forced to provide food and services for a pig roast or pork barbeque?
The MSM and the “gay” activists in these cases have mischaracterized laws such as SB1062 as anti-gay. They are not. They are aimed at protecting the Liberty of religious people to refuse to be used in celebration something that violates their beliefs.
I believe that these businesses have been deliberately and specifically targeted because of their beliefs, for the purpose of bringing suit, in order to advance the gay agenda, tear down the traditional moral codes of society, and destroy the Christian Faith as a relevant belief system, declaring it antiquated, homophobic, racist, backward, and anti-progress.
Jesus Christ on a crutch! For the 684th time, this is a flawed analogy. When you go to a caterer, you pick from the menu that's on offer. Kosher and Halal businesses wouldn't offer pork to anyone. It's not on their menu. They don't say "'ll make porkchops for you but not for you."
Bakers, however, are in the business of making wedding cakes. They ARE saying "I'll make a cake for you but not for you."
I believe that these businesses have been deliberately and specifically targeted because of their beliefs, for the purpose of bringing suit, in order to advance the gay agenda, tear down the traditional moral codes of society, and destroy the Christian Faith as a relevant belief system, declaring it antiquated, homophobic, racist, backward, and anti-progress.
How is a wedding cake for a divorced couple any less of a sin by the bakers beliefs than baking a cake for a gay wedding? What does it matter if the cake says Susan and Dan or Susan and Dyan. Do you think he askes all customers requesting a wedding cake if they are virgins, ever divorced, interracial? His religion does not bake his cakes, nor does he need it to bake a cake, his religion has nothing to do with baking a cake, now does it?
I think you need to read the linked article. A divorced person remarrying is not the same as a "same sex" wedding. There is no valid comparison. Your argument has no merit.
I believe that these businesses have been deliberately and specifically targeted because of their beliefs, for the purpose of bringing suit, in order to advance the gay agenda, tear down the traditional moral codes of society, and destroy the Christian Faith as a relevant belief system, declaring it antiquated, homophobic, racist, backward, and anti-progress.
BINGO!!!!
Think about it...why would anyone want a business, one they know do not condone their lifestyle, to do anything for them? They had and have a ton of other businesses to choose from.
Why do some [C]hristians want to use their religion to hate people, WHY?
Where does "hate" come in? How do you know the baker "hated" homosexuals? Did you know him personally? Did you read something where he said he "hated" homosexuals?
It's ONLY Christians that are targeted, these activists go after them because they are the easiest targets of all.
Bullies are like that, always target the easy prey.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
