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.
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.
IF you feel hatred and resentment against homosexuals, and get justice for feeling that way from the Bible, why should a businessman risk having to do business with them through a store or service that is open for all the public? Far from all homosexuals are going to let on as to who they are to the businessman or woman.
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.
How is it we're reduced to debating religious views in a court of law - which then assumes the authority to tell us which one is the "right" one and which ones are "wrong"?
Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. It CERTAINLY didn't empower the courts to decide what doctrines should be.
IF you feel hatred and resentment against homosexuals, why as a businessman risk having to do business with them through a store or service that is open for all the public?
What if you have no hatred or resentment, but don't wish to provide services to something that offends you?
Like a photographer asked to photograph sex?
Is he or she "sex-phobic" if they won't? And they have to, or they can't be photographers?
Where does the line get drawn between involuntary servitude and the emotional tantrums of some group?
The free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to commercial businesses. Such businesses don't (and can't) have religious beliefs to exercise.
There is no involuntary servitude as described the 13th Amendment. One is free to discontinue labor at his or her convenience.
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.
It was not a christian bakery, the baker was using his religious beliefs to discriminate. One cannot use their religion as an excuse to discriminate when it comes to a public business. Why do some christians want to use their religion to hate people, WHY?
It was not a christian bakery, the baker was using his religious beliefs to discriminate. One cannot use their religion as an excuse to discriminate when it comes to a public business. Why do some christians want to use their religion to hate people, WHY?
Going back to the question, should a Muslim or Jewish caterer be forced to provide food and services for a pig roast or pork barbeque? Should a devout Muslim photographer be forced to photograph a gay wedding? Should a halal bakery be forced to serve a wedding cake for a gay wedding?
Take the Christian out of it, Christians are easy targets, that's why their business are always targeted by these activists, they know that Christians won't fight back, replace with fundamentalist Muslim and let the cards fall. Funny, I've never seen a halal bakery taken to court for denying serving a gay wedding due to beliefs, plenty of these bakeries exist, just none have been targeted.
Going back to the question, should a Muslim or Jewish caterer be forced to provide food and services for a pig roast or pork barbeque?
Absolutely not. These laws deal with customers and whether you can discriminate against them because of their characteristics (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc). These laws don't force business to sell certain products or proved certain services.
Quote:
Should a devout Muslim photographer be forced to photograph a gay wedding? Should a halal bakery be forced to serve a wedding cake for a gay wedding?
Yes. Wedding photography businesses and commercial bakeries that sell wedding cakes should not be allowed to discriminate against people because of sexual orientation.
Going back to the question, should a Muslim or Jewish caterer be forced to provide food and services for a pig roast or pork barbeque? Should a devout Muslim photographer be forced to photograph a gay wedding? Should a halal bakery be forced to serve a wedding cake for a gay wedding?
Take the Christian out of it, Christians are easy targets, that's why their business are always targeted by these activists, they know that Christians won't fight back, replace with fundamentalist Muslim and let the cards fall. Funny, I've never seen a halal bakery taken to court for denying serving a gay wedding due to beliefs, plenty of these bakeries exist, just none have been targeted.
Wonder why?
That baker brought on his own problems by announcing his hate. Why cannot christians with biased views just show some tolerance of others that are not like them and try their dangest to stop using their bible when it comes to business practices. The bakery sells and makes cakes, even for divorced couples, he made the choice to be open to the public and to sell cakes for weddings. A jewish cater probably has a list of food they provide and pork is not on the list. No one has the right to use their religion to discriminate against their customers. Again, it is not a religious bakery. Period
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.
