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.
Absolutely not. You cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs. If you think this is okay, just wait until the tables are turned on you. This affects your rights as well.
Which religions believes you should not make cake for people you don't like?
Please quote chapter and verse.
Where does the US Constitution address the religious beliefs of commercial enterprises?
It seems absurd to me that we're talking about businesses having religious beliefs.
This is what the Constitution says.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Yet it has been "interpreted" many different ways.
The Constitution forbids Congress from establishing a state religion.
The Constitution forbids Congress from preventing the exercise of your religion.
That's it.
Everything else is "interpretation" by sitting judges..everything.
The Constitution ONLY refers to what Congress cannot do.
Which religions believes you should not make cake for people you don't like?
Please quote chapter and verse.
Thou shalt not make icing roses...
Some might argue that the religion of freedom believes that you should have the right to decline a customer based on your own personal bias. You decline that customer you risk losing other customers. They have the freedom to not buy your services.
"Gay folks" are people, just like every one else. And when people grow up dealing with extreme prejudice, bullying, violence, being disowned or abused by their parents, homelessness, and other soul-crushing events and situations, it can and often does lead to dangerous and self-destructive behavior.
Now imagine instead if all homosexuals grew up in loving and supportive environments, were told that there was nothing wrong with them and were accepted for who they were, were loved unconditionally by their parents and not forced to live on the streets. I would bet you my life the number of them that end up behaving in the way you describe would be substantially lower.
People really need to stop taking everything they see around them at face value; as unalterable absolutes. There are so many branches and cross-links in the causal chains leading up to various events and outcomes, especially when it comes to human neurology and psychology, that I don't think we can even begin to imagine the complexities involved.
This kind of gross oversimplification is both childish and incredibly insulting to the people being discussed.
The idea that many dozens of generations of Christians are opposed to homosexuality because it is "icky" or they are secretly gay is an oversimplification that many are happy to make. Keep in mind you are ignoring the fact that gays today are more accepted than in almost any other time in US history, but rates of depression and drug use, not to mention promiscuous sex, still rise. To ignore that homosexuals, for whatever reason, are less stable and more prone to poor choices does them a lot more disservice than to simply shrugband blame it on the big mean Xtian boogeyman. Keep in mind, in the article about gay drug use, from a gay advocates' site, gay people themselves do not site depression as a reason for increased drug use, but to "lower inhibitions" and "facilitate sex". Random, anonymous, AIDS-passing sex. What wonderful people they are indeed.
The idea that neuroscience is so complicated we can never determine anything is a facile argument, and quite beside the point. According to at least one study (Genetic and environmental effects on sa - PubMed Mobile), homosexuality is just as much environmental as it is genetic. Why can we not argue that if environment and hard circumstance causes depression, which can be treated, that we should cut out the possibility of that depression by treating homosexuality instead? Because it's "mean"? Feelings don't fix people, and acceptance of antisocial behavior does not make that behavior correct.
Well you would know when they said no to begin with and why.
In the military we knew which establishments didn't like Military types. Some guys insisted on going to those places.
Some like myself elected to go to the places that had no issue with Military types. I preferred to spend my money where I was appreciated and not hated.
Now would I sue a bar because they didn't want to serve me because I am a vet? No. I simply wouldn't spend my money there.
For me the issue isn't because a gay couple won. The issue is that someone was forced to make a damned cake. I believe in the freedom to accept a customer or decline a customer. Your reasons don't matter to me. You risk losing customers and your livelihood by doing so. I tell my Military friends you did me wrong and they boycott your establishment. Their nonmilitary friends also boycott your establishment.
We don't need a judge taking away freedoms.
If I owned a store and a man convicted of ID theft walked in, I would throw him out.
It seems to me the gay couple have a choice. There are many bakeries. I wouldn't want a cake made by anyone who hated me. I would be wondering what extras were added to the mix.
I don't care about what you did or what you would do at all.
I'm not reading the entire thread, but the judge ordered that they be provided a cake. He cannot order that they be provided a good cake. I'm sure there are some outdated ingredients sitting around. And a cake left out overnight might be a bit stale by the time it's served...
And why would anyone want a vendor with whom they are in conflict with to prepare food? Never p*ss off the waiter who's involved with something you're about to eat!! And that applies even more to the cook who's preparing it.
If I were the judge in this case, I would say the business MUST bake a cake for the homosexual couple, the couple MUST buy the cake, and they MUST eat it.
A wedding cake with mustard, horseradish, and garlic.
YUM!!
"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"
The idea that many dozens of generations of Christians are opposed to homosexuality because it is "icky" or they are secretly gay is an oversimplification that many are happy to make. Keep in mind you are ignoring the fact that gays today are more accepted than in almost any other time in US history, but rates of depression and drug use, not to mention promiscuous sex, still rise. To ignore that homosexuals, for whatever reason, are less stable and more prone to poor choices does them a lot more disservice than to simply shrugband blame it on the big mean Xtian boogeyman. Keep in mind, in the article about gay drug use, from a gay advocates' site, gay people themselves do not site depression as a reason for increased drug use, but to "lower inhibitions" and "facilitate sex". Random, anonymous, AIDS-passing sex. What wonderful people they are indeed.
The idea that neuroscience is so complicated we can never determine anything is a facile argument, and quite beside the point. According to at least one study (Genetic and environmental effects on sa - PubMed Mobile), homosexuality is just as much environmental as it is genetic. Why can we not argue that if environment and hard circumstance causes depression, which can be treated, that we should cut out the possibility of that depression by treating homosexuality instead? Because it's "mean"? Feelings don't fix people, and acceptance of antisocial behavior does not make that behavior correct.
As far as we've come, we're still not there yet. Just because it's MORE tolerant does not mean we've reached some acceptable level of tolerance yet. To people like you, not getting your face beat in = tolerance. Gee, thanks.
Your pathetic over-generalization about gay people posted above is proof enough of that.
Imagine...none of the gay people I know are druggie/alcoholic sluts.
One gay magazine or site or whatever no more speaks for all gays than one politician speaks for all democrats or republicans.
Promiscuous sex has been on the rise for gays and heteros since the 60s and I for one find it disgusting that so many heterosexuals I know have had multiple partners or engage in casual sex, but I'm not going to base my selling my services to the public based on who I think is repulsively slutty.
If I were the judge in this case, I would say the business MUST bake a cake for the homosexual couple, the couple MUST buy the cake, and they MUST eat it.
A wedding cake with mustard, horseradish, and garlic.
YUM!!
"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"
And were I a mechanic I'd take a similar approach to, say, your brakes.
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.
