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 baker makes traditional wedding cakes for the marriage of a man and a woman. You and others are outraged that he and many others refuse to acknowledge, recognize or accept two same sex individuals as ever being “married”. Suing the baker and putting hard working decent people out of business is bullying and silencing those who will never agree with you and the homosexual agenda.
A wedding cake, is a wedding cake, is a wedding cake. Once the cake is bought and paid for, it doesn't matter what the person buying the cake is doing with it. The only thing the baker of the cake needs to worry about is buttercream, or fondant.
The baker and many others believe that marriage is a man and woman, the unifying of the two sexes, and he is being forced to go against his religious convictions. Homosexual militants do not understand the faithful and instead ridicule, mock and otherwise insult those who are.
As opposed to the religious militants who use their bible as a crutch to put others down?
Like I said above - I used to be on the fence on this issue. Its posts like yours that have made up my mind.
A wedding cake, is a wedding cake, is a wedding cake. Once the cake is bought and paid for, it doesn't matter what the person buying the cake is doing with it. The only thing the baker of the cake needs to worry about is buttercream, or fondant.
Good point. The cake is delivered before the evil deed is even done. I can see the photographer objecting to have to see that stuff through his lens (it could crack?), but what does the cake man care?
For that matter homosexual couples can simply go to the myriad of bakers, which comprise the vast majority, that are homosexual friendly. It is that easy. No muss, no fuss, no drama, and nobody goes out of business.
But then the bigots win.
Quote:
You want to force people to play along with the notion of two same sex individuals as a "married" couple and you cannot stand that not everyone is ever going to be receptive to this notion, especially the religious with which the homosexual has a particular bone to pick.
I really couldn't care less how they feel. They can be all righteous and disgusted and stuff, just so long as they do their job.
Quote:
Why not get the cake baked happily and willingly or is it that you actually prefer bullying and forcing people?
Your free to interpret it that way if you choose. But the Bible calls homosexuality an "abomination" and "detestable" to God. It is a sin against God himself.
Divorce was not condemned in the way homosexuality is, and people did divorce. If you want to make a case of divorce (ridiculous) then you would also have to make the same case for any sin.
But, nice try.
I should say "nice try" to you, because the Bible says nothing of homosexuality - at least not the original, as the word "homosexual" doesn't even exist in Hebrew. Some of the more modern translations added stuff about it, but if you believe the ORIGINAL text is the word of G-d, you are claiming something that is nowhere in that book. Even if it were, should a book you read trump the laws? I read a book about time travel recently, so should I be allowed to discriminate against people who think we can't travel through time?
Btw, the Ten Commandments list many sins above anything to do with sexuality... using the Lord's name in vain, disrespecting your parents, coveting your neighbors' goods, committing adultery, etc. Since those actually are the "big sins," why aren't business owners discriminating against people who commit those? I say goddammit all the time, so do you think a restaurant owned by religious folks would refuse service to me? Doubtful. And when my father, who committed adultery and then married "the other woman," got married, I don't recall any bakers or caterers asking him about his past. So yes, they ARE cherry picking which sins to consider when serving customers.
The reason why tribal moralist in ancient times were against homosexual behavior - was based in numbers...The bigger the tribe..the more successful they were...The ancients did not approve of those who did not breed.
And yes it is a lifestyle, it's a behavior. Being say black is not a lifestyle, you can't say '' black behavior '' or '' black lifestyle '', that doesn't make any sense. Being black is not a behavior. Being a homosexual is.
Um, no it's not.
Being gay is no more a behavior than being straight is... they are both orientations, and only having gay (or straight) SEX is a behavior. One can be a gay virgin, so please explain what behavior they are practicing? I'll wait.
It's a religious liberty thread. Why do you think it's an "anti-gay" thread?
Because the only "sin" they're choosing to discriminate against is homosexuality, but as mentioned above, nobody seems to be refusing services to adulterers, people who use G-d's name in vain, people who covet or bear false witness to their neighbors, disrespect their parents, etc. So it is THEM (the business owners in question) who made this a "gay issue," as it's clearly the only sin they think is important. And it's not even in the original Bible! Hypocrisy at its finest.
P.S. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am a practicing (Reform) Jew - thus I am certainly not anti-religion, and have no beef with Christians in general. So yeah, the victim card isn't working on me.
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.