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.
Just an example of how you have no problem changing the rules when it fits your agenda. It's the same flipping principle at play here. Forcing people to go against their beliefs.
I'm totally against the death penalty--it's against MY religion, but my taxes will probably help execute the Aurora Theater mass murderer (whom I think will get that sentence).
Should I stop paying taxes because I have a different view? Should the government not insist on collecting MY money because that is MY religious belief?
I'm totally against the death penalty--it's against MY religion, but my taxes will probably help execute the Aurora Theater mass murderer (whom I think will get that sentence).
Should I stop paying taxes because I have a different view? Should the government not insist on collecting MY money because that is MY religious belief?
The government isn't forcing you to participate in carrying out the death penalty.
Nor is the baker forced to participate in the SSM ceremony. Why is it you refuse to hear what you just said?
Jeff and Viz like ignoring facts and laws because:
The fact remains: Woman walks into bakery to buy a wedding cake. Something the bakery provides. Bakery owner finds out its a SSM and refuses to bake the cake, thus violating the woman's civil rights.
Woman sues and appropriately wins in court for discrimination.
In the end, the baker, who the woman went to in the first place due to a positive recommendation is put in a huge negative light and lost $135k due to the whole situation. All because she couldn't act professional around another human being.
Oh, and before Jeff starts rambling on about morals and whatever else he tries:
The baker could legally and morally refuse to bake a KKK or Nazi cake, if they refused to make it for everyone, regardless of race, color, sexuality, etc since they don't offer Nazi cakes. In this case, they make wedding cakes, but refused to bake the cake for a homosexual couple. That's illegal and discrimination.
And as I pointed out before, the 1st Amendment doesn't allow for you to take the law into your own hands due to your beliefs.
Last edited by caverunner17; 07-22-2015 at 08:05 PM..
I simply don't want to see the existing rights guaranteeing freedom of religion to be diminished and destroyed, and it absolutely was here. From a moral standpoint, the baker did nothing wrong.
The problem you have is that they weren't fined from a moral standpoint. They were fined from a legal standpoint. And the law they broke had nothing to do with whether it is immoral to be homosexual or their particular religion.
Should christians be allowed to publish personal information?
To make sure everyone understands why this lovely, innocent, christian couple owes money to the lesbian couple, let's get the facts straight:
Quote:
It wasn’t refusing to bake a wedding cake that earned Sweet Cakes By Melissa a $135,000 fine, it was the fact that the Christian bakers published the personal information of the lesbian couple requesting the cake, thus inviting fellow anti-gay Christians to attack and threaten the couple and their foster children.
While many Christians claim outrage about the fine, few know or are willing to admit the real reason for the hefty fine, and the despicable actions of Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein that reigned terror upon the lesbian couple and their foster children.
What is widely known is that the anti-gay Christian bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodation, which is against the law in Oregon--
So jeffbase40, my question to you is the same as to janelle over on the Christianity thread--Do you support the right of "christians" to publish personal information about their clients--especially when it results in threats being directed toward those clients.
Until you answer, you're going to see this question over and over and over. And if you respond with "No," then we are going to ask you to shut up.
The owner told the plaintiff that we don't do gay weddings. That's different from saying we don't serve homosexuals. I really don't see discrimination here.
Mainly because you do not WANT to see it. But the propaganda move of simply re-wording the bigotry from homosexuals to specifically homosexual events does not change it. The words change, but the reality remains identical. They broke the law, they paid the price, this is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I simply don't want to see the existing rights guaranteeing freedom of religion to be diminished and destroyed
Nor do I. Which is why I am glad the people like you who are trying to warp those rights into something they were never intended to do....... such as give exemption from laws to people who claim a religion........... is failing and failing badly.
We want freedom of religion too. We just do not think that this means what you clearly think it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
From a moral standpoint, the baker did nothing wrong.
Yes they very much did. They opened a business and in doing so they made an agreement with society in good faith to follow and respect the laws under which a business may operate. They then broke those laws. They reneged on that moral contract. And that is a moral wrong, much as you like to pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I get it, they violated the law. I am arguing from a moral perspective.
Not very well you are not. Denying a moral wrong where one clearly exists is not "arguing" anything. It is sticking your head in the sand and pretending reality is not there. They reneged on a contract taken in good faith when they were granted by our society the right to open a business. That is very morally wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If you are going to use a legal argument for morality then you are saying the same action is moral in one state, but immoral in Oregon.
Sure, because if the laws are different in Oregon perhaps they would not have committed the immoral act of reneging on the contract they agreed to in good faith with us when they opened a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Just an example of how you have no problem changing the rules when it fits your agenda. It's the same flipping principle at play here. Forcing people to go against their beliefs.
Says the guy who consistently tried to make one rule for himself and one for everyone else. You are the last person in possession of a pedestal from which to accuse others of changing the rules to fit an agenda. You make a hobby of it.
But once again no one is forcing anyone to go against their beliefs. You spew that mantra out time and time again and it remains just as wrong now as it was the first time. What they are being forced to do is conform to the law THEY agreed to willingly and knowingly and in good faith when they opened a business. And now they are reneging on that and attempting to justify it by screaming "my religion".
Yeah well they should have considered their religion before they signed up knowingly and willingly to a set of laws that go against them. They can whinge all they like.... but they brought it on THEMSELVES and no one else is to blame here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Respect would go a long way in this issue.
Sure it would. Such as if these business owners would respect the law. Respect their own honor in adhering to the law they signed up to in good faith when they opened a business. And Respect society by keeping their promises to that society to follow those laws.
That would be some nice respect to start with. Go into your pet business owners and request it of them sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
It comes down to whatever you feel in your heart but the minute you insist on stampeding my beliefs, you'll open yourself up to my defending them, fiercely.
Just as the minute you insist on breaking the laws, laws you accepted in good faith when opening a business, you'll open yourself to us defending them, fiercely. And because it is the law we have a means to do so. Prosecution and fines. Your defense of your belief you have nothing to defend with. No arguments. No evidence. No data. No reasoning. Just bleating.
So by all means defend your beliefs. But learn at the same time where they are relevant or less than relevant. And one of those places is in a secular court of law where your beliefs compelled you to break the laws you agreed to in the first place. You can defend your precious beliefs all you like then, as fiercely as you like, and when your dust settles I will still be sitting there waiting to hear what your point is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Everyone here is a faceless and nameless entity whose thoughts and opinions do not sway me in the slightest.
So basically you are just admitting openly to being close minded and fundamentalist. Unlike you however the thoughts and opinions of others do have the ability to change me and mine. Because I am not here to prove myself right all the time, like you appear to be, but to grown and learn. And it is the words and thoughts of others that help me to do that. You make disagreement and debate sound like something you have to fight to win at all costs, even when you are entirely wrong and have no substantiation for your claims (which happens with you often). But I see discourse and disagreement and debate as a way to learn and grown and change and I do not see dissent as some form of personal affront to defend myself against righteously and haughtily like you do.
Looks like the gay community would do good to listen to this message. Another example of hatred against Christians:
Quote:
Police are looking for the person or persons responsible for two instances of church vandalism that happened in Guilford County, North Carolina, over the weekend – the first of which occurred at Bales Memorial Wesleyan Church in Jamestown. Fox 8 reports:
Bales Memorial Wesleyan Church in Jamestown was spray painted, had flowers torn up, parking signs were ripped up and windows were broken.
The church sign was also broken and letters removed and the front entrance to the church was egged and sprayed with silly string.
One spray-painted message on the church door reads, “God loves (expletive)!!! He hates you!” Another said “Gay’s ok!”
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.
Should christians be allowed to publish personal information?
owes money to the lesbian couple, let's get the facts straight:
