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.
You are dishonest plain and simple. The women did not go in demanding the baker make a cake for their immoral ceremony. The one women went in with her mother, a previous purchaser of the baker's wedding cakes, to order a wedding cake. There was no demand. A baker or any other busienss owner can refuse service to anyone who demands a goods or service as that is rude and rudness is not protected by law. Upon refusal the woman left the bakery n tears. The use of firey language to deplict a scene to appear totally different that what actually occurred (even from the baker's own testimony). The ceremony is not immoral nor is it illegal. Two people loving each other and wishing to commit to each other is not immoral, nor is it anti Christian as lesbians and gays can get married in some Christian churches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh
You are wrong, because a few churches have compromised with something so sinful, does not blanket the action on all churches .
Whether the state recognizes a law or not does not legislate God. period.
So this is a violation of interference church and state.
Lesbian chose this fight, knowing it would lead to a fight, they have been targeting a long time.
Are you saying that no Christian has to obey a law that goes against their religious belief? I never said all churches I said some Christian churchs marry same sex and many Christians according to polls support SSM. Where was a church involved in this case? A bakery is not a church and as the women were already married and this was only a celebration of that marriage no church was involved at all.
And you are wrong about the women choosing this fight. It is documented by the woman, her mother and the baker that this was not the case or at least no evidence that this was the case. It seems fine for you to be able to argue about God and sin and all but how do you explain about your willingness to disobey the 9th commandment I think it is about false testimony? There is zero evidence that this bakery was targetted and what evidence for why the woman went to it was that her mother had her wedding cake from there a couple of years ago. Unless you have proof that the woman, her mother and the baker were lying you should not make false accusuations. That breaks a commandment which I thought were supposed to be important. Perhaps I am wrong and commandments are just suggestions.
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-23-2015 at 08:56 AM..
Reason: Fixing quotes
They broke the law because of their deeply held faith. The fact that your side has to constantly cover it with the ugly word "biogtry" just shows that you need a crutch to try and look superior. The legal argument is pointless when we are discussing the morality of the situation.
It is not good when a law is wrong and violates other laws like freedom of religion. When sodomy was illegal, would you have say it's good to criminalize and punish homosexuals for their behavior? Law breakers!!! You can't tell me that you don't support a law and in the same sentence say that it is good that the person is punished for breaking the law. That's a contradiction.
I ask again. Do you support the right of Christian businessmen and women to publish PRIVATE information in order to "out" gay people. That's what the fine is about, not the discriminatory action.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE FROM A RELIGIOUS STANDPOINT?
They broke the law because of their deeply held faith. The fact that your side has to constantly cover it with the ugly word "biogtry" just shows that you need a crutch to try and look superior. The legal argument is pointless when we are discussing the morality of the situation.
Jeff, whether they were faithful or not,
they
broke.
The law.
Whether it was 'bigotry' or not (I'm not dipping my toes into that argument, by the way), they willingly performed an illegal act. That's not a 'crutch' or an attempt to 'look superior' -- that is a plain, established fact.
When you break the law, you are punished. Period. Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the law applies to all.
Whether it was 'bigotry' or not (I'm not dipping my toes into that argument, by the way), they willingly performed an illegal act. That's not a 'crutch' or an attempt to 'look superior' -- that is a plain, established fact.
When you break the law, you are punished. Period. Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the law applies to all.
Like I said over and over, I get it. Can we get past the brick wall "they broke the law" argument and look at the moral implications of the law? Really no point in arguing this anymore.
Like I said over and over, I get it. Can we get past the brick wall "they broke the law" argument and look at the moral implications of the law? Really no point in arguing this anymore.
OK let's.... If you think it's moral to discriminate against minorities because of your religious beliefs....you have a great deal in common with the people who refused to serve blacks during the Jim Crow era.
You claim a moral argument? You think your religious beliefs make it OK for you to refuse service to someone? So did the people who said God told them it was immoral for white people and black people to eat together. Or go to school together. Or ride the bus sitting in the same row.
The MORAL implication of the law is that everyone is equal. If you believe gays are not your equal.....SMH.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 07-23-2015 at 08:14 PM..
Christians are to promote the good news that Jesus Christ died and rose again to cover sins
They are not to promote sin. They were not denied anything, the baker would've baked a cake for them as they did in the past but just not this particular cake because they were pushing a perverse agenda. They should've just gotten over it and moved their business elsewhere like normal people do. There was no descrimination here. When we visited the SDA church, we didn't demand to eat meat nor did we bring it
on Sabbath outings when we visited. How rude. Nor did we expect to extort $135 thousand dollars out of them for it either lying saying they descriminated against us. Even though we saw a Cult, and left, it's NOT OK to thieve thousands of dollars over a lie.
No matter what side your on, stealing is WRONG. Extorting people is WRONG
Old news, superficial argument. NO, you cannot have a Jewish deli to make you a pulled pork sandwich.
But you can have a Jewish deli make you a turkey sandwich if they have it on the menu.
If it is on the menu, ANYONE has the right to ORDER it and the expectations to get it just like EVERYONE else.
As for going on their way, that is all the "uppity"Blacks had to do instead of staying on the bus and sitting at the Woolworth's counter in Greensboro--JUST GO ON THEIR WAY AND EAT AT ANOTHER LUNCH COUNTER, preferably a BLACK lunch counter?
OK let's.... If you think it's moral to discriminate against minorities because of your religious beliefs....you have a great deal in common with the people who refused to serve blacks during the Jim Crow era.
You claim a moral argument? You think your religious beliefs make it OK for you to refuse service to someone? So did the people who said God told them it was immoral for white people and black people to eat together. Or go to school together. Or ride the bus sitting in the same row.
The MORAL implication of the law is that everyone is equal. If you believe gays are not your equal.....SMH.
Do you believe a person's sexual orientation is their identity? I view gays as equal human beings. I don't see a behavior or lifestyle as their identity.
Like I said over and over, I get it. Can we get past the brick wall "they broke the law" argument and look at the moral implications of the law? Really no point in arguing this anymore.
It is morally wrong for businesses and employees to discriminate.
Next issue.
By the way I also think it is morally wrong to make claims and accusations that cannot be backed. Churches of course are allowed to discriminate.
If you are in business you have no more right to inflict your idea of morality than if you are an employee in the public or private sector. I also think it is immoral for an individual to discriminate other people based on race, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation. That is barring legal limits such as offering children alcohol. You certainly can discriminate against people you do not like as individuals though.
Do you believe a person's sexual orientation is their identity? I view gays as equal human beings. I don't see a behavior or lifestyle as their identity.
It is in the same way that my wife and family are part of my identity. And being a couple makes up a large part of my lifestyle. If you do not think they should be married then you do not think they are really equal.
Considering the dozens and dozens of posts you've made defending discrimination against gays..and your never-ending tirades about homosexuality...that's very hard to believe.
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.
