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.
I don't care what the law says or what the courts say, that's not what this discussion is about. Laws and courts can be wrong. We can disagree with them. This discussion is about principle.
Should someone be forced to participate, either directly or indirectly, in an event that runs counter to their morals, views, or religious beliefs?
I've asked Jeff this question several times, but apparently it's too difficult for him, so I'll ask you.
I'm a hardware store owner, and I fear god's disapproval if I make a profit from or participate in an immoral ceremony. I sell patio furniture, plastic dinnerware, candles, folding chairs, etc., all of which can be used in a gay wedding. How do I qualify my customers to make sure that I'm not making a profit from an immoral ceremony or participating in one?
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 I don't care what the law says or what the courts say, that's not what this discussion is about. Laws and courts can be wrong. We can disagree with them. This discussion is about principle.
Should someone be forced to participate, either directly or indirectly, in an event that runs counter to their morals, views, or religious beliefs?
The lawsuit was not about LGBT, it was about death threats.
When the complaint was filed, a copy was emailed to the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whereupon they posted the complaint to their Facebook page. The contents of that complaint are the rub. The names, home address, and email address of the plaintiffs were in that post.
The Bowman-Cryer couple received death threats as a result of that post. The foster children they were trying to adopt were at risk of being taken away from them because the state adoption agency told them they were responsible for keeping the threats at bay and their confidential information out of the hands of those who might endanger the children.
Thus the lawsuit. In the end, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer were awarded a judgment for $135,000, not as fines or civil penalties against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, but for the “emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.”
So framing the award to the lesbian couple as some persecution for being Christian is way wrong. Those people put the couple and their children in danger. That’s why they were ordered to pay up.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
The lawsuit was not about LGBT, it was about death threats.
When the complaint was filed, a copy was emailed to the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whereupon they posted the complaint to their Facebook page. The contents of that complaint are the rub. The names, home address, and email address of the plaintiffs were in that post.
The Bowman-Cryer couple received death threats as a result of that post. The foster children they were trying to adopt were at risk of being taken away from them because the state adoption agency told them they were responsible for keeping the threats at bay and their confidential information out of the hands of those who might endanger the children.
Thus the lawsuit. In the end, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer were awarded a judgment for $135,000, not as fines or civil penalties against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, but for the “emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.â€
So framing the award to the lesbian couple as some persecution for being Christian is way wrong. Those people put the couple and their children in danger. That’s why they were ordered to pay up.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Try again.....
I'm an Atheist, as my later involvement in these very forums when I first joined can attest, and I was all for gay marriage, as my posts in the P&OC forum can attest.
People have a Right to be bigoted. People have a Right to their personal opinions. People have a Right to not participate in something that offends them. And people have a Right to their religious values.
These people weren't disrciminated against because they are gay. They weren't denied a cake because they were gay. They were denied a cake because it was meant for a gay wedding which they claim is against their religion.
Exactly. If I owned a bakery I might very well discriminate, even though it would never be against gay ceremonies .... it's more likely I'd discriminate against Christian fundies if they came in and tried to "save" people, or against Muslim fundies who wanted to celebrate a female circumcision or the suicide bombing of a Jewish wedding in Israel.
That should be my call in my private business, not society's (unless I was receiving some sort of federal funding).
Yes, Irish Need Not Apply, or Colored Enter at the Rear Door, if that's what I want.
Always playing the victim. It has nothing to do with being a Christian and all to do with being Jeff. Take some personal responsibility for once and stop hiding behind the shield of being a Christian. We disagree with you because you make some factually 8 correct statements for example and if you think you should be able to say things that are untrue and we can't disagree with you based on any disagreement would be anti Christian instead of disagreeing with jeff. My beef is from the comments and false accusations made by you, Vizio and others and not with your god or Christ or with the religions of Christianity.
.
Maybe this should be reposted every page or so?
Eh, never mind. Actual facts that are substantiated have been posted repeatedly and they get ignored so reposting this probably wouldn't do any good either.
No..God does recognize even the marriages of non-Christians. when have we ever said otherwise?
Great, so marriages you don't approve of have nothing to do with your god or your religious expression. Therefore fundamentalists should have no problem providing goods or services for these secular events.
Ok, forget the messages. Let's just say a KKK member comes in to a lack cake maker and wants a plain cake made for a racist KKK rally. Should the baker have to make it?
Should? In what sense? In a legal sense? Moral sense? Good customer service sense? What do you mean?
Quote:
"Protected classes" are irrelevant
Yeah, let's ignore the law since it gets in the way of the story you want to sell.
Quote:
these bakers didn't deny service because the customer is gay
They refused service as soon as they identified the orientation of the customer. You can have your own opinion on the matter, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
And personalizing against me again. See I find that alone to be insulting because you are not offering constructive criticism. You are being combative and condescending.
You only denounced death threats in 289 in a generic fashion, nothing specifically against what the owners of Sweet Cakes endured. Well of course, you think death threats are wrong. I'm sure everyone here does. My point is when the story only involved the death threats received by Sweet Cakes, I sure didn't see any outrage or concern from the pro-gay side. But when it came out that the lesbians got it too, oh suddenly it is outrage meter off the charts and we didn't hear the end of it.
What the bakers endured is their own fault. THEY were the ones that broke the law. THEY were the ones that went to the media, repeatedly.
Honestly, if they had not alerted the media, no one would have ever even known about the case.
That does not excuse the actions of ANYONE making threats.
The couple did not go to the media, in fact they only released a statement through their attorney AFTER the bakers started the media frenzy. They did nothing to draw attention to the case at all.
So, when are you going to substantiate your continual assertion that the bakery owners were threatened?
You repeated ad infinitum does not make it so. I'm going to call you out on this until you show where the assertion comes from. Or should you choose to retract it because you drew it out of your butt, I'll accept a retraction also.
What's going to be Jeff? Are you going to own up that you made this up? Or you going to show us where you got this from?
Let us not forget that the homosexual couple are the ones that wanted to make their "union" a political statement. Generally, at least with heterosexual couples, they want people involved in their marriages to want to be. Only the mostly unknowing would want someone that doesn't want to be serving them food to be forced to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Great, so marriages you don't approve of have nothing to do with your god or your religious expression. Therefore fundamentalists should have no problem providing goods or services for these secular events.
Again, Christians of any particular kind are not the only religion that believe that legalizing sodomy between a homosexual couple is a sin. There are many others. And, even people who aren't religious oppose such a "union". At a lot of people that might surprise you oppose "same-sex" marriage: ‘Gays’ oppose same-sex marriage before Irish vote
It is sad situation when this tiny percentage of people become determined to destroy God. God will prevail.
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.
