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.
But my religious law forbids selling it to that person no matter what he believes. So if the law forces my hand, the law infringes on my practice. Same with the ban. He doesn't accept or care that he is banned. But to force me to serve him violates my practice.
Again, as a business owner, it isn't your job to police what others eat. Period. Your religion doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. If you don't like that, then you need to be in a different business. Our society is a secular one, and your religious beliefs don't determine what others have the right to do/eat/etc. As a business owner, you would know this going in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
No, it is the nature of the event. How about all the same people come in to my store and buy a cookie, or a cake and sit and eat it. The baker would have no problem. Changing the place and event changes the consideration (not mine, personally, by the way, this is about the nature of religious law, not my beliefs -- some people seem to have missed that). So if the people are served then the people are served.
And the nature, is that it is two people of the same sex.... It doesn't matter if you like it or not, if you serve the same item to straight people, you are obligated to serve it to gay people. Your religion is irrelevant as a business owner, when it comes to discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
No -- the question was between the fact that no one would bat an eye if I objected to put a swastika on a cake or a naked woman, but would have a problem if I refused to put something else on which is as problematic to me. That makes for a subjective social standard.
This is the result of saying NO JEWS can open stores, spare me your nonsense.
You have this backwards. This is the result of allowing discrimination in the secular sphere. The Jews were demonized and treated differently from everybody else. I support treating Jews in the same way as everybody else.
If you are not comfortable offering a service to all, then you should not offer it to anybody. Offering it to only some is a problem.
that's the heart of your claim and this heart (logical and rational as it is) is what then flies in the face of the free practice of religion. That's the tension here. Government regulations demand that I do what I religiously cannot do.
As I alluded to earlier (on some post or another) during Prohibition, the government allowed wine for sacramental purposes, putting religious sensibility above the equal application of the law to all people.
got it you want them to abandon Judaism, and will give them economic pressure just like Christian anti-Semites
LGBT=Inquisition
They don't have to abandon anything. They can either do their job and follow any laws in place, or they can get out. Pretty simple, no? If their beliefs are so important to them, that shouldn't be a problem, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
No I just wanted you to understand that my position is mainstream, and that rabbi from 83 is arguably the most respected rabbi to ever live in America.
No, it really isn't. If it is, it must be in your area and not the ones I have lived in. Other than you, every Jew I have ever known was a nice and respectable person who would never have discriminated against other, or call for it. Mostly because they know what it is like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
Did you hire a independent buisness owner?
anyone who supports lgbt rights in case like wedding cake are antisemites disprove the thesis.
Oh, more "ANTISEMITE!!!" spittle spewing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
No if you would boycott the store I would not scream bigots even if you are one, However when you use the federal, state, or city government I will oppose bigotry just like my grandparents oppose Jim Crow. I will also call out bigotry and those bigots who espouse it.
You have literally been calling everyone antisemites in every post.... You are just like the people that scream "RACIST" at everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
This is the result of saying NO JEWS can open stores, spare me your nonsense.
Who says they can't open stores? That is only in your head.
Again, as a business owner, it isn't your job to police what others eat. Period. Your religion doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate.
Yes, it does. The practice and the law conflict. You want to give precedence to the law. That's great. But the law also protects my practice. Two laws now contradict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Your religion is irrelevant as a business owner, when it comes to discrimination.
But the free practice of religion is not irrelevant. It is a matter of law.
Maris et foeminae conjunctio est de jure naturae
/masras et femaniy kanjar]ksh(iy)ow est diy jiiriy natyiiriy/.
The connection of male and female is by the law of nature.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., P.967
UNNATURAL OFFENSE - The infamous crime against nature; i.e., sodomy or buggery.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1131
CRIME AGAINST NATURE. Deviate sexual intercourse per os or per anum between human beings who are not husband and wife and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., P.371
BUGGERY. A carnal copulation against nature; a man or a woman with a brute beast, a man with a man, or man unnaturally with a woman. This term is often used interchangeably with "sodomy."
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 194
PERVERT - A person whose sexual practices or interests are considered abnormal or deviant.
IN short, the government was infiltrated by perverts who changed the courts to no longer prosecute crimes against nature.
Nothing to do with religion.
that's the heart of your claim and this heart (logical and rational as it is) is what then flies in the face of the free practice of religion. That's the tension here. Government regulations demand that I do what I religiously cannot do.
On this comment, I agree. All rights are in conflict with others rights, and to prevent widespread discrimination, religious sensibilities, when operating in the secular sphere, must give way to equal treatment for all.
I suspect we will not agree on this.
Quote:
As I alluded to earlier (on some post or another) during Prohibition, the government allowed wine for sacramental purposes, putting religious sensibility above the equal application of the law to all people.
I was unaware of this nuance of Prohibition. I would say that this was decided incorrectly. The analogy that comes to mind is the federal prohibition on consumption of peyote, although some Native American religions consider it to be a sacrament. Federal drug laws (even if one thinks they can be really stupid) overrule contrary religious practices.
In the tenth century The Book of Beliefs and Opinions by Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, was penned in what is now Iraq, and the first Mussar book, Duties of the Heart, was written by Rabbi Bahya Ibn Pakudah in 11th-century Spain.
you do realize that Rav Sadya Goan, said that the worst sexual perversion besides bestiality is homosexuality.
You have this backwards. This is the result of allowing discrimination in the secular sphere. The Jews were demonized and treated differently from everybody else. I support treating Jews in the same way as everybody else.
Except not letting them practice all the asapects of their religion when that practice conflicts with other laws. Though, truth be told, that isn't as much about treating Jews a singular way as much as it is treating adherents of a moral law code which is distinct from the secular one in that special way.
"within reason" -- whose reason? clearly not mine because I'm religious. This then becomes discrimination AGAINST my religion.
The "within reason" part of the post was simply to say that there are some people who can be turned away, such as those being belligerent, those with offensive clothing (or no clothing), etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
So empathy should only go one way. Got it.
Not what I said. What I said, is that a customer shouldn't feel bad for asking you to perform a service, or bake an item that you already offer. You are a business open to the public, and that means serving the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
But my practice of it is protected. Within reason, it seems.
Your practice doesn't extend to freely discriminating without consequence. No ones does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
And since they don't have to have any empathy, they must be served no matter what. Within reason...
Yes, they should be served, no matter what, if it is something you already offer. Is this really that hard to understand?
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.
