The Religion Thread

[Ombudsman]

Mr.V a Christian is also not allowed to lynch a black guy for dating a white girl either. Doesn't mean they haven't tried and it also doesn't mean that Christians have no rights as you claim. It just means they don't have unlimited rights to do whatever the hell they want. I realize due to the inherent arrogance of a lot of Christians that's a tough pill to swallow, but no you can't violate other people's rights in the name of your religion.

[Wneglia]

So, Mr.B, do you really think there should be no limits on a business supposedly open to the public in how it can discriminate against its customers? Can they refuse service to one-legged guys? Army vets? If you think a business owner ought to be able to serve only those s/he wants, and blatantly discriminate any way s/he wants, fine. You're wrong, but I understand the point. But if you think it's only applicable to gays, an everybody else gets protected, then that's a different story.

So does that mean an attorney is obligated to represent a drunk driver who killed the attorney's family in an accident, if the drunk chooses that attorney?

[O Really]

So, Mr.B, do you really think there should be no limits on a business supposedly open to the public in how it can discriminate against its customers? Can they refuse service to one-legged guys? Army vets? If you think a business owner ought to be able to serve only those s/he wants, and blatantly discriminate any way s/he wants, fine. You're wrong, but I understand the point. But if you think it's only applicable to gays, an everybody else gets protected, then that's a different story.

So does that mean an attorney is obligated to represent a drunk driver who killed the attorney's family in an accident, if the drunk chooses that attorney?

That would be a conflict. Conflicts are disqualifying in law - not so much in cakery.

[O Really]

The favorite word of the "gay" crowd...."discriminate". A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Your ludicrous, far-fetched examples would apply if those you've cited presented a problem to the owner; say, in their attitudes or mannerisms while in his shop.

This judge's ruling could open the door to a Pandora's box of lawsuits when it comes to the examples I've already cited. Businesses that don't normally do business in a manner that is contrary to their personal beliefs or business agenda could be forced to change based on the whims of some individual or group that comes along and files a suit claiming "discrimination".

Interesting to note here that the "unbiased" ACLU took the side for the "rights" of the perversion, rather than to defend the "rights" of the shop owner, who obviously has no "rights" when it comes to his beliefs.

It is discrimination. Whether it is unlawful discrimination is a matter of law, which will be determined in court.

Businesses can't operate in a vacuum based simply on the beliefs of their owners. Ask the recently ousted head of Lululemon.

The ACLU isn't unbiased as to individual. It is very biased toward Constitutional rights. The store owner might have a point if the customers wanted him to bake them a cake that said "God is Dead", but refusing one that says' "Happy Wedding" or whatever is in no way different from refusing to make a cake for a returning vet because you opposed the war or didn't get treated well in the Army. Or whatever.

[Crock Hunter]

By this judges ruling, a Christian radio station or publication MUST accept advertising from alcohol vendors, abortion clinics, and any other non-religion group that insists in advertising in their media. Jewish and Muslim store owners must start selling pork if some meat vendor insists they buy their meat products; Christian book stores must sell men's magazines if a vendor insists they sell their trash....... refuse, and the ACLU will be on your ass like white on rice.

In this Bakery incident .. No "vendor" is forcing a product on anyone.. The couple was a customer so your examples don't apply.. e.g. if the Jewish and Muslim store owners sell lamb.. then they must sell lamb to anyone .. even this guy..

[Mr.B]

"Mr.V a Christian is also not allowed to lynch a black guy for dating a white girl either. Doesn't mean they haven't tried and it also doesn't mean that Christians have no rights as you claim. It just means they don't have unlimited rights to do whatever the hell they want. I realize due to the inherent arrogance of a lot of Christians that's a tough pill to swallow, but no you can't violate other people's rights in the name of your religion."

Come on Ombudsman.....we're not talking about lynching, dating, or unlimited rights.....true, "you can't violate other people's rights in the name of your religion", OTOH, nor should you be able to trample another's rights in the name of your sexual orientation.

"You two are deliberately pretending to be confused over what really is a simple matter."

No, you all are like the Sodomites who brought on the suit. In your liberal minds, everyone should bow down and cater to these two clowns simply because they want to force their sexual orientation on the rest of the populace; their "rights" be damned. In reading all the articles, it's obvious that they think they can walk into any business and DEMAND that they be treated special because they are "gay"......
Simple as that.

[Crock Hunter]

DEMAND that they be treated special because they are "gay"......
:

No.. their "demand " is to be treated like any other paying customer ... . .

[Boatrocker]

. . . everyone should bow down and cater to these two clowns simply because they want to force their sexual orientation on the rest of the populace . . . .

This tired old strawman pops up right on schedule. Pray tell us how anyone's sexual orientation is being "forced" on you.

[Mr.B]

"No.. their "demand" is to be treated like any other paying customer ... . ."

Their "demand" is to be treated like any other paying customer.....even if their "demand" is as obnoxious as presented in the articles; hence the merchant must bow down to their "demand" in the name of their sexual orientation. They couldn't just leave and go to another bakery.

From what I've read, the shop owner was very polite in explaining his religious conviction; the Sodomites showed their hate towards him and his beliefs by initiating a lawsuit; thus "demanding" special treatment because of their sexual orientation.

"I'm almost positive that the bigoted baker will remain straight, if not already a closeted gay, no matter who he bakes a cake for.....Just as "rights" to discriminate against whites, Christians, Navy veterans, men, retirees, and the elderly have been "damned." Do you really support the principle that vendors should be able to discriminate against you solely due to your membership in one of these groups because their hateful interpretation of their religion says so?"

Another favorite word of the Sodomites..."bigoted".

We're not talking about any of the groups you've listed, you're attempting to confuse the subject. Let me refresh you....the subject is a homosexual and the ACLU that brought a charge against a man who, because he didn't believe that homosexuality conformed with his religion, felt that he couldn't bake a wedding cake celebrating the "wedding" of two men. The homosexual and the ACLU felt that the "rights" of the homosexuals negated any rights of the man or his religious beliefs, and that the man should grovel before the homosexual or face a fine.

Because he has a religious conviction, he's "bigoted". So in your mind, any one who doesn't go along with the homosexual agenda is a "closeted gay"? That's what this and your past posts indicate.

You use the word "discriminate" very loosely.....a vendor should have the right to refuse service to anyone if it conflicts with the "hateful interpretation of (his) religion". After all, the Sodomites demanded he give them service in spite of their "hateful" discrimination towards him. Their "rights" as "gays" are more important than his "rights" as a man with religious beliefs. Simpleminded, indeed.

"Pray tell us how anyone's sexual orientation is being "forced" on you."

Go back and read the news articles. They're not being "forced" on me personally; your is a strawman point.

[Boatrocker]

"Pray tell us how anyone's sexual orientation is being "forced" on you."

Go back and read the news articles. They're not being "forced" on me personally; your is a strawman point.

Fine, fine- so defend how ANYONE is having a sexual orientation "forced" on them. Anyone. Anyone at all.

[Boatrocker]

Well, I knew you could answer it . . . but I have never had an intelligent response to the question from a fundicongelical. Same for the "tell us how you chose to be heterosexual" question. Never a real answer.

[Crock Hunter]

...even if their "demand" is as obnoxious as presented in the articles; .

Damn..! how the hell is ordering a cake "obnoxious"??


I gather it would have been fine with you had Ford refused to sell cars to Jews..

[O Really]

From the article, "Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. "

Speaking of stepping on ones own tail - if he had said, "sorry guys, I'm totally booked up for the next month, but Cakes R Us over on 16th Street does good work and they may be able to help you," nobody probably would have ever heard of this. But nooooooooo. He has to say, "I'm going to be in blatent violation of the Civil Rights Law of Colorado that prohibits discrimination against protected classes,
which include: Disability, Race, Color, National Origin, Ancestry, Sexual Orientation, Sex (includes pregnancy), Creed, Religion (employment and housing only), Age (employment only), Marriage to a Co-Worker (employment only), Marital Status (housing and public accommodations only), and Familial Status (housing only).

So yes, Mr.B - it's exactly the same as refusing to make a cake for a Chinese guy.

[Crock Hunter]

Speaking of stepping on ones own tail - if he had said, "sorry guys, I'm totally booked up for the next month, but Cakes R Us over on 16th Street does good work and they may be able to help you," nobody probably would have ever heard of this. But nooooooooo. He has to say, "I'm going to be in blatent violation of the Civil Rights Law of Colorado that prohibits discrimination against protected classes,
which include: Disability, Race, Color, National Origin, Ancestry, Sexual Orientation, Sex (includes pregnancy), Creed, Religion (employment and housing only), Age (employment only), Marriage to a Co-Worker (employment only), Marital Status (housing and public accommodations only), and Familial Status (housing only). .

Those suffering such overt religiosity seldom pass up an opportunity to force their religion on others. ...

[Boatrocker]

Those suffering such overt religiosity seldom pass up an opportunity to force their religion on others. ...

Denying them the opportunity to do so is what the holy rollers refer to as "persecution."

[Ombudsman]

You gotta be a Class A looney tune to keep using the word sodomite as often and Homer, I mean B. does.

[neoplacebo]

I only use the word "sodomite" while reading this forum. And I rarely use the word "often."

[bannination]

Speaking of Sodomites, shouldn't they be handing their daughters over by now?

[Mr.B]

My bad. Should have used lower case 'S'.....y'all happy now?

sod·om·ite : a person who has anal sex with another person

Sod·om·ite: a resident of Sodom

"I only use the word "sodomite" when discussing homerfobe and Mr.B."

For what reason?

[O Really]

I'm thinking Mr.B's term might cover a much wider percentage of the population than he thinks. And probably excludes some he thinks he's referring to.