Bobby Jindal proposes doing away with Supreme Court

[NotreDame]

And I would think, what is deemed sin, would vary from Christian baker to Christian baker.

Especially since, atheists perform the worst sin to some, which is not believing in God, which to some, is the only sin that is not forgivable.

And, never mind all those divorced people remarrying, that some Christians also regard as living in sin.

Once again, this misses the basis of the objection. The objection isn't because the customer is sinful. As long as your retorts are of a nature in which the objection is based on the customer being a sinner, then your objection is not and will not be rationally or logically parallel to the objecting Christian baker.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Once again, this misses the basis of the objection. The objection isn't because the customer is sinful. As long as your retorts are of a nature in which the objection is based on the customer being a sinner, then your objection is not and will not be rationally or logically parallel to the objecting Christian baker.

Seems to me that so long as "religious objection" gets a blanket pass, the basis of the objection is irrelevant.

 

[bhsmte]

Once again, this misses the basis of the objection. The objection isn't because the customer is sinful. As long as your retorts are of a nature in which the objection is based on the customer being a sinner, then your objection is not and will not be rationally or logically parallel to the objecting Christian baker.

No it doesn't miss, the claim has been, they objected because they didn't want to promote sinful behavior.

 

[NotreDame]

Seems to me that so long as "religious objection" gets a blanket pass, the basis of the objection is irrelevant.

Strawman.

 

[bhsmte]

Seems to me that so long as "religious objection" gets a blanket pass, the basis of the objection is irrelevant.

It would appear so.

I would also appear, some believe a business owner should be able to deem whatever personal interpretation they have as a legit religious belief, be reason enough to discriminate in a publicly accommodating business.

 

[NotreDame]

No it doesn't miss, the claim has been, they objected because they didn't want to promote sinful behavior.

Yes but this ignores the other facts providing the context to the objection. A wedding cake for same sex marriage is objected to on the basis the cake promotes or celebrates the sin of same sex marriage. A cake to an atheist couple marrying isn't to celebrate the atheist beliefs or promote them.

Your examples remain non-parallel.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes but this ignores the other facts providing the context to the objection. A wedding cake for same sex marriage is objected to on the basis the cake promotes or celebrates the sin of same sex marriage. A cake to an atheist couple marrying isn't to celebrate the atheist beliefs or promote them.

Your examples remain non-parallel.

It all comes down to what the baker deems to be a sin they don't want to promote and will refuse service.

Do you think all Christian bakers are in agreement on this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes but this ignores the other facts providing the context to the objection. A wedding cake for same sex marriage is objected to on the basis the cake promotes or celebrates the sin of same sex marriage. A cake to an atheist couple marrying isn't to celebrate the atheist beliefs or promote them.

Your examples remain non-parallel.

So... why is same-sex-marriage a sin?

 

[NotreDame]

It all comes down to what the baker deems to be a sin they don't want to promote and will refuse service.

Do you think all Christian bakers are in agreement on this?

For me, this is more fact driven and the logical deductions from those facts. A wedding for a same sex wedding celebrates the sin of the same sex marriage. A wedding cake to heterosexual atheists marrying is a wedding cake celebrating the marriage. After all, it is a wedding cake, not a birthday cake celebrating someone's birthday, a graduation cake celebrating someone's graduation, a retirement cake celebrating retirement, but a wedding cake.

A wedding cake, logically, isn't celebrating the beliefs of the two atheists marring but their act of marrying each other, the marriage itself. To transform a wedding cake for two marrying atheists into a cake celebrating their atheist beliefs is illogical on the basis of these facts.

Second, I'm not inclined to speculate as to whether Christian bakers are in agreement but rather I am relying upon those facts I just referenced and the statements of those Christian bakers in court cases and those I've read in the news, in which their refusal wasn't because the customer was a sinner.

I like facts, logical reasoning, and the logical inferences to be made from those facts. Simply, the facts and the logical inferences from them indicate to me your examples remain non-parallel.

 

[NotreDame]

So... why is same-sex-marriage a sin?

I am certain there is a proper forum for your query. Yes, I am sure there is a theology forum for your question to be presented and possibly answered. Who knows I may even participate.

 

[bhsmte]

For me, this is more fact driven and the logical deductions from those facts. A wedding for a same sex wedding celebrates the sin of the same sex marriage. A wedding cake to heterosexual atheists marrying is a wedding cake celebrating the marriage. After all, it is a wedding cake, not a birthday cake celebrating someone's birthday, a graduation cake celebrating someone's graduation, a retirement cake celebrating retirement, but a wedding cake.

A wedding cake, logically, isn't celebrating the beliefs of the two atheists marring but their act of marrying each other, the marriage itself. To transform a wedding cake for two marrying atheists into a cake celebrating their atheist beliefs is illogical on the basis of these facts.

Second, I'm not inclined to speculate as to whether Christian bakers are in agreement but rather I am relying upon those facts I just referenced and the statements of those Christian bakers in court cases and those I've read in the news, in which their refusal wasn't because the customer was a sinner.

I like facts, logical reasoning, and the logical inferences to be made from those facts. Simply, the facts and the logical inferences from them indicate to me your examples remain non-parallel.

Facts and logical reasoning, are less in play, when one Christian deems something a sin and refuses service and another one doesn't.

What is in play is this; subjective interpretation.

 

[PapaZoom]

Well, I didn't say the baker was "joining in a celebration." What I did say, however, is the objection by the Christian bakers is not on the basis the customer is a sinner or sinful. Rather, the objection is on the basis of devoting their time, resources, energy, talents, to create a product, the wedding cake, in which the wedding cake is most certainly to celebrate that which is sinful.

Good points. I do agree that one should be able to refuse to provide a service that violates one conscience. That said, knowing that Christians will be targeted by gay activists, and knowing a lawsuit is likely to follow with the intention of ruining my business, and taking thousands of my dollars, I'd rather make them a cake than give them my business and thousands of dollars. They don't want a cake, they want to ruin me.

 

[bhsmte]

Good points. I do agree that one should be able to refuse to provide a service that violates one conscience. That said, knowing that Christians will be targeted by gay activists, and knowing a lawsuit is likely to follow with the intention of ruining my business, and taking thousands of my dollars, I'd rather make them a cake then give them my business and thousands of dollars. They don't want a cake, they want to ruin me.

Would this mean, you would be ok with business owners using their own subjective conscience, to refuse service to a customer in a publically accommodating business, that they voluntarily opened their doors to the public to?

 

[NotreDame]

Facts and logical reasoning, are less in play, when one Christian deems something a sin and refuses service and another one doesn't.

What is in play is this; subjective interpretation.

No, facts and logical reasoning are vey much present in this dialogue, the fact religion and religious beliefs are discussed does not reduce them to the closet or swept under the rug. There are still logical deductions to be made here.

The facts here, and the logical inferences deduced from them, show your examples are non-parallel.

No point to the exercise of making illogical and bad arguments to condemn Christian bakers or their behaviors.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am certain there is a proper forum for your query. Yes, I am sure there is a theology forum for your question to be presented and possibly answered. Who knows I may even participate.

Unfortunately, the theology forum is Christians-only. I'm not welcome there.

 

[bhsmte]

No, facts and logical reasoning are vey much present in this dialogue, the fact religion and religious beliefs are discussed does not reduce them to the closet or swept under the rug. There are still logical deductions to be made here.

The facts here, and the logical inferences deduced from them, show your examples are non-parallel.

No point to the exercise of making illogical and bad arguments to condemn Christian bakers or their behaviors.

Do you agree, that there exist, Christian business owners who disagree on what they deem to be sin, to where they would refuse service to a customer? Yes, or no?

 

[PapaZoom]

Would this mean, you would be ok with business owners using their own subjective conscience, to refuse service to a customer in a publically accommodating business, that they voluntarily opened their doors to the public to?

I can't imagine under what circumstances where that would happen. I do know of a couple that owned a farm and rented it out for weddings and receptions. They refused to "open their door" to same sex marriage and were sued. As a result, they no longer will host weddings on their property. There do seem to be circumstances where a business owner should have the right to refuse service someone if it truly violates their conscience.

 

[NotreDame]

Do you agree, that there exist, Christian business owners who disagree on what they deem to be sin, to where they would refuse service to a customer? Yes, or no?

This is what separates you and I.n I like facts. I'm not going to guess an answer to your question. As I stated previously, your entire example of a Christian bake and divorce and remarriage was speculative. I'm not going to participate in your speculation.

Knock yourself out with speculative scenarios but your speculation doesn't address or refute one thing I've said.

Second, as I said previously, we have facts and I illuminated those facts in a post made what, one or two posts ago? And I illuminated the logical deductions from those facts two or so posts ago but you do not want to discuss the facts but want to speculate instead.

 

[bhsmte]

I can't imagine under what circumstances where that would happen. I do know of a couple that owned a farm and rented it out for weddings and receptions. They refused to "open their door" to same sex marriage and were sued. As a result, they no longer will host weddings on their property. There do seem to be circumstances where a business owner should have the right to refuse service someone if it truly violates their conscience.

I am not sure I follow, it has already happened.

What circumstances do you feel would be justifiable reasons, to refuse service in a public business, to the public?

Also, if refusing service is allowed based on the religious beliefs of a business owner, do you feel the business owner has the responsibility to forewarn the public who would be refused, since they opened their doors to the public?

 

[bhsmte]

This is what separates you and I.n I like facts. I'm not going to guess an answer to your question. As I stated previously, your entire example of a Christian bake and divorce and remarriage was speculative. I'm not going to participate in your speculation.

Knock yourself out with speculative scenarios but your speculation doesn't address or refute one thing I've said.

Second, as I said previously, we have facts and I illuminated those facts in a post made what, one or two posts ago? And I illuminated the logical deductions from those facts two or so posts ago but you do not want to discuss the facts but want to speculate instead.

You can't answer whether Christian business owners do in fact disagree on what they perceive as a sin they would refuse service for?

Gotcha, nothing further needed.