Liberal and Conservative

[Belk]

You mean to discriminate against the business owners choice to go against their conscience when the client can find service from like minded retailers. Again the business owner wouldn’t be denying the customer service only drawing a line with particsipating in their beliefs. Forcing the owner to participate in advancing a statement they don’t want to state is a violation of their freedom of speech on the flip side of the same coin.

No, I mean anti discrimination laws that prohibit you from determining what customers you will serve based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. Your religion is not an excuse to break the law and multiple court cases have sided that it is not unconstitutional to limit discrimination.

 

[Belk]

But did the baker care about YOUR opinion?

You are only one side of the issue here.

Since the baker is prohibited by law from discriminating based on sexual preference their opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Belk]

You don't get to equate behaviors that are unseen with race, that is always seen. You can't even tell who the former are, unless they tell you. False equivalency.

No, it is not a false equivalency. Sexual orientation is as innate as skin color and the only people who have homosexual weddings are homosexuals. Trying to change the focus to the event rather then the participants was already addressed by the courts. Both types of discrimination are covered by the same law.

 

[Tigger45]

No, I mean anti discrimination laws that prohibit you from determining what customers you will serve based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. Your religion is not an excuse to break the law and multiple court cases have sided that it is not unconstitutional to limit discrimination.

Please read before responding. Again, all persons are to be served. Services are not unlimited especially when trying to get the owner to engage in promoting their propaganda when it goes against the owners conscience. Don’t know how many different ways I can state it.

 

[Belk]

Please read before responding. Again, all persons are to be served. Services are not unlimited especially when trying to get the owner to engage in promoting their propaganda when it goes against the owners conscience. Don’t know how many different ways I can state it.

I did read before responding. If I missed something then I apologize but it appears you are continuing to make the same argument. In this particular case making a wedding cake is the service offered. Since it is an offered service the courts have ruled you do not get to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. The only way around this is to not offer the service of making wedding cakes.

 

[Tigger45]

I did read before responding. If I missed something then I apologize but it appears you are continuing to make the same argument. In this particular case making a wedding cake is the service offered. Since it is an offered service the courts have ruled you do not get to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. The only way around this is to not offer the service of making wedding cakes.

No its not discrimination because all businesses limit the services they provide in one way or another.

I was at a buffet the other night and noticed they offer steaks, salads, desserts, Mexican and Chinese foods but no Soul food. Wow better call the P.C. Police!

 

[Belk]

No its not discrimination because all businesses limit the services they provide in one way or another.

I was at a buffet the other night and noticed they offer steaks, salads, desserts, Mexican and Chinese foods but no Soul food. Wow better call the P.C. Police!

If you provide a service you can not discriminate who gets that service based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. If you make wedding cakes you can't claim that not making them for homosexuals is limiting your service. That is against the law and has been ruled against by the courts.

Your buffet example is not analogous because they do not offer soul food to anyone. If the buffet offered soul food but only African Americans were allowed to purchase it then you would have an analogous situation.

 

[Tigger45]

If you provide a service you can not discriminate who gets that service based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. If you make wedding cakes you can't claim that not making them for homosexuals is limiting your service. That is against the law and has been ruled against by the courts.

Your buffet example is not analogous because they do not offer soul food to anyone. If the buffet offered soul food but only African Americans were allowed to purchase it then you would have an analogous situation.

No because a bakery can offer services to homosexuals without committing to all of their choices of slogans and/or propaganda.

Just like at the buffet. African Americans are provived service but their cultural food group may not be offered.

 

[Belk]

No because a bakery can offer services to homosexuals without committing to all of their choices of slogans and/or propaganda.

Just like at the buffet. African Americans are provived service but their cultural food group may not be offered.

No, that is not how the law works which is why bakeries keep having the decision against them in court.

 

[RDKirk]

There is an obvious, I think, rift in the Protestant Church. There are conservatives, who apparently believe the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And there are liberals, who seem to believe we are bound to nothing the Bible says. Has anyone ever wondered if there is some middle ground?

You could start by honestly stating the situation instead of leading off with a falsehood.

What liberal Christians "believe we are bound to nothing the Bible says?" I expect you have two or three witnesses to that effect.

 

[RDKirk]

No because a bakery can offer services to homosexuals without committing to all of their choices of slogans and/or propaganda.

Just like at the buffet. African Americans are provived service but their cultural food group may not be offered.

The difference is that the buffet does not customize its service for anyone.

Notice that McDonalds has no such problem, either.

 

[RDKirk]

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

Some do.

Then another segment simply doesn't believe that it's the role of the Body of Christ to fix the Roman Empire.

 

[RDKirk]

...but I do take it very seriously as a document which is God-breathed and which tells us everything we need for a salvific relationship with God.

Well, that is all that scripture actually claims for itself.

 

[RDKirk]

The Lord had a reason for commanding us to be sexually chaste. We may or may not understand the reason, but he knows what is best for us, and as we are taught, all sin leads to death.

The Lord had a reason for commanding us never to cut their forelocks or the edges of our beards. We may or may not understand the reason, but He knows what's best for us, and as we are taught, all sin leads to death.

 

[Dave-W]

he Lord had a reason for commanding us never to cut their forelocks or the edges of our beards.

"Us?" I did not know you were Jewish.

 

[RDKirk]

Not so sure about this. I think about people in the USA who indiscriminately sell guns.

Hopefully no pagans put any of the tents that Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila sold to any unrighteous purposes.

And I would suppose that the Christian slaves and wives among the Corinthians took special care not to be the slaves or wives of any pagans, so they wouldn't have to contribute in any way to those pagan lifestyles.

 

[RDKirk]

"Us?" I did not know you were Jewish.

Dreadnought--the person I was responding to--has not indicated any way he determines which laws of the Torah apply only to Jews and which apply to "everyone."

 

[Tigger45]

The difference is that the buffet does not customize its service for anyone.

Notice that McDonalds has no such problem, either.

Not tue. First you can order your steak rare to well done and second they will throw together a multitude of ingredients to your order “within what they offer” on their wok and stir fry to your hearts content.

 

[RDKirk]

The cultural and ceremonial laws that pertained to Israelites before the New Covenant are not applicable after the veil was torn. We aren't sacrificing sheep either or celebrating the Feast Days in the same manner. We aren't unclean after sex or after birth or after an illness or infection. We don't do a number of things that Israel did that were cultural. All of these expired after Jesus fulfilled the law.

Sexual immorality is proscribed for all time, for everyone, not just Jews before the New Covenant. They were and remain abominations. Leviticus 18 proscriptions are all mentioned again in the New Testament.

According to your logic, it would now be equally fine to engage in bestiality, incest, and offering children to Molech, all proscribed in the very same sections that proscribe homosexuality.

What is your calculus for drawing that line?

I know what my calculus is--the means by which I can say that homosexuality is forbidden to Christians but cheeseburgers are not--but what is your means for drawing that line?

 

[RDKirk]

I don't see any significant difference between a widget and a cake. If you'd make a cake for a straight couple, then you need to be prepared to make an identical cake (not a cake with explicit messages with which you disagree) for a gay couple. Or admit that you're not in the right business for your conscience.

In that case, the baker needs to restrict his customization. Have a catalog of standard cake sayings and sell only cakes with the catalog messages to anyone who walks through the door.