This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

[Quartermaine]

No, you cannot.

why not?

such comparisons are internally consistent with your position
you can't view such comparisons as humiliating or insulting or dehumanizing as it is "simply rejecting someone's business".
You would certainly support business owners as it would be wrong to use the power of the law or the courts because as you have said, it woudl be morally wrong to "force them to do something they didn't want to do."
And you have made it clear that just because a business owner doesn't want to "associate with certain practices, it doesn't mean he doesn't do any kind of business with any person." Practices like having a mixed race storefront or catering to an event like an interracial marriage.

You're still referring to discriminating against people rather than events, or choosing which actions to engage in.

the wedding venue owner in Jackson Mississippi refused that couple because of they event they wanted not because of who they were.

 

[Quartermaine]

I lived during those times, and we are talking about something different. There was no signs in this article, or people of color.

How about we stay on the subject. The subject was compelled speech.

Why are you diverting? That is what this case - and the subject of the thread - is about.

when various court cases like Brown v. the Board of education or Loving v. Virginia or with the passage of civil rights legislation ended the practice of segregation the business owners who proudly displayed "white only" signs at their shops where subject to "compelled speech".

It may be fifty years later but the issue is still the same as is the justification and the result.

One can try to pretend that the current justification for discrimination is because of "events" but not people but the same claim can be said for racial discrimination. The refusal of Jackson business owner was because of the event, not anyone's skin color.

 

[creslaw]

The conflation of race & sexuality is spurious because one is about an observable biological characteristic while the other is defined by feelings & behaviour. Jesus said we are not to judge people (Luke 6:37) but we are to judge behaviour (John 7:24).

There are differences of opinion about whether a business is "participating" in a sinful activity or not by providing custom made products - obviously those who have declined see it as participating - but there should be no difference concerning the sinfulness of the event itself because it clearly blasphemes Scriptural teaching on the spiritual significance of marriage.

The defence for those declining to co-operate with or contribute to the celebration of a same sex wedding refers to freedom of speech as well as the free exercise of religious belief. (Kristen Waggoner, ADF attorney)

Businesses have always had the right to decline to be involved with events that conflict with their moral & ethical values, unless the refusal is based on discrimination against a legislated class of people.

By recognizing that a business which declines to contribute its services to a same sex wedding does so on the basis of the type of event, not the class of people, same sex weddings will still be accommodated as will the free exercise of religion. The crusade to punish those who choose not to be involved derives from an aggressive hostility towards traditional Christianity evident in many other aspects of society today.

 

[Quartermaine]

The conflation of race & sexuality is spurious because one is about an observable biological characteristic while the other is defined by feelings & behaviour. Jesus said we are not to judge people (Luke 6:37) but we are to judge behaviour (John 7:24).

It is worth noting that racists have no issue with an individuals skin color. Bringing toe mind the infamous statement "some of my best friends are..." Racists take issue only when it comes to behavior and blacks overstep their social roles and begin acting or behaving like social equals to whites. (the get uppity)

This same attitude can be observed when it comes to homosexuals. Few have a problem with their (theoretical) existence but take issue when they stop hiding and start participating is society as if they have some sort of right to do so. IE the gays get uppity.

With both blacks and gays the problem is not staying in their place.

There are differences of opinion about whether a business is "participating" in a sinful activity or not by providing custom made products - obviously those who have declined see it as participating - but there should be no difference concerning the sinfulness of the event itself because it clearly blasphemes Scriptural teaching on the spiritual significance of marriage.

The defence for those declining to co-operate with or contribute to the celebration of a same sex wedding refers to freedom of speech as well as the free exercise of religious belief. (Kristen Waggoner, ADF attorney)

The defence for those declining to co-operate with or contribute to the celebration of an interracial wedding refers to freedom of speech as well as the free exercise of religious belief.

Businesses have always had the right to decline to be involved with events that conflict with their moral & ethical values, unless the refusal is based on discrimination against a legislated class of people.

By recognizing that a business which declines to contribute its services to a same sex wedding does so on the basis of the type of event, not the class of people, same sex weddings will still be accommodated as will the free exercise of religion. The crusade to punish those who choose not to be involved derives from an aggressive hostility towards traditional Christianity evident in many other aspects of society today.

By recognizing that a business which declines to contribute its services to an interracial wedding does so on the basis of the type of event, not the class of people, interracial weddings will still be accommodated as will the free exercise of religion.

 

[creslaw]

It is worth noting that racists have no issue with an individuals skin color. Bringing toe mind the infamous statement "some of my best friends are..." Racists take issue only when it comes to behavior and blacks overstep their social roles and begin acting or behaving like social equals to whites. (the get uppity)

This same attitude can be observed when it comes to homosexuals. Few have a problem with their (theoretical) existence but take issue when they stop hiding and start participating is society as if they have some sort of right to do so. IE the gays get uppity.

With both blacks and gays the problem is not staying in their place.

That is to completely misrepresent the situation. Homosexuals are welcome customers for every event except the one that is intrinsic to traditional Christianity.

It seems that there are some who do not understand the role of marriage according to Scriptural teaching and how central it is to the Gospel. It is not just that marriage is sacred, but marriage has limited & specific qualifications that have spiritual significance. Contravening these qualifications involves Christian business owners in violating their conscience and blaspheming their faith. For this reason many are prepared to sacrifice their livelihood - for them it is not a matter of they won't comply, it is that they can't.

The argument is not that homosexuals should not get married if they want to - most businesses are willing to refer clients to other service providers - but rather that people with traditional Christian views be permitted to practice their faith according to their conscience.

 

[Quartermaine]

That is to completely misrepresent the situation. Homosexuals are welcome customers for every event except the one that is intrinsic to traditional Christianity.

the first problem with this is that marriage is not intrinsic to Christianity
Marriage is culturally universal
Marriage predates Christianity
Marriage was not a sacrament or a matter of much concern of Christianity until the middle ages

It seems that there are some who do not understand the role of marriage according to Scriptural teaching and how central it is to the Gospel. It is not just that marriage is sacred, but marriage has limited & specific qualifications that have spiritual significance. Contravening these qualifications involves Christian business owners in violating their conscience and blaspheming their faith. For this reason many are prepared to sacrifice their livelihood - for them it is not a matter of they won't comply, it is that they can't.

all of which applies to interracial marriage.

The argument is not that homosexuals should not get married if they want to - most businesses are willing to refer clients to other service providers - but rather that people with traditional Christian views be permitted to practice their faith according to their conscience.

Just as those whose faith and conscience reject the idea of racial equality should be permitted to deny services to blacks

 

[JackRT]

Marriage was not a sacrament or a matter of much concern of Christianity until the middle ages

It was not until the eleventh century that the Christian Church mandated that Christians be married in a church wedding. Marriage is a covenant between two consenting adults who love each other and wish to live together exclusively for life. To me, that is something to be celebrated.

 

[Aldebaran]

why not?

Since you quoted a portion of my post, you should read the words beyond the portion that you quoted for the reason as to "why not". Then you'll know why not.

such comparisons are internally consistent with your position
you can't view such comparisons as humiliating or insulting or dehumanizing as it is "simply rejecting someone's business".
You would certainly support business owners as it would be wrong to use the power of the law or the courts because as you have said, it woudl be morally wrong to "force them to do something they didn't want to do."
And you have made it clear that just because a business owner doesn't want to "associate with certain practices, it doesn't mean he doesn't do any kind of business with any person." Practices like having a mixed race storefront or catering to an event like an interracial marriage.
the wedding venue owner in Jackson Mississippi refused that couple because of they event they wanted not because of who they were.

You're still referring to racial issues. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[Aldebaran]

It was not until the eleventh century that the Christian Church mandated that Christians be married in a church wedding. Marriage is a covenant between two consenting adults who love each other and wish to live together exclusively for life. To me, that is something to be celebrated.

The scriptures are more specific about who is involved.

Genesis 2:24
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

 

[Quartermaine]

Since you quoted a portion of my post, you should read the words beyond the portion that you quoted for the reason as to "why not". Then you'll know why not.



You're still referring to racial issues. That's not what this thread is about.

it's about discrimination and how the defense you keep bringing up also justifies racism and discrimination against most any minority. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is the truth and the truth doesn't just go away because you stamp your feet.

 

[Aldebaran]

it's about discrimination and how the defense you keep bringing up also justifies racism and discrimination against most any minority. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is the truth and the truth doesn't just go away because you stamp your feet.

Why didn't you mention anything against discrimination against people based on religion or personal beliefs? Why is always skin color that you insist upon talking about?
But yes, it's discrimination, but people need to be able to discriminate. But do you know what the meaning of that word is? It means to recognize a distinction; differentiate. I know it has it's more political meaning, but the English language doesn't bow down to political twisting. There is still such a thing as truth.

 

[Quartermaine]

Why didn't you mention anything against discrimination against people based on religion or personal beliefs? Why is always skin color that you insist upon talking about?

i offered that in post #133 and you wanted nothing to do with it.

have you changed your mind?

But yes, it's discrimination, but people need to be able to discriminate. But do you know what the meaning of that word is? It means to recognize a distinction; differentiate. I know it has it's more political meaning, but the English language doesn't bow down to political twisting. There is still such a thing as truth.

and the truth is you are trying (badly) to play word games, specifically equivocation.
Equivocation is the using a homonym, a word with multiple unrelated definitions, and wrongly applying one of that word's definitions to make a misleading claim.


Do you really think there any posts in the last several pages of this thread where anyone used the word discrimination as a synonym for discernment? Of course not, you aren't stupid. But why do you think everyone involved in or reading this thread would be stupid enough to think exactly that?

 

[AACJ]

And if the business owner feels that because of his/her beliefs they can't provide services to black people? Would it be respectful for this business owner to put a sign in the window say "no coloreds"

Strawman.

 

[AACJ]

The argument justifying the actions of the business owner works in justifying discrimination against any minority.

Maybe you are looking at the wrong arguments.

 

[AACJ]

...I don't believe we should discriminate against other people as Christians, even if we don't agree with their personal choices or lifestyle.

So do believe that a business owner should be legally compelled to create a product that conveys a message glorifying evil/sin?

 

[Quartermaine]

Strawman.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".


I didn't refute anything, I asked a pertinent and uncomfortable question. One that you've avoided answering.

 

[Quartermaine]

Maybe you are looking at the wrong arguments.

Lets examine that claim.

the argument is that a business owner has the right to refuse service to certain individuals based on the business owner's religious beliefs.

Bussiness owner: "I don't hate (X), i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically (Y)." (note that the beliefs are those of the business owner, not yours or mine or any other person.)

Now lets provide names for X and Y

"I don't hate gays, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically same sex marriage."

"I don't hate interracial couples, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically interracial marriage."

"I don't hate blacks, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically racial equality."

"I don't hate Jews, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically religious equality."

"I don't hate Muslims, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically non-Christian marriage."

I could go on...

Same argument each with different minorities and saying exactly the same thing and all working to justify the same thing

 

[GACfan]

So do believe that a business owner should be legally compelled to create a product that conveys a message glorifying evil/sin?

I've already shared my opinion on this issue in a couple of my earlier posts in this thread.

The most reasonable and compassionate Christian response I have seen so far regarding Christians interacting with same-sex couples in a public business was on this site a few days ago. I won't divulge who the member is or mention the thread because I don't think it's necessary to do so. I have never seen a better Christian response in reference to homosexuals before I read this comment or since.

"I think homosexuality is a sin. I’ve made that pretty clear on these forums. But I’d never do that. I’d bake the cake. I’d give the ride. If that’s my job, I’d do it. I might preach the gospel. But I’d perform the service that is my business."

If a Christian feels that he or she can't fully serve homosexuals in their public business because they feel it would violate their conscience (while they willingly serve many other sinners), then they need to find another place of employment and humbly remove themselves from the public eye.

Gay American citizens, as well as other LGBT American citizens, should have the same civil rights and equality as straight American citizens. Gay and other LGBT American citizens should not be denied civil rights and encounter religious based discrimination because some Christian or some other person of faith doesn't agree with the sexual lifestyle of that gay person or other LGBT person.

I don't personally agree with the lifestyle of a person who has been divorced and remarried multiple times, but I wouldn't refuse to serve that person or their current spouse if I owned a public business.

I don't personally agree with the lifestyle of a straight couple who is living together in daily sin before they are married, but I wouldn't refuse to serve that couple if I owned a public business.

I don't personally agree with the lifestyle of someone that I know to be an habitually liar (lying is also an abomination to God), but I wouldn't refuse to serve that person if I owned a public business.

I don't personally agree with the lifestyle of a person who is obese and grossly overweight (gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins), but I wouldn't refuse to serve that person if I owned a public business.

As a Christian, I wouldn't single out certain sinners and refuse them service while I willingly served every other sinner under the sun with no moral confliction whatsoever if I owned a public business.

​

 

[Aldebaran]

and the truth is you are trying (badly) to play word games, specifically equivocation.
Equivocation is the using a homonym, a word with multiple unrelated definitions, and wrongly applying one of that word's definitions to make a misleading claim.

Discrimination means what it means. It used to be commonly used as referring to discernment, and yet when someone actually uses it to discern, then the political definition ends up being used against the one who used discernment. That's the real wordplay that's going on, and it's being used to keep people from discerning, which just happens to be what we're supposed to be doing.

Do you really think there any posts in the last several pages of this thread where anyone used the word discrimination as a synonym for discernment? Of course not, you aren't stupid. But why do you think everyone involved in or reading this thread would be stupid enough to think exactly that?

If you'd rather I use the word "discern" in place of discriminate (which by definition, means the same exact thing), then let me know.

 

[Aldebaran]

Lets examine that claim.

the argument is that a business owner has the right to refuse service to certain individuals based on the business owner's religious beliefs.

Bussiness owner: "I don't hate (X), i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically (Y)." (note that the beliefs are those of the business owner, not yours or mine or any other person.)

Now lets provide names for X and Y

"I don't hate gays, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically same sex marriage."

"I don't hate interracial couples, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically interracial marriage."

"I don't hate blacks, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically racial equality."

"I don't hate Jews, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically religious equality."

"I don't hate Muslims, i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically non-Christian marriage."

I could go on...

Same argument each with different minorities and saying exactly the same thing and all working to justify the same thing

The problem here starts right at the very beginning. You start out by saying, "the argument is that a business owner has the right to refuse service to certain individuals based on the business owner's religious beliefs."

Then everything you said beyond that is based on this false assumption. If the assumption you're making about our argument is faulty, then your argument against it is based on a false assumption.

The actual argument is that a Christian should not have to violate their beliefs and be forced to do something under penalty of law. There are many examples that be put forth other than having to bake or decorate a cake that they know is for celebrating a homosexual "wedding", but then my post would be considered off-topic.