Christian businesses being forced to go against religious beliefs--possible solution?

tulc · May 11, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Since you want to join in, then how about doing it constructively by answering what I said rather than blathering?

well, since you asked so nicely.

Do you think a person's sexual desires is equal to their skin color?

Probably not in the way you think I mean, but yeah I do. :wave:

That's what RDkirk seems to think. Do you agree with his views?

I don't know if I do or not, I will say I tend to end up on the same side as RDKirk on a lot of issues so it's possible.

tulc(still believes he could really use more coffee at this time)

smaneck · May 11, 2015

tulc said:
tulc(still believes he could really use more coffee at this time)

You'll be up all night, tulc.

Skaloop · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
If the argument is precisely the same, then obviously things haven't really changed, have they?

But in fact, it's not the same. In the past, black people weren't liked because they had just recently been freed from slavery and were starting to take the place of white people in society (working jobs, owning homes, taking positions of authority, etc.) and some people didn't like it. So the Democrats of the time formed the KKK as a terrorist arm of their party The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Ku Klux Klan | PBS

This is getting off the subject again, but I wanted to address your comparison about a baker not being willing to be an accessory to homosexual weddings and terrorism against people of color and show you how they are nothing alike.

There's where you're wrong. They are very much similar.

In the past, gay people weren't liked because they were starting to be openly gay and were taking the place of straight people (kissing in public, adopting children, getting married, etc.) and some people didn't like it. So the Republicans of the time formed the WBC as a terrorist arm of their party.

That's what your grandchildren (or, hopefully, children, if they are young enough) will be saying about your ilk in the future.

Bottom line is, you are on the losing end of history. You know how Ben Affleck was ashamed about the fact the his ancestors were slave owners? You're descendants will think the same of you, if they ever find out.

RDKirk · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Since you want to join in, then how about doing it constructively by answering what I said rather than blathering?

Do you think a person's sexual desires is equal to their skin color? That's what RDkirk seems to think. Do you agree with his views?

No, I said your argument was the same. You know that--stop obfuscating.

Your argument is that you should be allowed to do whatever your conscience justifies. There is no protection there from discrimination for any reason, and it has already been used for discrimination for race.

RDKirk · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
If the argument is precisely the same, then obviously things haven't really changed, have they?

I have learned over the past six years that for Boomers, no, the thinking has not changed. Boomers will have to die off.

But in fact, it's not the same. In the past, black people weren't liked because they had just recently been freed from slavery and were starting to take the place of white people in society (working jobs, owning homes, taking positions of authority, etc.) and some people didn't like it. So the Democrats of the time formed the KKK as a terrorist arm of their party The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Ku Klux Klan | PBS

This is getting off the subject again, but I wanted to address your comparison about a baker not being willing to be an accessory to homosexual weddings and terrorism against people of color and show you how they are nothing alike.

No, the situation was that the dominant culture was afraid of losing its dominance, so it suppressed what it thought might be competition. That's what's happening right now. That same dominant culture is even more afraid of losing its dominance. Same fear, same reaction, same argument...same group of people, in fact.

tulc · May 12, 2015

smaneck said:
You'll be up all night, tulc.

coffee helps me sleep...seriously.

tulc(is kind of weird) :sorry:

Savior2006 · May 12, 2015

tulc said:
coffee helps me sleep...seriously.
tulc(is kind of weird)

Coffee and e-cigarettes baby.

David Brider · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
An atheist would think this way. A Christian obeys an authority above man's law.

And a Christian who breaks man's law expects to face the consequences. Whether that's a fine, incarceration, or whatever.

David Brider · May 12, 2015

tulc said:
coffee helps me sleep...seriously.
tulc(is kind of weird)

You haven't been using decaf by mistake, have you?

David Brider · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Do you think a person's sexual desires is equal to their skin color?

Sexual orientation and skin colour are both innate characteristics and shouldn't be used by public accommodating businesses as an excuse to deny service to members of the public.

mafwons · May 12, 2015

David Brider said:
Sexual orientation and skin colour are both innate characteristics and shouldn't be used by public accommodating businesses as an excuse to deny service to members of the public.

Why? A sole propietorship should be able to serve or not serve anyone they please. I don't claim this is fair or good business practice, just how it should be.

TLK Valentine · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Yeah, and just think of how we could have been "not a black America, not a white America, but the United States of America" as Obama said.

Now imagine how we could be "not a bigoted America, not a homosexual America, but a United States of America."

But once again, this isn't about race. I'm sure you already knew that, but that doesn't get in the way of twisting a subject to suit your own needs.

it's about one group of people grasping onto whatever flimsy justification they can to treat those they don't like as second-class.

I'm sure you're ready now to twist that statement to make it sound like it's the homosexuals doing it to the poor, poor victimized Christians. Whatever you need to convince yourself, I suppose.

TLK Valentine · May 12, 2015

Aldebaran said:
If the argument is precisely the same, then obviously things haven't really changed, have they?

No, they haven't -- thank you for finally noticing.

But in fact, it's not the same. In the past, black people weren't liked because they had just recently been freed from slavery and were starting to take the place of white people in society (working jobs, owning homes, taking positions of authority, etc.) and some people didn't like it.

Now the homosexuals have just recently been freed from being stigmatized, ostracized, and even criminalized because of who they are, and are starting to take their rightful place in society.

So the Democrats of the time formed the KKK as a terrorist arm of their party

It's shameful the things that those Christians did -- at least what they're doing now hasn't gotten to that point... yet.

This is getting off the subject again, but I wanted to address your comparison about a baker not being willing to be an accessory to homosexual weddings and terrorism against people of color and show you how they are nothing alike.

For the record, you failed.

bhsmte · May 12, 2015

mafwons said:
Why? A sole propietorship should be able to serve or not serve anyone they please. I don't claim this is fair or good business practice, just how it should be.

Well, that is not the way it is, for public accommodating businesses.

You see, the United States has a history of moving towards assuring equal rights to the public in regards to public accommodating businesses. Many believe this is a good idea and a minority believes it isn't.

Of course, those who disagree with it, are free to challenge the laws through the legal process at any time.

mafwons · May 12, 2015

bhsmte said:
Well, that is not the way it is, for public accommodating businesses.

You see, the United States has a history of moving towards assuring equal rights to the public in regards to public accommodating businesses. Many believe this is a good idea and a minority believes it isn't.

Of course, those who disagree with it, are free to challenge the laws through the legal process at any time.

I have to imagine if phrased correctly nearly all would agree. Equality is not a right, and even if it were private businesses are not required to honor rights. Let's assume I have a returaunt and you wish to bring a firearm in, am I not free to reject your business, the government in this situation does not compel me to uphold your right to carry a firearm. This whole idea of public accomadation simply is not accurate, it is political activism that interfears with the free market, which is more than capable of leveling the playing field.

bhsmte · May 12, 2015

mafwons said:
I have to imagine if phrased correctly nearly all would agree. Equality is not a right, and even if it were private businesses are not required to honor rights. Let's assume I have a returaunt and you wish to bring a firearm in, am I not free to reject your business, the government in this situation does not compel me to uphold your right to carry a firearm. This whole idea of public accomadation simply is not accurate, it is political activism that interfears with the free market, which is more than capable of leveling the playing field.

It depends on the law.

Business owners are allowed to not allow customers to bring firearms into their stores, because states feel they have a compelling interest in allowing the same. Just as, a business owner can refuse to serve a customer who has no shirt or shoes on or is acting in a way that is disrespectful to the customers or business owner.

But, for any person, to simply walk into an establishment and be willing to pay for a product or service, that business owner commonly sells to their customers, is another story all together and the state feels their is a compelling interest to see that the public is served equally.

If you or others feel serving the public equally in public accommodating businesses is somehow unconstitutional, you are free to challenge the laws through the legal process and make your case.

mafwons · May 12, 2015

bhsmte said:
It depends on the law.

Business owners are allowed to not allow customers to bring firearms into their stores, because states feel they have a compelling interest in allowing the same. Just as, a business owner can refuse to serve a customer who has no shirt or shoes on or is acting in a way that is disrespectful to the customers or business owner.

But, for any person, to simply walk into an establishment and be willing to pay for a product or service, that business owner commonly sells to their customers, is another story all together and the state feels their is a compelling interest to see that the public is served equally.

If you or others feel serving the public equally in public accommodating businesses is somehow unconstitutional, you are free to challenge the laws through the legal process and make your case.

I have no need to challange those laws as I do not wish to deny anyone my services. I do however support the rights of tjose who do wish to deny service to some, I personally feel it is a foolish business practice.

RDKirk · May 12, 2015

mafwons said:
the free market, which is more than capable of leveling the playing field.

Actually, the "free market," left to itself, does no such thing.

mafwons · May 12, 2015

RDKirk said:
Actually, the "free market," left to itself, does no such thing.

Sure does, just because you don't like somthing does not change the facts.

bhsmte · May 12, 2015

mafwons said:
Sure does, just because you don't like somthing does not change the facts.

The facts are, there are pockets of the free market, that would discriminate against the public, if left to their own devices.

Plenty of opportunity for people to discriminate in private matters, to allow it to bleed over to matters involving public businesses and the public that has been asked to frequent those businesses, is not necessary for any society that values equality.

Christian businesses being forced to go against religious beliefs--possible solution?

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Baha'i

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Savior2006

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hi guys

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Hi guys

Newbie

Hi guys

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Hi guys

Newbie

Similar threads