This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Discrimination means what it means.
and as in the case of all homonyms that meaning is determined by context.

In the sentence: "The baseball player used his favorite bat to hit a home run." we know from context that the word bat here is not referring to a flying mammal.

The meaning of discrimination in this thread is just as contextually based and means unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. And you know it.

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.


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.
Why would i want you to continue your equivocation?



and just a bump of the question you ignored: 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?
 
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
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.

We can use this wording if you like:

It's badly worded and doesn't actually represent the legal and social situation. First this involves businesses and their interaction with the public.
Second the particular religion has nothing to do with it. Unless you wish to claim that one religious group has special rights others do not.


the argument is that a business owner should not have to violate their beliefs and be forced to do something, specifically provide services in their business, under penalty of law.


Business owner: "I don't hate (X), i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious violate my personal beliefs and provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically (Y)."

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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically non-Christian marriage."



Same argument each with different minorities and saying exactly the same thing and all working to justify the same thing
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I've already shared my opinion on this issue in a couple of my earlier posts in this thread.


You are conflating issues left and right and making straw-man arguments left and right. Not creating a product that conveys a godless message is not the same as creating a product that does no such thing.
 
Upvote 0

GACfan

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,958
2,257
Texas
✟77,930.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"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."

That is not my personal quote. It was posted by another member and I decided to share it here in this thread. Like I said, it is the most reasonable and compassionate response I have seen so far regarding Christians interacting with same-sex couples in a public business. And in my second post that I also linked beforehand, I gave some specific examples of how I personally agree with that quote.

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.

I would like to add another example to my previous list...

I don't personally agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I wouldn't refuse to serve a same-sex couple if I owned a public bakery or professional photo studio. I would bake the wedding cake or take the wedding photos, if that's my job. I might share the Gospel, but I would perform the service that is my business. I wouldn't single out gay couples if I served straight couples who were divorced and remarried or who were living together in sin before they were married.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
It's a problem because of anti-discrimination laws. It's a problem because Christians aren't above the law. Christians shouldn't be allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws while other American citizens are legally forced to obey these laws. It's a problem because LGBT American citizens shouldn't have to deal with religious based prejudice and discrimination just as African-American citizens (and other minority American citizens) shouldn't have to deal with racially based bigotry and discrimination.

If a Christian is allowed to discriminate against a same-sex couple, then that could open the door to more of this: Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings' and I don't want to the United States of America to begin reverting back to the era before the Civil Rights Movement.

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 conflict whatsoever if I owned a public business.

So I presume you have no problem creating a product that glorifies sin. So on the extreme end, you are a business owner and someone walks in and asks you to create a product that conveys a blatant white supremacists message. Would you produce that product?

Would you cater to a white supremacist event which sole purpose is to advance the white supremacists agenda? Should a car rental agency rent a vehicle to someone they know will use that car to run down a crowd of people? If you say no, then you would be acknowledging that the use of a product or service is in fact a necessary factor in determining the morality of producing a product or providing a service. Regardless of a court misinterpreting Title VII, you literately have presented no sound argument. That is one of the major problems with the people fighting against the agenda of the Christian business owners being persecuted for their actions, they have no sound arguments.

Your comparisons in the above referenced post fail as well. Why? Because none of those examples demonstrate that a product will definitely be used to glorify sin. A gay-themed cake certainly will. Neither is there sufficient similarity, for the presupposes of your argument, between providing a necessity, such as food in restaurant, and providing a cake for an event (homosexual wedding) which glorifies sin (two food products for different purposes). The only one of your comparisons examples that comes close of course is the one pertaining to divorce, and of course there are conditions for biblically sanctioned divorce. There is no biblical sanction for homosexual practice.

You are throwing everything together without important distinctions and ignoring the reduction to absurdity and contradiction that your satements inevitably lead to. You have just made a series of claims, not arguments.

You could only begin to have a sound argument if homosexual practice is biblically sanctioned. Is that your position?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
"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."

That is not my personal quote. It was posted by another member and I decided to share it here in this thread. Like I said, it is the most reasonable and compassionate response I have seen so far regarding Christians interacting with same-sex couples in a public business. And in my second post that I also linked beforehand, I gave some specific examples of how I personally agree with that quote.

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.

I would like to add another example to my previous list...

I don't personally agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I wouldn't refuse to serve a same-sex couple if I owned a public bakery or professional photo studio. I would bake the wedding cake or take the wedding photos, if that's my job. I might share the Gospel, but I would perform the service that is my business. I wouldn't single out gay couples if I served straight couples who were divorced and remarried or who were living together in sin before they were married.​
Stop hedging, please. Would you provide a product that specifically conveys a blatant and clear message that glorifies sin?
 
Upvote 0

creslaw

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 20, 2015
1,137
1,183
78
✟171,835.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is always rather shocking to see those who call themselves Christians persecuting other Christians to the extent that they would destroy their livelihood, depriving their families and employees of income.
But we know this must happen, and will continue to get worse, because it is the nature of the beast to prevent faithful believers from being able to trade (Rev 13:17)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
It's a problem because of anti-discrimination laws. It's a problem because Christians aren't above the law. Christians shouldn't be allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws while other American citizens are legally forced to obey these laws....
More unsound reasoning. Of course Christians can defy law, court orders, and case law when they are unconstitutional. People do that quite frequently all over the country.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
It is always rather shocking to see those who call themselves Christians persecuting other Christians to the extent that they would destroy their livelihood, depriving their families and employees of income.
But we know this must happen, and will continue to get worse, because it is the nature of the beast to prevent faithful believers from being able to trade (Rev 13:17)

The road to destruction and chaos is lined with those who actually believe they are doing righteously.

John 16:2

There are few things more destructive than zeal without knowledge and righteous acts, so called.

I disagree with your last part. Things do not have to degrade morally in the nation. The Colorado case was won. There are other victories. We have a president fighting against this non-sense as well. We will make progress as long as we stop believing the fallacy of inevitable decline prior to the 1 Thess. 4:17 event.

How can we make progress if we continue with believing that things must get worse morally?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So I presume you have no problem creating a product that glorifies sin. So on the extreme end, you are a business owner and someone walks in and asks you to create a product that conveys a blatant white supremacists message. Would you produce that product?

Would you cater to a white supremacist event which sole purpose is to advance the white supremacists agenda? Should a car rental agency rent a vehicle to someone they know will use that car to run down a crowd of people? If you say no, then you would be acknowledging that the use of a product or service is in fact a necessary factor in determining the morality of producing a product or providing a service. Regardless of a court misinterpreting Title VII, you literately have presented no sound argument. That is one of the major problems with the people fighting against the agenda of the Christian business owners being persecuted for their actions, they have no sound arguments.

Your comparisons in the above referenced post fail as well. Why? Because none of those examples demonstrate that a product will definitely be used to glorify sin. A gay-themed cake certainly will. Neither is there sufficient similarity, for the presupposes of your argument, between providing a necessity, such as food in restaurant, and providing a cake for an event (homosexual wedding) which glorifies sin (two food products for different purposes). The only one of your comparisons examples that comes close of course is the one pertaining to divorce, and of course there are conditions for biblically sanctioned divorce. There is no biblical sanction for homosexual practice.

You are throwing everything together without important distinctions and ignoring the reduction to absurdity and contradiction that your satements inevitably lead to. You have just made a series of claims, not arguments.

You could only begin to have a sound argument if homosexual practice is biblically sanctioned. Is that your position?


if you are looking to denounce a strawman argument, you would do well to start with your post here
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

creslaw

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 20, 2015
1,137
1,183
78
✟171,835.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The road to destruction and chaos is lined with those who actually believe they are doing righteously.

John 16:2

There are few things more destructive than zeal without knowledge and righteous acts, so called.

I disagree with your last part. Things do not have to degrade morally in the nation. The Colorado case was won. There are other victories. We have a president fighting against this non-sense as well. We will make progress as long as we stop believing the fallacy of inevitable decline prior to the 1 Thess. 4:17 event.

How can we make progress if we continue with believing that things must get worse morally?
There is also the victory in Arizona last Monday:
Arizona Supreme Court says artists have right to decline same-sex wedding creations

However, I wonder how many victories there will be under a Democrat president which could be in little over a year.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
There is also the victory in Arizona last Monday:
Arizona Supreme Court says artists have right to decline same-sex wedding creations

However, I wonder how many victories there will be under a Democrat president which could be in little over a year.
A Dem in office is a big concern of course, but I believe there will be no democrat in office if the Church fulfills its duty and mandate to be the Salt and Light of the Earth. The extent to which God Almighty will literally alter the minds of the Godless is staggering (2 Chronicles 20:1-29). If only real Christians will stand on this and not limit God.

Thanks for posting the Arizona link. Just came across that one. Praise God.

We just have to believe. God has chosen to largely work through the prayers of the His people. Look at the verses in my signature, please, That is how He has ordained it to be. No true good will come forth in society unless God brings it forth through His saints. If such does not come forth, it is largely the Churches fault.

We should keep it in mind that as long as Moses kept the staff held up, Israel prevailed in the day of battle. The staff has been half lowered for decades now, due largely to errant eschatology. I believe that has changed, as evidence by the 2016 elections.
 
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GACfan

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,958
2,257
Texas
✟77,930.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
will you think it a victory when someone uses this ruling to discriminate against African american's or Jews or the handicapped?

It seems that the overall and popular consensus among the majority of conservatives is that as long as these people aren't gay, then it's all good. They could be divorced and remarried or remarried to a former mistress, have multiple affairs or have an affair with a inappropriate content star, sexually grope the opposite sex, habitually tell lies, use vulgar profanity to describe their sexual exploits, and viciously insult and mock the people they despise. All these sins can be overlooked as long as the people aren't gay.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
and as in the case of all homonyms that meaning is determined by context.

In the sentence: "The baseball player used his favorite bat to hit a home run." we know from context that the word bat here is not referring to a flying mammal.

The meaning of discrimination in this thread is just as contextually based and means unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. And you know it.

The word, whether used in its meaning as defined in a dictionary or a politicians playbook mean pretty much the same thing. It simply means discerning, or seeing a difference, and then making a choice. It's something that we all do. The political definition simply restricts it to discerning a difference in a person based on race or other politically convenient distinction, and then making a choice. The users of the political definition are the ones who like to conflate the two and then label people for it.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
We can use this wording if you like:

It's badly worded and doesn't actually represent the legal and social situation. First this involves businesses and their interaction with the public.
Second the particular religion has nothing to do with it. Unless you wish to claim that one religious group has special rights others do not.


the argument is that a business owner should not have to violate their beliefs and be forced to do something, specifically provide services in their business, under penalty of law.


Business owner: "I don't hate (X), i'm happy to serve them but i can't in good conscious violate my personal beliefs and provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically (Y)."

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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and 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 violate my personal beliefs and provide them with a product that I personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda specifically non-Christian marriage."

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

And if a particular business owner held one of these views, then the people seeking this particular business's services has the freedom of going to whichever business gives them the service they desire. That's the great thing about a free market.
BTW, your second, third, fourth and fifth examples are based on false ideas.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
will you think it a victory when someone uses this ruling to discriminate against African american's or Jews or the handicapped?

If a Christian decides not to serve a handicapped person for no other reason than that he's handicapped (and claims the bible says somewhere that handicapped people are not to be associated with or whatever), then the specifics can be discussed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It seems that the overall and popular consensus among the majority of conservatives is that as long as these people aren't gay, then it's all good. They could be divorced and remarried or remarried to a former mistress, have multiple affairs or have an affair with a inappropriate content star, sexually grope the opposite sex, habitually tell lies, use vulgar profanity to describe their sexual exploits, and viciously insult and mock the people they personally despise. All these sins can be overlooked as long as they're not gay.

Again, that's a false assumption.
Let's take one of your many examples. If a person who used vulgar profanity to describe their sexual exploits wanted went to a bake shop owned by a Christian and wanted a cake made with an inscription that contained that kind of language, the owner may very well decline to do it. That should be their right as well. Same goes for if a customer of whatever color or sex wanted a cake with with white supremacist language on it.
 
Upvote 0