This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
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.

on what planet is telling the difference between A and B the same as prejudicial or disadvantageous treatment of an individual because they are members of a minority?

It's something that we all do.

no it isn't. I don't want to restricts members of a minority from opportunities or privileges that are available to the majority. I don't support that and i don't cheer and defend that sort of sick behavior. I don't know any good person that would.

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.

A business putting a sign on a door saying:
a) NO BLACKS
b) NO GAYS
c) NO MUSLIMS
d) NO JEWS
e) NO HANDICAPPED

(take your pick)

Is not telling the difference between anyone skin color. They are engaging in an act hate. Period.

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
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.

no they are exactly the same.

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
on what planet is telling the difference between A and B the same as prejudicial or disadvantageous treatment of an individual because they are members of a minority?

no it isn't. I don't want to restricts members of a minority from opportunities or privileges that are available to the majority. I don't support that and i don't cheer and defend that sort of sick behavior. I don't know any good person that would.

A business putting a sign on a door saying:
a) NO BLACKS
b) NO GAYS
c) NO MUSLIMS
d) NO JEWS
e) NO HANDICAPPED

(take your pick)

Is not telling the difference between anyone skin color. They are engaging in an act hate. Period.

Instead of constantly repeating what my position (and others) have been on this subject, I would advise you to go back in the thread and read again what the position has been about this subject. In short, it is not about whether someone is gay or not. It is about a specific product or event.

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
no they are exactly the same.

Well, the last 4 examples are the same in that they're all based on a false premise.

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
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.

-No business owner would refuse to serve a handicapped person just because he is handicapped. Just like no Christian business owner would refuse to serve a homosexual just because he is gay.
But just like with the gays a business owner should be able to refuse service to a handicapped individual
if doing so would violate their personal beliefs and provide them with a product that they personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
Instead of constantly repeating what my position (and others) have been on this subject, I would advise you to go back in the thread and read again what the position has been about this subject. In short, it is not about whether someone is gay or not. It is about a specific product or event.

exactly why it doesn't matter what minority is put into your position it end up working equally well.

I.E. "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."

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
Well, the last 4 examples are the same in that they're all based on a false premise.

Please identify the false premise

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
-No business owner would refuse to serve a handicapped person just because he is handicapped. Just like no Christian business owner would refuse to serve a homosexual just because he is gay.
But just like with the gays a business owner should be able to refuse service to a handicapped individual
if doing so would violate their personal beliefs and provide them with a product that they personally believe promotes or glorifies sin or advances a godless agenda

I agree with this. Specifically, if a handicapped individual went to a Christian-owned bake shop and requested that a cake be made that is for celebrating a homosexual wedding, then the owner should be able to refuse that order if the owner believes that doing so is a personal validation or glorification of homosexual marriage. Also, if the handicapped (or black, or Muslim, etc.) came in and ordered a cake be made with a message of hate speech against a certain race of people, or celebrated Jihad, or called for exterminating Jews, he should be able to refuse these as well.

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
exactly why it doesn't matter what minority is put into your position it end up working equally well.

I.E. "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."

Now you're just making strawman arguments. Nobody is making the claim that racial equality is a godless agenda.

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
Please identify the false premise

Go back to post 178 and click to expand your quote. The false premise in each example is highlighted.

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
I agree with this. Specifically, if a handicapped individual went to a Christian-owned bake shop and requested that a cake be made that is for celebrating a homosexual wedding, then the owner should be able to refuse that order if the owner believes that doing so is a personal validation or glorification of homosexual marriage.

It doesn't matter what provided goods or service the handicapped person wants. If the business owner feels that selling them that service or thing woudl violate their deeply held religious belief then according to your position they should be free to turn that handicapped person away.

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
Now you're just making strawman arguments. Nobody is making the claim that racial equality is a godless agenda.

Please PLEASE PLEASE take two minutes and educate yourself as to just what a strawman is

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
Go back to post 178 and click to expand your quote. The false premise in each example is highlighted.

that is part of the business owner's belief system. They believe it true just like a business owner might believe that marriage is a godless agenda. If you want to say that such beliefs constitute a false premise then your own beliefs about same sex marriage also become a false premise

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
It doesn't matter what provided goods or service the handicapped person wants. If the business owner feels that selling them that service or thing woudl violate their deeply held religious belief then according to your position they should be free to turn that handicapped person away.

Then give me an example of a Christian belief you think someone could come up with to not serve a handicapped person regardless of what product or service they want. Then we can discuss it from there.

Aldebaran · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
that is part of the business owner's belief system. They believe it true just like a business owner might believe that marriage is a godless agenda. If you want to say that such beliefs constitute a false premise then your own beliefs about same sex marriage also become a false premise

Then you're inventing a fictional scenario that's not even realistic enough to discuss meaningfully.

Quartermaine · Sep 20, 2019

Aldebaran said:
Then you're inventing a fictional scenario that's not even realistic enough to discuss meaningfully.

they are realistic. deal with it.

AACJ · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
will you think it a victory when someone uses this ruling to discriminate against African american's or Jews or the handicapped?

Baseless sensationalism and grotesque exaggeration does nothing for what you are arguing for.

creslaw · Sep 20, 2019

Quartermaine said:
will you think it a victory when someone uses this ruling to discriminate against African american's or Jews or the handicapped?

I can understand why those who have little understanding of conservative Christianity have such puerile fears. Try not to believe the worst about people, friend.

It is interesting that a gay married man (Dale Carpenter) supported the recent decision by the Arizona Supreme Court on the grounds of free speech: "But those whose very calling is to put pen to paper should not be required–on pain of government-imposed fine, jail, or loss of their livelihoods–to speak in violation of their consciences."

He also supported the photographers who declined to photograph a lesbian wedding on the same grounds. However, he is not sympathetic to florists & bakers on the same grounds. Presumably he would agree with "government imposed fine, jail, or loss of livelihoods" in such cases ... and it seems so would you. From your side it looks like discrimination, from the other side it looks like persecution ... who suffers the most I wonder ...

creslaw · Sep 20, 2019

AACJ said:
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.
stand up for Biblical truth.
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.

Although I suspect our understanding of eschatology would differ quite markedly, I applaud your desire and efforts to stand up for Biblical truth about marriage. Ii is sad that more people do not understand the spiritual significance of "holy matrimony".

Quartermaine · Sep 21, 2019

AACJ said:
Baseless sensationalism and grotesque exaggeration does nothing for what you are arguing for.

Considering a wedding venue owner in Jackson Miss just refused services to an interracial couple it tough to claim that it is baseless.

why a exaggeration? can you point to any part of the ruling that prevents it from being used against som other minority?

This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Please Pray

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads