This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

Sorry, all this is just talking in circles and meaningless.
Going nowhere.
Done.

Quartermaine said:

I'll type this slowly ....please pay attention...gender is not orientation. The two are independent of each other.

what natural order ?

wait. Do you think that because i stand up to anti-gay hate and prejudice and discrimination that makes me gay?

I stand up to racial hate and prejudice and discrimination too. Do you think that makes me black?

yeah because gender isn't orientation

do you hold yourself to that standard?

no one should want a cake saying kill any one and it doesn't matter who is requesting are as the baker rejects any such hate particular if that baker doesn't make hate based cakes for anyone

and if the baker makes cakes for everyone but not an interracial couple because such a couple offends his faith does that baker have the right to discriminate?

Click to expand...

SavedByGrace3 said:

Sorry, all this is just talking in circles and meaningless.
Going nowhere.
Done.

Click to expand...

it wouldn't be in circles if you didn't insist on falsely making gender and orientation the same thing.


and i am still wondering just when you chose your preference for heterosexuality

Quartermaine said:

it wouldn't be in circles if you didn't insist on falsely making gender and orientation the same thing.


and i am still wondering just when you chose your preference for heterosexuality

Click to expand...

Wonder no more. It was when I was born. Confidently and happily and biologically and genetically and physiologically heterosexual.
You are correct. The scientific/medical term "gender" is not the same as the behavioral term "orientation.
Rights are awarded to genders. The preference of orientation is not afforded protection of rights based on that criteria. I could pronounce myself a car and demand the right to drive myself down the freeway at 3 miles per hour. I doubt the officer is going accept my "preference" to be treated like a car. Not even a car can expect that "right" to be enforced.
You just cannot get around it. You cannot pronounce yourself to be something you are obviously not... and then demand others to play into your fantasy under force of law. Just not going to stand. You will find a twisted judge here and there who will display his utter confusion and go along with it. But sooner or later it will reach an appeals court or the SC and be struck down.

SavedByGrace3 said:

Wonder no more. It was when I was born. Confidently and happily and biologically and genetically and physiologically heterosexual.

Click to expand...

so orientation isn't a preference at all

AACJ said:

Even if product usage does not create an inherent, qualitative difference, which is debatable, there is still the issue of Liberty of Conscience, which much be preserved.

Click to expand...

Even when businesses get tax breaks paid for in part by those with whom they refuse to do business?

Aldebaran said:

Christians feel that their civil rights under the first amendment should be respected. Why is that a problem? I don't see any Christians here complaining about having the freedom to choose.

Click to expand...

Because when you apply for and accept a business license you agree to operate under the rules of the state that granted you that license. Why is that so hard to understand? No First Amendment right is unconditional.

SavedByGrace3 said:

Rights are awarded to genders.

Click to expand...

Interesting. By that logic, men and women are entitled to marry regardless of who their spouse would be.

Queller said:

Because when you apply for and accept a business license you agree to operate under the rules of the state that granted you that license. Why is that so hard to understand? No First Amendment right is unconditional.

Click to expand...

The rules changed after many businesses had been operating for years, sometimes generations.

creslaw said:

The rules changed after many businesses had been operating for years, sometimes generations.

Click to expand...

The rules changed when the Fair Labor Standards Act ended child labor.
The rules changed when the Civil Rights Act ended segregation
The rules changed with the passing of the American's with Disabilities Act
The rules changed with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The rules changed with the Family Medical Leave Act.


There were plenty of businesses that weren't happy about these changes. Many were angry and upset that they woudl have to offer the same goods and services to black people or to the handicapped.

What happened to those businesses whose owners chose prejudice over their customers?

Quartermaine said:

The rules changed when the Fair Labor Standards Act ended child labor.
The rules changed when the Civil Rights Act ended segregation
The rules changed with the passing of the American's with Disabilities Act
The rules changed with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The rules changed with the Family Medical Leave Act.


There were plenty of businesses that weren't happy about these changes. Many were angry and upset that they woudl have to offer the same goods and services to black people or to the handicapped.

What happened to those businesses whose owners chose prejudice over their customers?

Click to expand...

There were good reasons for those changes. No one is harmed, or even inconvenienced, by allowing the right to religious freedom to function alongside gay rights. It does not have to be a winner-loser situation.

It does not surprise me that the devil is using the sin of homosxuality to try to split the Church. Jesus not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman, the Scriptures also teach that the union of a man and a woman represents the union of Christ and the Church. The evil purpose is to separate the people of God from the truth of God's Word in the name of compromise. But we've read the back of the Book ... God wins!

creslaw said:

There were good reasons for those changes. No one is harmed, or even inconvenienced, by allowing the right to religious freedom to function alongside gay rights. It does not have to be a winner-loser situation.

Click to expand...

can you explain just how the minority that can be refused services by business are not inconvenienced or harmed?

creslaw said:

It does not surprise me that the devil is using the sin of homosxuality to try to split the Church. Jesus not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman, the Scriptures also teach that the union of a man and a woman represents the union of Christ and the Church. The evil purpose is to separate the people of God from the truth of God's Word in the name of compromise. But we've read the back of the Book ... God wins!

Click to expand...

go back in time 50 years and you could be talking about interracial marriage.

Quartermaine said:

can you explain just how the minority that can be refused services by business are not inconvenienced or harmed?

Click to expand...

For the same reason I am not harmed or inconvenienced when a business is unable to provide a service I am seeking. When I first applied for a credit card, one bank said I did not meet their criteria so I just went somewhere else.

The disingenuous outrage you have been pushing on behalf of LGBT activists who want to punish people for their beliefs is without any merit. Why don't you check out why Dave Rubin, a gay married man, thinks tolerance is a two way street.

Quartermaine said:

go back in time 50 years and you could be talking about interracial marriage.

Click to expand...

Are you really so ignorant of Scripture as you appear to be? The belief about the spiritual union of Christ and the Church, represented in the marriage of a man and a woman, is historical, universal, & central to the Christian faith. You really need to check where your ideas are coming from and whether they represent a truly Christian understanding based on the whole Bible and not just cherry picked verses.

creslaw said:

For the same reason I am not harmed or inconvenienced when a business is unable to provide a service I am seeking. When I first applied for a credit card, one bank said I did not meet their criteria so I just went somewhere else.

Click to expand...

but the business IS able to provide service, they are just refusing to.

The disingenuous outrage you have been pushing on behalf of LGBT activists who want to punish people for their beliefs is without any merit. Why don't you check out why Dave Rubin, a gay married man, thinks tolerance is a two way street.

Click to expand...

why don't you check out research on the damage discrimination causes people Racism's Chronic Stress & LGBTQ Discrimination Hurts

Are you really so ignorant of Scripture as you appear to be? The belief about the spiritual union of Christ and the Church, represented in the marriage of a man and a woman, is historical, universal, & central to the Christian faith. You really need to check where your ideas are coming from and whether they represent a truly Christian understanding based on the whole Bible and not just cherry picked verses.

Click to expand...

Jesus always rejected hate. So maybe you need to check out where your ideas about discrimination are coming from.

Aldebaran said:

Because they always have the option of choosing other businesses to deal with if they don't like the service they receive at the first location they go to. They have equality in that along with everyone else.

Click to expand...

Just like blacks could choose to go to business that didn't have a "White only" sign on their door

Quartermaine said:

Jesus always rejected hate. So maybe you need to check out where your ideas about discrimination are coming from.

Click to expand...

Actually, Jesus told us to hate anything that is contrary to God's will (Luke 14:26) and reject man-made ideas (Mark 7:7).
It is because gay activists constantly frame difference of opinions as hatred of the person that some homosexuals feel hurt ... you are doing it to your own people because you are motivated by a spirit that is contrary to Scripture.

Your comparison with interracial marriage is spurious and only appeals to those with little understanding of the universal Church and the teachings of Scripture.

The comparison of interracial marriage with the doctrine that the spiritual union of Christ and the Church represented in marriage fails on the three grounds:

- forbidding interracial marriage is not a part of the historical (original) teachings of the Church,;

- it has never been universal - not even in the US - it was a comparatively brief period of time in a comparatively small part of the universal Church;

- it is not central (essential) to the teachings of the Church

You should know that it emerged out of the social conditions of a particular place at a particular time; it did not emerge from the teachings of the original, universal Church. You might as well compare the Prohibition to the doctrine of marriage and the spiritual union of Christ and the Church because that would be equally fatuous.

To promote these spurious comparisons simply displays a lack of knowledge & understanding of the Church and the Bible.