Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I’m going to guess he wouldn’t because I can’t believe he would be stupid enough to say he will have no part in celebrating a same sex wedding but has no problem being a part in celebrating a same sex wedding anniversary. To do so would mean that he thinks the wedding is the most important part of the marriage, and yes, society has segments that are that materialistic, I don’t think he is but the possibility exists.
My question still is unanswered on why the cake baker gets to discriminate against a same-sex couple but the restaurant owner and doctor don’t. If it was just a cake and this was the only segment of society would try to get away with this discrimination, I wouldn’t even bother having this fight. But I k ow this isn’t where this would end and it would quickly get into terrible territory.
Can an apartment building owner refuse to rent to a same-sex couple? Can a furniture salesmen refuse to sell furniture to a same-sex couple? Can a bank refuse to finance a home loan for a same-sex couple? How about the home sellers, can they refuse to sell? Could a home owners association put into their covenant that no same-sex couples are allowed? Can a car dealership refuse to buy or sell cars with a same-sex couple?Could a doctor refuse to treat them? Can a hospital refuse admittance? Can an attorney refuse to write up a will for a same-sex couple? Can a cemetery refuse to allow members of a same-sex couple be buried on the same burial plot?
In large cities there will be people willing to offer services if others are not. But in small towns, you may only have a couple or even one choice in these matters. Allowing people to straight up discriminate against same-sex couples can make towns “No-Go Zones” for the LGBTQ community.
I answered your question. A number of times. None of us have said it's okay to do what you are asking questions about.
All this is, is about one artistic item that violates the religious conscience of the artist. That's it. It's not about refusing all services to all people for all reasons. Please get this right.
but your claim was "I'm sorry but the blacks who suffered under civil right violation don't agree with you"None of that proves it's the same thing.
because they were members of a minority. So yeah, he refused.He didn't refuse to serve them. He wouldn't use his artistic talents to create a single particular cake.
maybe he should put out a "whites only" signThey shouldn't have asked him to knowing his religious views.
Yes discrimination is a terrible and hateful thingIt was quite frankly a terrible thing to do.
Go down the block to someone who would happily do it. Don't demand a person violate their deeply held personal religious beliefs. Don't demand their religious rights become subservient to your rights.
why should he have to serve black people?Again, why should the religious rights of the baker be subservient to the rights of the other person.
because they were members of a minority. So yeah, he refused.
maybe he should put out a "whites only" sign
Yes discrimination is a terrible and hateful thing
just like the Broadway Theater of Knoxville Tennessee
why should he have to serve black people?
and you keep trying to sell the lie that Charlie Craig and David Mullins targeted PhillipsYou can keep dragging out that tired old mantra, it doesn't make it any more true. You can come talk to us when the baker slaps up a sign that says No Gays Allowed. Until then your argument has no substance. It's nothing more than misinformation. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
if that were true than he would have made Charlie Craig and David Mullins their cakeHe does serve black people. He also serves gay people.
This isn't about religious rights. The baker is free to believe whatever he wants and go to whichever church on whatever day he chooses.Again, why should the religious rights of the baker be subservient to the rights of the other person.
Yeah, it must be really draining to discriminate against minorities in addition to baking cakes for all the customers he doesn't kick out of their store for being the wrong orientation. Where does he find the time?The victim is the baker in this case.
In this case I would disagree with the doctors choice. The baby is the patient and the requested treatment had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
I'm a specifist. I don't believe the baker should have a sign that says "No gays allowed". But I do support not having to create an artistic cake to celebrate a sinful act.
Answering this will expose problems with the implication that religious rights are absolute and everyone else has to make concessions to work around them.Why is the cake baker different from the rest of my list? What about the religious conscience of the other people I listed?
This isn't about religious rights. The baker is free to believe whatever he wants and go to whichever church on whatever day he chooses.
There is no established religious "right" to ignore the law simply because one believes really, really hard.
Hmm, having a party is a sinful act. Raising a child in a heathen abomination of a sham marriage - to summarize some of the propaganda against gay parents - is fine. And yet the customer is to blame for not correctly guessing which sin(s) believers care about this week? Seems very arbitrary.
Do we need any better example of why "but I believe something, therefore I get to ignore whatever laws I like" is no way to run a society?
See post 158Answering this will expose problems with the implication that religious rights are absolute and everyone else has to make concessions to work around them.
See post 158
That's nice, but has nothing to do with a baker being asked to bake yet another cake.If course it is. When you use the law to restrict a person's free excersize of his religion you have just violated his constitutional rights.
It is if we are supposed to accept accusations that the customer is targeting that person because of that person's religious beliefs.The customer is not required to know what the person believes his religion exercise is.
if that were true than he would have made Charlie Craig and David Mullins their cake
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?