Homosexuality

[Belk]

Not a just government that respects a person's religious convictions. Forcing a person to participate in what they consider an immoral activity is one the worse thing's an unjust government can do.

If a group believes that churches are evil and refuses to cater to one, then I am 100% okay with that. I would never want to force someone to do something they believe is morally wrong.

Perhaps if they consider selling wedding cakes to be immoral they should not open a bakery that sells wedding cakes?

 

[Belk]

Dude, people have rights. I have the right to open a business catering to a particular cross section of Americans. These types of businesses are ALL over the American economic landscape. Individual persons have the right to open businesses that do not conflict with their beliefs or opinions. Individual persons have the right to their opinions and beliefs and they do not have to match yours or the LGTB camp.

The LGBT argument is a fallacious, emotionally laden argument which seeks to take away rights from individuals and, in this instance, business owners. I do treat people like real people; your camp is the one attempting to remove individual rights and bog down the courts with frivolous, economically damaging lawsuits. If people do not like a businessthen GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. That is your right as an American but don't tell individual Americans that their rights can be trampled over by folks with damaging, media sponsored agendas.

Guess those judges just really suck at that whole law and rational basis for rulings, huh?

 

[Hentenza]

Guess those judges just really suck at that whole law and rational basis for rulings, huh?

Ya think?

 

[Hentenza]

The matter of LGBT rights being the same or not being the same as race is one of the major reasons the two sides will never agree. Those of us in the LGBT community know that this is as much a non-changeable part of us as race and we shouldnt be discriminated because of it.

I have nothing against homosexuals just as I have nothing against heterosexuals. There are good people in both groups. However, forcing one's views on the other is not the answer the same as forcing one's theological views on others is not the answer. Both sides of this debate have rights and a person's rights end when another person's rights begin. In the case of a private business, the owner has as many rights as the rest and should not be forced to provide a service under duress. Frankly, I would never force someone to provide a service for me that they would not be willing to provide happily or at least willingly.

 

[Hentenza]

Perhaps if they consider selling wedding cakes to be immoral they should not open a bakery that sells wedding cakes?

There is a bit more to it than that, Belk.

 

[New Legacy]

Perhaps if they consider selling wedding cakes to be immoral they should not open a bakery that sells wedding cakes?

That obviously is not what happened since if they went in and asked for a cake, they would not know. Obviously it was wanted to be customized in a way to promote something the person did not believe in.

That's like asking if you do not want to make pornography, why be a photographer or film maker? People have had trouble now with being asked to photograph homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies which many of us believe is morally wrong to participate in any way.

People should have the right to have a business and refuse to participate in an activity they believe to be morally wrong. These homosexual activists are trying to make a point and force people against the conscience.

 

[New Legacy]

A church not having to do this is not a personal belief, it is a protection of a chuch.

Why should a church be able to deny a service to a homosexual couple?

The reality is that the people behind the homosexual agenda don't believe that. First they just wanted the same rights, so they wanted civil unions. Then they wanted marriage - it was no longer about rights, it is about 'equality' which is really just a way of saying getting society to think their relationships are normal. Now they are saying they want to force people to participate in their marriages. The next step is to get churches to marry them, but they need to ensure the business aspect first. They need more ground before approaching that battle.

Homosexuals do not respect religion. When they speak of protecting churches it is all a lie to get a little step closer to their goal. If they cared about a person's faith, then they wouldn't force them to go along with it. If they cared about a person's convictions, they would stop trying to get people fired for their support of traditional marriage.

Simply put, they made it obvious they don't care about what a person believes. Their need to be recognized is more important than a person's conscience. That means the ultimate step is to go against churches. That's not slippery slope, that is looking at the philosophy and where it ultimately must lead.

 

[tremble]

This isn't just about gay rights. A precedent is being set. According to principles being applied in the case of the cake baker, an atheist can walk into a shirt printing business and order a T-shirt with "God isn't real" printed on the front. Even if the shirt printer is Christian, they will be compelled to either print the shirt or close the business because they are not allowed to discriminate against anyone.

This is different from segregation. People treating one another badly because of skin colour is not the same as someone saying, "I'll make a birthday cake, or a Halloween cake or just about any other kind of cake except cake which promotes a message contrary to my conscience".

The comparison is not fair because there is nothing Jesus or any other biblical contributor taught about discriminating on the basis of skin colour. Quite the opposite is true.

However, there IS a regulation against homosexual activity. There is a legitimate reason for Christians to be concerned; it's not just "I don't like that" or fear of the unknown or greed or whatever other reasons people had for racism against people of different skin colours.

Compare this issue of "rights" to freedom of speech. At some point people started to understand that freedom of speech isn't black and white. There are many different kinds of speech. Some speech was judged to be hate speech and as a result is not covered under freedom of speech. This means that despite the over all freedom of speech, there are still exceptions made on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances. People wisely discerned that there may be good reasons for exceptions in some cases.

The same can be done with interaction between Christians and gays. Yes, the basic standard is that Christians should be willing to provide services to anyone who needs them, but there should also be room allowed for exceptions if there is a good enough reason to warrant the exception.

It's like the LGBT community has been hatefully treated for so long that they themselves have lost their ability to discriminate between issues of genuine social justice and issues of personal conscience. In some ways the Christian community is just as responsible for this.

Too often the general attitude of Christians toward gays is a, "the Bible says so and that's that. If you don't like it you can just go to hell" teaching which expresses very little, if any, empathy for the sentencing they've just given. Some Christians even believe that contempt for the person is a part of teaching them that they are wrong.

I've heard it said before that the best kind of judge is one who only passes sentences which he himself would be willing to accept if he were in similar circumstances as the accused. How many of us Christians have put ourselves in the gay person's shoes and wondered what it would be like to suddenly be told that we can no longer touch the person we love. What an emotionally debilitating situation they must find themselves in.

Most of us have experienced romantic heartbreak of some kind. For the heterosexual we still have some relief; some hope. We still have the option to find someone new. Many people experience clinical depression as a result of failed relationships. Some turn to drugs, or medication or even kill themselves in their efforts to cope with what's happening to them. This is true whether the person is gay or not gay.

When the LGBT community begins to believe that we Christians actually care about the very difficult choices they are asked to make then maybe they will be less inclined to force understanding from us through the courts. What a sad testimony for us Christians that they feel a need to do so in the first place.

 

[Belk]

Ya think?

No, I don't. I find it much more likely that Christians are breaking the law and that selling somebody a cake is neither endorsement nor participation and that religion does not give one a free pass to be a jerk.

 

[Belk]

There is a bit more to it than that, Belk.

Oh? You mean it is not the selling of cakes they find immoral but who they sell them to?

 

[Belk]

That obviously is not what happened since if they went in and asked for a cake, they would not know. Obviously it was wanted to be customized in a way to promote something the person did not believe in.

That is not obvious at all since that is not what happened and the judge calls it out as a part of the reason why he ruled as he did.

That's like asking if you do not want to make pornography, why be a photographer or film maker? People have had trouble now with being asked to photograph homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies which many of us believe is morally wrong to participate in any way.

No, it is nothing like that. The only difference between selling a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple and a gay couple is the orientation of the participants. In many states that kind of discrimination is illegal.

People should have the right to have a business and refuse to participate in an activity they believe to be morally wrong. These homosexual activists are trying to make a point and force people against the conscience.

They do have the right to refuse to participate in an activity they believe morally wrong. They quite obviously do not find baking cakes to be morally wrong. Ergo it is not the activity, it is the people who they are against.

 

[Hentenza]

No, I don't. I find it much more likely that Christians are breaking the law and that selling somebody a cake is neither endorsement nor participation and that religion does not give one a free pass to be a jerk.

The issue is much deeper than just religion, Belk. Individual people are entitled to their convictions. I have found the old adage that "those who stand for nothing, fall for everything" to be quite true. The cake does represent the endorsement of something that conflicts with the baker's conviction, whether for religious or secular reasons.

 

[Hentenza]

Oh? You mean it is not the selling of cakes they find immoral but who they sell them to?

No. Keep trying. You'll get it eventually.

 

[Belk]

The issue is much deeper than just religion, Belk. Individual people are entitled to their convictions. I have found the old adage that "those who stand for nothing, fall for everything" to be quite true. The cake does represent the endorsement of something that conflicts with the baker's conviction, whether for religious or secular reasons.

No, the cake does not. If the cake did it would be the same no matter who was buying it. It is, therefore, not the cake which is the issue. It is the people to whom the cake is being sold.

While we are at it do you disagree with my assessment that given how these cases have gone it is unlikely that every single judge has been out to lunch and a more probable explanation is that the Christians are breaking the law?

 

[Belk]

No. Keep trying. You'll get it eventually.

No, I would have to agree with your assessment of the situation and it is obvious I do not.

 

[RBPerry]

more probable explanation is that the Christians are breaking the law?

So the issue is do we obey what we feel God is calling us to do, or mans law? As for me the answer is simple, we follow what we believe God would have us do no matter what the consequences.

 

[Sammy-San]

If you think mixed race marriages are sinful you still can't deny service just because the couple is of mixed race.

Can we really say that we live in a free country when people are allowed to be discriminated against because they do not adhere to religious beliefs that we choose for them?



Just as we did for segregationists. Personal beliefs are not a valid reason for discriminating against people in public businesses.



Then you have to ask yourself if it is moral to discriminate against people in a free country because they do not follow your religion.

Don't you still think it's wrong for that couple to sue the baker? They easily could have gone to a different bakery. I think (I can't say for sure in all cases, but it's possible) that some of these gay couples are deliberately choosing to go to christian bakeries just so they can sue them for money.

You are looking at things from a secular worldly perspective, not God's perspective. Second of all, comparing gay rights with civil rights makes zero sense. Gays are not segregated against.

I've never heard of a christian store owner refusing to sell products to a gay person, just because of the simple fact they were gay. The Colorado baker only refused to sell the cake because the cake was going to be used to celebrate a sinful union.

 

[Hentenza]

No, the cake does not.

Sure it is.

If the cake did it would be the same no matter who was buying it.

If the cake did what?

It is, therefore, not the cake which is the issue.

Sure it is. The cake is for a gay wedding; the baker believes strongly in marriage between a man and a woman; the baker refuses to bake the cake because of his conviction not because who is buying it. The baker has the right to choose his clientele. The baker has rights which should not be trampled by those who push their agendas on others.

It is the people to whom the cake is being sold.

Not at all.

While we are at it do you disagree with my assessment that given how these cases have gone it is unlikely that every single judge has been out to lunch and a more probable explanation is that the Christians are breaking the law?

Judges are elected officials or appointed by a particular party. I have very little confidence that a good portion of their decisions are based on reasoned deliberation and not influenced by agendas.

 

[Hentenza]

No, I would have to agree with your assessment of the situation and it is obvious I do not.

lol Ok then.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps if they consider selling wedding cakes to be immoral they should not open a bakery that sells wedding cakes?

Quoted for truth.

No one is forcing christians to be bakers. If being a baker requires you to go against your convictions, then don't be a baker. Seems pretty simple to me.