Obama has set race relations back decades

[bhsmte]

It was fun. It is starting to get tiresome to be constantly told you didn't answer a question you most clearly did answer and when you repeat the same answer to be flamed for giving the same answer!

Not hard to tell what is going on here and it is quite entertaining.

 

[Aldebaran]

It was fun. It is starting to get tiresome to be constantly told you didn't answer a question you most clearly did answer and when you repeat the same answer to be flamed for giving the same answer!

You don't like that? How does it make you feel?

 

[smaneck]

I question his citizenship because I found the court ruling on the issue suspicious. I'm saying they didn't look into the matter and say, "of course it is legit" or look at the matter and say, "we don't find anything to question" or something like that, instead they dismissed the case for lack of harm, when harm is done every single time the constitution is not upheld.

It is a basic principle of law that a lawsuit can only proceed if the person filing has standing to suit. Since that could not be proven in this case, it was thrown.

What does this have to do with the question of Obama's citizenship? A court doesn't need to decide this. It is matter for the State of Hawaii to ascertain that Obama was born there, which they did, numerous time.

Conspiracy? why would that be conspiracy not just poor informed or misinformed judges?

If they were merely misinformed, there was no reason to be suspicious of their ruling. And even less reason to question Obama's citizenship.

Could be that they just had a bad day, or that they didn't know how else to get things moving on the tight schedule they had...

Then there was no reason for you to become suspicious. But why weren't you suspicious of the fact that no one had questioned McCain's citizenship and brought it to court?

I don't know why they voted as they did, but not upholding the constitution is harming everyone in the USA and that is when I got suspicious, maybe they were bought and paid for, how would I know?

So you did think there was a conspiracy.

 

[bhsmte]

still waiting for you to address the reputation of doing an event for the KKK or the Nazi groups...when you answer I will answer your questions

Asked and answered. But, since I am a nice guy, I will answer again.

The baker would not be obligated to decorate the cake in a manner that would display hate speech, or make derogatory comments towards a group of people, but they are expected to sell the cake, to any customer, willing to pay.

Is that clear?

Now, to my questions:

-please give a specific example to support your claim that gays are infringing on the rights of Christians?

-Also, are you one who believes, religious freedoms granted by the constitution, are to be considered; limitless freedoms? Yes, or no?

 

[Aldebaran]

Asked and answered. But, since I am a nice guy, I will answer again.

The baker would not be obligated to decorate the cake in a manner that would display hate speech, or make derogatory comments towards a group of people, but they are expected to sell the cake, to any customer, willing to pay.

Is that clear?

Now, to my questions:

-please give a specific example to support your claim that gays are infringing on the rights of Christians?

-Also, are you one who believes, religious freedoms granted by the constitution, are to be considered; limitless freedoms? Yes, or no?

You talked about derogatory comments and hate speech, but left out anything about commemorating a homosexual union. That should be part of it too.

 

[smaneck]

since that isn't the question on the table, it seems that you are the one that keeps missing it.

the question on the table is do they have the right to refuse to bake a cake for the event. consider how many people will look at the cake, taste the cake and say, wow, that is so pretty, so tasty where did you get the cake from? My name is on the cake no matter if I write it there or not. Even after the event, someone from the event says, we are going to do this again, I want the name of your baker...once again, your name is on the cake.

And this would harm the baker's reputation how? Anyone attending a gay wedding is not going to hold it against the business owner for baking a cake for it!

So do I have the right to refuse to allow my name to be associated with, in the one example the KKK or the Nazi's? in another example with the same criteria, a church event in which gays will be bashed?

No, you do not have the right to refuse them a cake. And if they choose to mention your name, that comes under the purview of free speech.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

 

[bhsmte]

You talked about derogatory comments and hate speech, but left out anything about commemorating a homosexual union. That should be part of it too.

What you want to be part of it, and what is legally part of it, are clearly not the same.

I would learn to deal with it and take solace in the fact, you can still personally feel the way you do about people who live lives you disagree with and you can even discriminate against them in private settings, you just can't in a public accommodating business.

 

[smaneck]

Like I said, that wasn't my issue, so I'm not sure what you want to talk about on the matter.

Yeah, your issue is that the courts dismissed the case without even hearing it for the nonsense it was and that made you suspicious.

I don't buy it for a second.

 

[Aldebaran]

And this would harm the baker's reputation how? Anyone attending a gay wedding is not going to hold it against the business owner for baking a cake for it!

It can harm the baker's reputation within the Christian community. We are to abstain from catering to, facilitating, or in any way promoting something we see as sin. Catering to a homosexual wedding ceremony could very well fall into that area. Maybe you don't agree, but that's beside the point.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It can harm the baker's reputation within the Christian community. We are to abstain from catering to, facilitating, or in any way promoting something we see as sin.

If that were true, many, if not most christians would be out of work. Christians wouldn't be able to work in the wedding industry at all, given the number of 2nd/3rd marriages and the number of inter-religious marriages that take place. Additionally, anything involving the military or defense contracting would be out of bounds, since a significant portion of our military activities are of questionable justification. A lot of modern retail and manufacturing involves exploiting workers at some level, so that'd be off the table. You could make the case that retail marketing also depends on engendering a sense of discontent within the customer base, which is inherently sinful.

But apparently baking a cake for a couple of gays is worse than making weapons that'd be used to fight wars over oil or telling people their lives aren't complete enough without your product.

 

[bhsmte]

It can harm the baker's reputation within the Christian community. We are to abstain from catering to, facilitating, or in any way promoting something we see as sin. Catering to a homosexual wedding ceremony could very well fall into that area. Maybe you don't agree, but that's beside the point.

If a Christian person's reputation as such, is so delicate, that the people they deal with will be upset because they served a gay couple, then they shouldn't be in a publically accommodating business.

If one needs to protect who they do business with, don't open to the public, after all, you may be serving people committing adultery, people who by cakes every week who are considered gluttons and you could go on and on. We don't want to forget about all these other sins, do we?

 

[Aldebaran]

If that were true, many, if not most christians would be out of work. Christians wouldn't be able to work in the wedding industry at all, given the number of 2nd/3rd marriages and the number of inter-religious marriages that take place. Additionally, anything involving the military or defense contracting would be out of bounds, since a significant portion of our military activities are of questionable justification. A lot of modern retail and manufacturing involves exploiting workers at some level, so that'd be off the table. You could make the case that retail marketing also depends on engendering a sense of discontent within the customer base, which is inherently sinful.

But apparently baking a cake for a couple of gays is worse than making weapons that'd be used to fight wars over oil or telling people their lives aren't complete enough without your product.

Every Christian is an individual and has to be able to make their own decisions based on their own convictions. Some Christians would never join the military, and some believe it's their duty. As for retail, there are some Christians who think it's morally wrong to shop at Walmart since they get most of their stuff from China, which oppresses it's workers. Others might go there in order to give jobs to Chinese workers in the first place.

But either way, a person should be allowed to act upon their convictions. I don't think that's too much to ask for in a free country.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It can harm the baker's reputation within the Christian community. We are to abstain from catering to, facilitating, or in any way promoting something we see as sin. Catering to a homosexual wedding ceremony could very well fall into that area. Maybe you don't agree, but that's beside the point.

Then again maybe it won't. Many Christians in the Christian community wouldn't care less one way or the other what kind of wedding a baker caters to.

Some Christians of a more prejudicial bent may have a problem with it, to be sure, but if one must kowtow to one bigoted subclass, why not all of them?

 

[Aldebaran]

If a Christian person's reputation as such, is so delicate, that the people they deal with will be upset because they served a gay couple, then they shouldn't be in a publically accommodating business.

Correction (again): Because they catered to a homosexual wedding ceremony.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correction (again): Because they catered to a homosexual wedding ceremony.

Correction (for real): Because they catered to a wedding ceremony of people they don't approve of.

 

[Aldebaran]

Correction (for real): Because they catered to a wedding ceremony of people they don't approve of.

Now you're changing the wording of my answer. I'm telling you what my reason is, and you're basically calling me a liar and putting words in my mouth.

 

[bhsmte]

But either way, a person should be allowed to act upon their convictions. I don't think that's too much to ask for in a free country.

Free country, all the more reason gays should be allowed to marry. All the more reason, a person walking into a publically accommodating business, has the freedom to expect to be served.

Plenty of room to reserve the discrimination, to the private portions of society.

 

[Aldebaran]

Free country, all the more reason gays should be allowed to marry.

Nobody here is even talking about taking that away. That's obviously not happening anyway. It's not even the topic.

All the more reason, a person walking into a publically accommodating business, has the freedom to expect to be served.

They can expect whatever they want. But the freedom to force me to do something against my religious convictions? That's not a freedom. That's a violation of my freedom.

 

[bhsmte]

They can expect whatever they want. But the freedom to force me to do something against my religious convictions? That's not a freedom. That's a violation of my freedom.

What they expect, is for the pubic accommodating business owner, to follow the same law, all publically accommodating business owners have to follow.

If they can't, don't put themselves in that position and instead, open a private bakery that only serves to whoever the owner wants to serve to, problem solved.

 

[Aldebaran]

What they expect, is for the pubic accommodating business owner, to follow the same law, all publically accommodating business owners have to follow.

If they can't, don't put themselves in that position and instead, open a private bakery that only serves to whoever the owner wants to serve to, problem solved.

This is why the laws need to be changed, in order to protect business owners.