Overreaching gay rights movement; Indiana's religious freedom act

[Aldebaran]

Example to illustrate what you are discussing above?

Just go back in this thread, maybe back to page 89, and read from there. Examples have been given repeatedly. Too repeatedly, in fact.

 

[smaneck]

Oh, please. I set a trap and you fell right into it.

So you deliberately stated this falsehood? That's what you're saying?

Seriously, and with all due respect, if you need me to explain my question just ask.

Rhetorical questions are rarely worth answering.

My point is to illustrate the absurdity of the argument being made by those wailing over the persecution of gays in context of a cake or pizza shop. Iran and other Muslim countries consider homosexuality a crime punishable by death, a belief they put into practice.

Which is a ridiculous argument. We have the Constitution to protect people's rights, Iran does not.

Yet you defend Iran and attack Christianity.

Nope. I just point out when people tell lies about them. My religion teaches that is wrong.

 

[NotreDame]

Just go back in this thread, maybe back to page 89, and read from there. Examples have been given repeatedly. Too repeatedly, in fact.

I have read those four or five example you provided. I addressed some of them but I am trying to assess what is your point in relation to those examples?

 

[AirPo]

Just go back in this thread, maybe back to page 89, and read from there. Examples have been given repeatedly. Too repeatedly, in fact.

As far as I recall, there have been no examples. Only unsupported assertions.

 

[NotreDame]

As far as I recall, there have been no examples. Only unsupported assertions.

Well, he conjured some examples and they are most intriguing because they involve potential 1st Amendment free speech rights on behalf of the bakeries.

 

[JohnLocke]

And if you don't...?

snip

She would be held responsible -- except that banks "willingly" instruct their employees to always cooperate with robbers.

Many businesses have similar rules; there have been cases of business employees heroically foiling would-be robbers, only to be fired by their bosses for noncompliance.

Absolutely and entirely false. The reason a bank teller is not charged with robbery or accessory to robbery is the legal defense of DURESS which simple put says, "No person shall be convicted of a less than capital crime if the person committed the crime under the threat of violence to themselves or those close to them."

There simply is no "willing" in the face of a imminent threat of death. At least not in the United States.

Businesses adopt "comply with robbery" policies to avoid the liability associated with their employees and customers getting injured or dead in the course of the robbery.

By the by, the victim of a robbery or any other crime does not have veto power of the state prosecuting such a case and can, in most instances, be compelled to testify against their will.

Before you make pronouncements over the status of the law, I would suggest that you read some of it first.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Businesses adopt "comply with robbery" policies to avoid the liability associated with their employees and customers getting injured or dead in the course of the robbery.

Including banks, correct?

 

[Aldebaran]

Should the children of the bank teller and/or robber be held responsible for the robbery?

You realize you're just going further off topic, right? Is that intentional?

 

[Aldebaran]

She would be held responsible -- except that banks "willingly" instruct their employees to always cooperate with robbers.

Many businesses have similar rules; there have been cases of business employees heroically foiling would-be robbers, only to be fired by their bosses for noncompliance.

Here's another case for you to consider then. If a woman is being raped by a man with a gun, and she submits to the rape, is she truly being raped since she submitted to the rape. Remember, she could still resist but would probably get shot. So was she willingly raped?

Be careful how you answer this one.

 

[Aldebaran]

A wedding cake is a wedding cake. In all the cases I'm aware of in which a baker has refused service to a same-sex couple, no mention has been made of any decorations. Just of the baker refusing to provide any cake at all.

(How, in your opinion, would a straight-themed cake differ from a gay-themed cake anyway?)

By decorating it with gay-themed decorations (2 men or 2 women on top, gay pride flag, etc.).

 

[JustOneWay]

By decorating it with gay-themed decorations (2 men or 2 women on top, gay pride flag, etc.).

We would never top our wedding cakes before transportation, so the cake topper is a non starter. The couple can supply their own top.

 

[David Brider]

By decorating it with gay-themed decorations (2 men or 2 women on top, gay pride flag, etc.).

Would simply selling a cake without any such decorations be okay, in your opinion?

And what if neither member of the same-sex couple getting married is actually gay? If they're both bisexual or pansexual, having little figurines on top of the cake to represent them wouldn't really be "gay-themed", would it? (Would you say that having figurines on top of a cake to represent an opposite-sex couple is really "straight-themed" anyway? Even if they're both straight, it's more "wedding-themed" than anything else. I'd've thought.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here's another case for you to consider then. If a woman is being raped by a man with a gun, and she submits to the rape, is she truly being raped since she submitted to the rape. Remember, she could still resist but would probably get shot. So was she willingly raped?

Be careful how you answer this one.

You want an answer from a legal, moral, or Biblical perspective?

 

[Aldebaran]

You want an answer from a legal, moral, or Biblical perspective?

I'm asking your opinion. Besides, I wouldn't put much stock in your biblical perspective anyway.

 

[Aldebaran]

Would simply selling a cake without any such decorations be okay, in your opinion?

I've answered this before--many times. I'm tired of the repetition.

And what if neither member of the same-sex couple getting married is actually gay? If they're both bisexual or pansexual, having little figurines on top of the cake to represent them wouldn't really be "gay-themed", would it? (Would you say that having figurines on top of a cake to represent an opposite-sex couple is really "straight-themed" anyway? Even if they're both straight, it's more "wedding-themed" than anything else. I'd've thought.)

You're splitting hairs now. Are you asking me for my own opinion about what I'd do if I was a baker? I would want to let my conscience decide in each of these cases.

 

[David Brider]

I've answered this before--many times. I'm tired of the repetition.

Well, it's a simple yes or no answer - I'm sure repeating it once more for clarity wouldn't hurt.

You're splitting hairs now.

Habit of mine.

Are you asking me for my own opinion about what I'd do if I was a baker? I would want to let my conscience decide in each of these cases.

Right now I'm less questioning what you'd do if you were a baker, more your imprecise use of the word "gay". But, since you ask...were you a baker, and were my wife and I (assuming we were actually unmarried and planning our wedding) to approach you and ask you to bake us a cake - with cake toppers and our names on the cake - would your conscience allow you to provide such a cake? And would that decision change if we were to tell you that actually, one of us is bisexual? Would you consider the resulting cake to be "straight-themed" or not?

 

[Aldebaran]

Right now I'm less questioning what you'd do if you were a baker, more your imprecise use of the word "gay". But, since you ask...were you a baker, and were my wife and I (assuming we were actually unmarried and planning our wedding) to approach you and ask you to bake us a cake - with cake toppers and our names on the cake - would your conscience allow you to provide such a cake? And would that decision change if we were to tell you that actually, one of us is bisexual? Would you consider the resulting cake to be "straight-themed" or not?

If you are a man and she's a woman, I see no problem.

 

[Red Fox]

If you are a man and she's a woman, I see no problem.

Let's say he's a polygamist and this woman would be his seventh wife (and polygamy was not against the law). You wouldn't have a problem with that? After all, he's a man and she's a woman. I'm just curious to know where you would draw the line.

 

[Aldebaran]

Let's say he's a polygamist and this woman would be his seventh wife (and polygamy was not against the law). You wouldn't have a problem with that? After all, he's a man and she's a woman. I'm just curious to know where you draw the line.

You could ask me about every situation under the sun. Is it my opinion here that is of so much value to everyone? I can't speak for anyone else when it comes to personal decisions of conscience.

To answer this one now--I'd probably have some problem with it, but I'm not sure if I would make a firm stand either way. I'm not a baker, or any kind of business owner, so it would be something I'd have to be right there in the actual situation to be able to say one way or the other.

 

[smaneck]

You want an answer from a legal, moral, or Biblical perspective?

I believe the biblical perspective is if the woman doesn't cry out, it isn't rape.

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."
Deuteronomy 22:23-24