Actually I think that would be a legitimate issue that a Muslim might have if they had to cater at somewhere that had pig related food items.
Upvote
0
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.
If it was against his religion to handle pork why would he offer it to anyone?
The issue is not that dinner parties are against his religion, it's that handling pork is against his religion.
Marriage is not against the Christian baker's religion any more than dinner parties are against the Muslim caterer's religion.
To answer the OP:
Yes, if private property means anything.
Actually I think that would be a legitimate issue that a Muslim might have if they had to cater at somewhere that had pig related food items.
variant said:Yeah, private property (private buisness in this case) would be meaningless if you couldn't lord it over people.
I'd say it's equal.Question: If it is a violation of religious freedom to require certain businesses (florists, bakers, DJ's, venue owners, etc.) to provide their services in support of a same-sex wedding when such unions violate the owner's religious conscience, is it not equally as great a violation if a business owner is required to provide services for interreligious or interracial weddings when they have a religious objection to those?
Ownership of property necessarily entails the legal right to decide who gets access to the property and who doesn't. If you don't have the final say as who gets to come in to the house in which you live and who doesn't, it's not your house. Same thing with a business. If a business owner can be legally compelled to to business with anyone he does not wish to do business with, then his enterprise is not really his own; he simply manages it under the auspices of the state.
To those who are willing to tell me, point blank, that they approve of such an arrangement, I have nothing to say. However, in that case we ought to be honest enough to drop the pretense that businesses are "private" enterprises when they are clearly not.
If your reasoning wouldn't have been the excuse of bigots attempting to relegate black people to second class citizens in the recent past it might go over better.
And if your reasoning hadn't been the excuse of statists trying to oppress free citizens it might go over better.
Right, all oppression ever starts with the idea that owning a buisness doesn't give you license to be a jerk toward people who may want your services.
If it's a buisness that serves the general public then it serves everyone. It's not the place for personal condemnations.
Otherwise, any group sufficiently in control of wealth would be able to enforce their will on the public as per the civil rights era.
If your reasoning wouldn't have been the excuse of bigots attempting to relegate black people to second class citizens in the recent past it might go over better.
It seem to me that this is a bit of a catch-22. While I find what the Christians here advocating to be morally repugnant, I can't see any legal reason to deny them their right to engage in morally repugnant behavior.
What concerns me is the chicken-or-the-egg issue -- is a person who refuses to deal with gays (or blacks, or Muslims, or Atheists, or Jews, or whoever) a sincere believer, or simply a bigot who's found a convenient excuse to hide behind? Seems to me that this could lead to Christianity gaining a bad reputation as a sanctuary for homophobes and other bigots...
...but then again, that's hardly my problem.
That's funny, I thought it was your side was being bigoted.
Unless you are gay and have been refused service because of it (and I guarantee that over 99% of the population has not been refused service because of sexual preference) you don't even have a dog in this fight. But, as usual, the left is looking for yet another thing to be selectively outraged over.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said:But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
Your choice of words is interesting: "I can't see any legal reason to deny them their right to engage in morally repugnant behavior". That's funny, since we consider homosexuality (along with many other sexual behaviors) to be immoral as well, so by your own admission you reserve the right to define what's "immoral" while you deny that right to us, which is generally how you define hypocrisy.
So the left are hypocrites. In other news, water is still wet.
As an American who values justice and equality for all...
Of course, you completely missed the part where the "good Reverend" invoked St. Paul, who condemned homosexuality in the strongest of terms. MLK was also a black man talking about other black men, which is not what we are discussing here despite your attempts to turn sexual preference into a "race". I hasten to add that MLK was also called by God to be a minister in the very same church that I serve in, and he would be appalled at your Christian hate.I do believe the good Reverend can put it better:
On the contrary, it was so obvious it stunk.I thought someone would find that interesting. I also thought someone would completely miss the irony.
Yep, you have struck out twice by trying to project your views onto someone else...Looks like I'm 2 for 2 this morning.
Is your contempt for Christianity a byproduct of your politics, or do you just hate everyone who is not like you?Is your contempt for the left...
...except for Christians...
Of course, you completely missed the part where the "good Reverend" invoked St. Paul, who condemned homosexuality in the strongest of terms.
MLK was also a black man talking about other black men, which is not what we are discussing here
On the contrary, it was so obvious it stunk.
Yep, you have struck out twice by trying to project your views onto someone else...
Is your contempt for Christianity a byproduct of your politics, or do you just hate everyone who is not like you?
I don't have "contempt for the left", as you put it, but their utter lack of rational thought does wear me out at times.
Do you not believe in men's barbershops and women's salons?
Yes, it's much better to be a jerk by telling others what they can and can't do in their own place of business when it really has nothing to do with you.
Freedom - it's a difficult concept for some.
You seem confused. Did you miss the part where I agreed with you that Christians have a legal right to discriminate according to their conscience?
It is my agreement somehow not enough for you? If so, what else do you want?
Irrelevant. I am not using Dr. King's quote to express an approval of homosexuality, but to refute your argument that I didn't have "a dog in this fight."
I wasn't discussing it here. Why are you?
Then you didn't miss it; rather, you deliberately chose to ignore it. How sad.
Where have I done that once, let alone twice? Again you seem to have missed the fact that I said Christians do have a legal right to discriminate...
Again, if this is how you choose to treat the people who agree with you, I'd hate to see how you treat a genuine enemy...
Perhaps the problem simply is that you literally don't know the meaning of "contempt"? Because you've just demonstrated it again... why else would you be so combative to people on your side?
Contempt isn't a bad thing when it's warranted, so why not own up to it?
I just don't consider denying people access to services available to the public at large to make religious points to be a freedom people should have.
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?