supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[pat34lee]

Nope, not what is being said. What is being said is that a business may not discriminate by refusing to sell a product they normally offer, in states that protect sexual orientation, based on "who they boink."

I think "a product that they normally offer" has been shown
to be false. They wanted a specially made product for them.

Does this go for every service? Does a Christian photographer
have to photograph their union and party? Does a sign maker
have to make custom signs for anyone, regardless of message?

 

[pat34lee]

Speaking of made up rights, businesses don't have religious beliefs to protect. They're not people. They're legal fictions.

Exactly. So it isn't the business that has to compromise
it's principles, since it has none of those either.

It is the Christian owner.

 

[bhsmte]

I think "a product that they normally offer" has been shown
to be false. They wanted a specially made product for them.

Does this go for every service? Does a Christian photographer
have to photograph their union and party? Does a sign maker
have to make custom signs for anyone, regardless of message?

How was the product "special"?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

You forget the most important part:
-you can practice your religion as you choose, everywhere you go.

Yes, but you can't force your religions on people. Or refuse to serve the public. If you have a job, that serves the public.

 

[KCfromNC]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word, "why".

Why would you say that?

I've already done the research. That is why I referenced it.

If you can't be bothered to tell me what you're talking about it can't be that important.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think "a product that they normally offer" has been shown
to be false. They wanted a specially made product for them.

That's exactly the product they offer to any other non-gay customer.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly. So it isn't the business that has to compromise
it's principles, since it has none of those either.

It is the Christian owner.

Their choice to open a business to the public.

 

[Almost there]

Why would you say that?



If you can't be bothered to tell me what you're talking about it can't be that important.

This has gone pretty much full circle. I started a thread on Global warming back in 2007 that went on for over 6,000 posts. almost all of it was just the same people rehashing the same arguments over and over. I'll let my words in this thread be complete at this point. Make of them what you will.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly. So it isn't the business that has to compromise
it's principles, since it has none of those either.

It is the Christian owner.

No more so than him being forced to cater to Muslims, Jews, or any other type of heathen...

 

[Belk]

Exactly. So it isn't the business that has to compromise
it's principles, since it has none of those either.

It is the Christian owner.

It seems to me the Christian owner can take steps to ensure he is not put in the position of having to worry about compromising his principles. The easiest is to simply stop offering wedding cakes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It seems to me the Christian owner can take steps to ensure he is not put in the position of having to worry about compromising his principles. The easiest is to simply stop offering wedding cakes.

Then teh gheys will just order any old cake and use it for their wedding... best way to nip that in the bud is to stop offering cakes, period.

 

[umbrabates]

The ‘due penalty’ part, is referring to what people voluntarily give up when they choose that lifestyle, i.e their dignity.

Please, share with us what it was like the day you "chose" a heterosexual lifestyle and came out to your friends and family as straight.

 

[umbrabates]

It is not the minority they object to. It is the event.

And the bible discusses this. Read what Paul has to say regarding food sacrificed to idols. It's perfectly ok, unless...

Unless it can be construed as an endorsement of idol worship.

So, you are saying the baker is afraid that baking a cake for a gay wedding may somehow be construed by a "weak" Christian (Paul's word, not mine) as an endorsement of the event. By this line of thinking, you are saying that providing the cake would be a transgression of the baker's religion (Christianity).

So, why couldn't the baker quit her job? (Mathew 5:30)

Wouldn't that have been a legal solution to her religious dilemma?

 

[Almost there]

Unless it can be construed as an endorsement of idol worship.

So, you are saying the baker is afraid that baking a cake for a gay wedding may somehow be construed by a "weak" Christian (Paul's word, not mine) as an endorsement of the event. By this line of thinking, you are saying that providing the cake would be a transgression of the baker's religion (Christianity).

So, why couldn't the baker quit her job? (Mathew 5:30)

Wouldn't that have been a legal solution to her religious dilemma?

Based on your response I don't think you've been following this or the responses here all that closely.

 

[hedrick]

[withdrawn; I misunderstood]

 

[umbrabates]

Based on your response I don't think you've been following this or the responses here all that closely.

Sorry, it's a long thread. I'll try to review the discussion.

 

[Tom 1]

Please, share with us what it was like the day you "chose" a heterosexual lifestyle and came out to your friends and family as straight.

What’s the link you are making there?

 

[KCfromNC]

Please, share with us what it was like the day you "chose" a heterosexual lifestyle and came out to your friends and family as straight.

Also, if businesses get to discriminate against people for their lifestyle choices discrimination based on choosing to be Christian would be 100% acceptable.

 

[KCfromNC]

This has gone pretty much full circle. I started a thread on Global warming back in 2007 that went on for over 6,000 posts. almost all of it was just the same people rehashing the same arguments over and over. I'll let my words in this thread be complete at this point. Make of them what you will.

I've seen this approach before. Avoid answering questions then pretend that they were answered and wonder why people keep asking. It is no more convincing now than when I've seen it in the past.

 

[Almost there]

I've seen this approach before. Avoid answering questions then pretend that they were answered and wonder why people keep asking. It is no more convincing now than when I've seen it in the past.

Based on your posting style, I'm sure you have seen this approach before. The answer to your questions are in my previous posts - somewhere.

Enjoy!