They don't have that right, they forfeited it when they went into business in America, where we don't allow discriminatory practices. Believe whatever you want, and do with it what you want, but at the time you decide to serve the general public you lose the right to be a discriminatory prick. Freedoms are amazing and necessary, but limiting other's freedoms in order as a byproduct is unacceptable.The wedding planner and the bakers were keeping their noses out of other people's business. Activists want to force them to act against their beliefs.
I underlined the interesting part. What freedom is being limited for the baker and wedding planner? The religious freedom part.They don't have that right, they forfeited it when they went into business in America, where we don't allow discriminatory practices. Believe whatever you want, and do with it what you want, but at the time you decide to serve the general public you lose the right to be a discriminatory prick. Freedoms are amazing and necessary, but limiting other's freedoms in order as a byproduct is unacceptable.
And guess what? That is their burden to bear as a goods and services provider. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to harassment in the same way that freedom of religion doesn't extend to discrimination.I underlined the interesting part. What freedom is being limited for the baker and wedding planner? The religious freedom part.
Where are you getting that? Only in cases where you are providing services are you limited in the expression of the religious dogma you are allowed to apologize for. Would you like to live in a world where the majority could deny you vital goods solely because they don't want to due to any arbitrary set of contrived or conservative beliefs? What if large supermarket chains refused to sell to sell to the LDS? That's the same type of discriminatory dogma that homosexuals are having to put up with.So free exercise part of religion applies only to the home? Since when?
And neither the baker nor the florist were refusing general goods or services to gay people. They were declining the extra work a gay wedding would have brought.And guess what? That is their burden to bear as a goods and services provider. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to harassment in the same way that freedom of religion doesn't extend to discrimination.
Not particularly. Since when is a specific baker or florist a vital good? Would you want to live in a world where a minority group could force you to provide a service or perform a task, that you disagree with, that they could just as easily get somewhere else?Where are you getting that? Only in cases where you are providing services are you limited in the expression of the religious dogma you are allowed to apologize for.
Would you like to live in a world where the majority could deny you vital goods solely because they don't want to due to any arbitrary set of contrived or conservative beliefs?
How would they know I'm LDS? It's not like it's written on my forehead.What if large supermarket chains refused to sell to sell to the LDS?
Please point out where a homosexual has been refused service outside of the mentioned baker and florist.That's the same type of discriminatory dogma that homosexuals are having to put up with.
It's not freedom of religion if you are forced to perform acts that your religion considers wrong. Almost no one is saying make the gays be whatever religion. They are saying that "as a Christian, I will not participate or aid in a gay wedding."Freedom of religion isn't the freedom to force your religion on others.
Please point out where a homosexual has been refused service outside of the mentioned baker and florist.
Your wish is my command:
http://gawker.com/same-sex-couple-denied-communion-by-priest-at-mothers-1518857686
At their mothers own funeral no less.
Know what Dante believed happened to bad priests who abused their authority in the afterlife? Read The Divine Comedy to find out, in Circle 8, Bolgia 3 of the first Cantica of the epic.
What act are they being forced to perform? Unless I'm mistaken, the bible prohibits same sex relationships, not selling cake to gay people. If you're not the one getting married then it has nothing to do with your religion. You're still free to do whatever you want, you just can't deny something to someone because they're not abiding by your religious doctrine.It's not freedom of religion if you are forced to perform acts that your religion considers wrong. Almost no one is saying make the gays be whatever religion. They are saying that "as a Christian, I will not participate or aid in a gay wedding."
Is that even relevant? The debate is about whether or not it's ok to discriminate against gays specifically, denying them services.And neither the baker nor the florist were refusing general goods or services to gay people. They were declining the extra work a gay wedding would have brought.
It's the base value that is being trampled on. Denying someone simply because they are gay, or because they are black, or because they have a disability, is immoral at its base because it is prejudiced and discriminatory.Not particularly. Since when is a specific baker or florist a vital good? Would you want to live in a world where a minority group could force you to provide a service or perform a task, that you disagree with, that they could just as easily get somewhere else?
You're missing the point. Do you want to have to hide your identity to be provided goods and services? What about if you needed something for your church, like, I guess, a revival? I don't know if you guys do that.How would they know I'm LDS? It's not like it's written on my forehead.
Please defer to the fact that recent legislation tried to make discrimination legal. It has nothing to do with if it happens, it has to do with the fact that it can happen.Please point out where a homosexual has been refused service outside of the mentioned baker and florist.
You aren't forced to do anything. If you don't want to make cakes, then get out of the cake-making business. If you don't want to cut flowers then don't be a florist. If you don't want to serve the public, then don't offer your services.It's not freedom of religion if you are forced to perform acts that your religion considers wrong. Almost no one is saying make the gays be whatever religion. They are saying that "as a Christian, I will not participate or aid in a gay wedding."
Isn't that what kicked off this whole deal?Is that even relevant? The debate is about whether or not it's ok to discriminate against gays specifically, denying them services.
It was not "simply because they were gay." It came down to what people consider a religious rite.It's the base value that is being trampled on. Denying someone simply because they are gay, or because they are black, or because they have a disability, is immoral at its base because it is prejudiced and discriminatory.
I get the point. No one is calling for that though.You're missing the point. Do you want to have to hide your identity to be provided goods and services? What about if you needed something for your church, like, I guess, a revival? I don't know if you guys do that.
There seem to be indications that the media was distorting what the Arizona bill would do.Please defer to the fact that recent legislation tried to make discrimination legal. It has nothing to do with if it happens, it has to do with the fact that it can happen.
SB 1062 is that bill that would have allowed business owners to discriminate against gays and deny them service in restaurants and bakeries, right? Have you gotten the message (from virtually every news outlet and even from the NFL) that the bill was all about — and only about — Arizona’s attempt to impose some version of Jim Crow laws on homosexuals? If so, you’ve been misled. But you’re probably not alone because the bill was so widely misrepresented.
In fact, nearly a dozen religious-liberty scholars wrote a letter to Governor Brewer prior to her veto, saying that SB 1062 “has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.” The group included individuals on different sides of the same-sex marriage debate and those from a variety of religious and political perspectives. All said that “many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.”
The letter noted that the federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) that require the government to have a compelling interest before burdening a person’s religious exercise. The legal scholars assert that the standard makes sense. “We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason.” Arizona has had a RFRA in place for nearly fifteen years with only a handful of cases and little controversy. SB 1062 merely sought to clear up two ambiguities in the existent law:
It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.
But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest. [Emphasis original]
Contrary to the widespread misreporting, this was not an “anti-gay” bill and nothing in the text of the bill would have overtly permitted businesses to deny services or “discriminate” against anyone. It merely would have made clear that individuals and businesses could raise religious liberty as a defense in certain cases. Arizona’s current RFRA, parts of which were copied verbatim from the federal law, left some ambiguity as to when that defense would be appropriate:
So, to be clear: SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.
The letter noted that defendants will assert the RFRA defense whether or not Brewer signs the bill. “Without the bill, whether RFRA applies will be an additional issue for litigation; with the bill, the answer will be clear and the parties and the court can proceed to the merits.”
You aren't forced to do anything. If you don't want to make cakes, then get out of the cake-making business. If you don't want to cut flowers then don't be a florist. If you don't want to serve the public, then don't offer your services.
Isn't the "whole deal" the law that would allow gays to be discriminated against?Isn't that what kicked off this whole deal?
The religious rite... of denying someone because their sexual preference doesn't align with the teachings of their own religion. That is denying them because they are gay, plain and simple. If you have a reason it's somehow not, I would absolutely love to hear it.It was not "simply because they were gay." It came down to what people consider a religious rite.
Yea, that's why I made an analogy, so you could see it from your perspective. If people were calling for that, like they are for homosexuals, would you have more or less of a problem? Better example would be, if an extremist branch of Mormonism called for the ability to deny blacks of their right to purchase goods, would you see that as within the reach of their religion? It's a slippery slope, as well; if Mormonism (to that extreme, even though it's already ridiculous enough in my own opinion) is allowed to deny a race, then why can't I myself fabricate a religion that denies Asians or Latinos? Where does it end?I get the point. No one is calling for that though.
Doesn't look like distortion to me. The state was willing to back the individual who would deny service due to sexual preference. Pretty clear-cut.There seem to be indications that the media was distorting what the Arizona bill would do.
If your morals and values prohibit you from serving the general public, then they are probably bigoted. Oh, and you can't run a business if you are unable to cater to the general public.So basically, you can't run a business unless you ignore your own morals and values?
Yes, that's just it. The florist would sell them flowers... but not if they were to be used in a gay wedding. The baker would bake them a cake... but if it was to be eaten at a gay wedding, he wanted no part in it. This isn't about any burden that would be placed on these people, it's literally what they do for a living. This is about their own abhorrent moral objections that don't allow them to serve everyone.And again, the florist and the baker both had no problem serving gays. They weren't interested in going the extra step and aiding in a gay wedding.
They got to blaze it everyday for years, maybe they just ran out of God juice. Haha, blaze it... because they're a baker... nvmYou have to wonder... If they followed the will of God, why has God neglected them? Why has evil prevailed in this case, I ask you? Has God abandoned his flock and let the righteous suffer?
No, he has not.
Would just like to mention a few things.And if the cake decorator and florist are really that adamant in their convictions, then why do they not also deny service to people with tattoos, couples consisting of one or more divorcee, or weddings where the bride is not a virgin (even if by rape)? There are scores of laws the bible sets forth, most of which are no longer followed. And, if we're bringing Christianity up specifically, then remember Mark Chapter Twelve, and the two great commandments. The first is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; the second, to love thy neighbour as thyself. Jeshua himself said there is no commandment greater than these. And don't respond with the BS response of "they were showing their love by denying them service, to show them the path to the one true god and away from their sinful lives". It's total bull, and pretending otherwise does no-one any good.
Take a look at what I said in the other thread. Actually, Jesus told his followers to to be "Not of the world"(Some Translations render this "No part of the world") [John 17: 15,16] Would a Christian really be "No part of the world " if he were involved in the political affairs of this world? Trying to change it?
Did I say I was supporting anti-gay Laws?No he definitely would not. The big question is: Would he be the hero or the villain?
You tell me, Spock. What does the majority of the public think of the anti-gay crowd? Are they praised as heroes or reviled as bigots?
Opinions change as society changes, Spock. You can't stop progress any more than you can stop the sun from rising. You want to live in a theocracy where the ideas of two-thousand years ago are admired? Move to Iran. That's the best advice I can give you. Because in this country, the anti-gay laws will be defeated, again and again, and the people supporting them will always be seen as bigots and luddites on the wrong side of history.