Indiana....

zitothebrave said:
If I'm a pizza parlor. I can't refuse a slice to someone because they're gay. I think that's common sense. If I'm in the wedding business, I can't refuse service to someone because they're gay. Again common sense. I don't know why you're struggling so mightly with it. Replace gay with black if you want. I know your opinino won't change, but others may.
Click to expand...

It's not about the person being gay. How do you not understand this? It's about participating in a gay wedding.

Like the cartoon above, should the muslim bakery be forced to do a cake with an Allah cartoon on it? Or should the black baker be forced to do a pro-KKK cake?

The bakery isn't refusing service to a gay person. it's refusing to participate in a gay wedding. It's two different things and they should have right to do it. Just because you want to force everyone to believe the same as you doesn't mean it's right.
 
You're not comparing like for like situations. It's not even a little bit worth my time to tell you why you're wrong if you haven't gotten it yet.

If you're in the wedding business. And that's your business you have to cater to all weddings whether you agree with them or not or it's discrtimination. Let's pick on a law in our books. Interacial or interfaith couples. Serving them could be against someone's religious beliefs. Should they be allowed to not serve them if their business is dealing in the wedding business? I'm not talking about non-wedding businesses.

Of course to day you only hear of gay weddings being rejected, because you never hear of the KKK trying to get a black baker to make a KKKake for them. But yay strawmen!
 
zitothebrave said:
You're not comparing like for like situations. It's not even a little bit worth my time to tell you why you're wrong if you haven't gotten it yet.

If you're in the wedding business. And that's your business you have to cater to all weddings whether you agree with them or not or it's discrtimination. Let's pick on a law in our books. Interacial or interfaith couples. Serving them could be against someone's religious beliefs. Should they be allowed to not serve them if their business is dealing in the wedding business? I'm not talking about non-wedding businesses.

Of course to day you only hear of gay weddings being rejected, because you never hear of the KKK trying to get a black baker to make a KKKake for them. But yay strawmen!
Click to expand...

A bakery is not a "wedding business" it is a "baking business"... but to answer your question (which you never do for me), yes, you should be allowed to refuse whoever the hell you want to.
 
sturg33 said:
10350525_10204372781705680_9191598781432707653_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Zito - I assume you're good with this, yes?
 
zitothebrave said:
Of course to day you only hear of gay weddings being rejected, because you never hear of the KKK trying to get a black baker to make a KKKake for them. But yay strawmen!
Click to expand...

You can claim straw man all you want... but the principle is the principle... You either agree with forced submission or you don't. If you demand that gay weddings are served from Christian people, then you better damn well agree that black bakers must submit to things against their beliefs, and muslim bakers must submit to things against their beliefs. Don't be a hypocrite.
 
sturg33 said:
You can claim straw man all you want... but the principle is the principle... You either agree with forced submission or you don't. If you demand that gay weddings are served from Christian people, then you better damn well agree that black bakers must submit to things against their beliefs, and muslim bakers must submit to things against their beliefs. Don't be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I'm not demanding anyhting, other than people who're in a specific business (wedding) serve anyone and not discriminate. If they were asked to decorate a cake covered in penises, that's a totally different thing. You're confusing selective issues with non-selective. Should a christian have to serve a gay? Yes. Should a christian running a pizzeria have to cater a gay wedding? No.

What you're grasping at here, is that you don't get the difference. I guess it's OK. But it's pretty sad.
 
Zito, there is no difference between catering and baking a cake. You either serve someone or you don't.
 
zitothebrave said:
Should a christian have to serve a gay? Yes. Should a christian running a pizzeria have to cater a gay wedding? No.
Click to expand...

I agree with this line of thinking. Generally.

The problem is that, legally speaking, there is no real differentiation. Hence RFRA.
 
Hawk said:
I agree with this line of thinking. Generally.

The problem is that, legally speaking, there is no real differentiation. Hence RFRA.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase, I don't think they should be allowed to tell someone they won't do a wedding because they're gay. but if your business operates outside of the wedding sphere you can say you have other obligations, can't sacrifice the staff etc. Even in the wedding business you can do that. Just better not book another wedding later for the same time and date.
 
zitothebrave said:
Let me rephrase, I don't think they should be allowed to tell someone they won't do a wedding because they're gay. but if your business operates outside of the wedding sphere you can say you have other obligations, can't sacrifice the staff etc. Even in the wedding business you can do that. Just better not book another wedding later for the same time and date.
Click to expand...

I'm torn. I don't think that behavior (turning away gay customers) aligns with Christian morals at all, but I'm likewise not opposed to any legislation which appropriately applies jurisprudence in protecting the religion.
 
Hawk said:
I'm torn. I don't think that behavior (turning away gay customers) aligns with Christian morals at all, but I'm likewise not opposed to any legislation that appropriately applies jurisprudence in protecting the religion.
Click to expand...

Uh oh. Here comes Bedell to tell you you're Christianing wrong
 
This always seems to boil down to people's ick factor with gays. Wrap it in the mantle of religious freedom all you like, but this is really just a cultural battle fought on another front.

Of all of the things that might "substantially burden" a Christian, why is this where we draw a line in the sand? Why is it always this? Something that seems so inconsequential in context . . . something that Christ's recorded words never addressed. Did Jesus advise us to avoid commerce with gay people? With anyone?

Is this religion, or cultural preference?
 
Julio3000 said:
This always seems to boil down to people's ick factor with gays. Wrap it in the mantle of religious freedom all you like, but this is really just a cultural battle fought on another front.

Of all of the things that might "substantially burden" a Christian, why is this where we draw a line in the sand? Why is it always this? Something that seems so inconsequential in context . . . something that Christ's recorded words never addressed. Did Jesus advise us to avoid commerce with gay people? With anyone?

Is this religion, or cultural preference?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know where I'm coming from, but I frankly don't think it matters why a business doesn't want to conduct business.

Having said that, the thing that irks me the most is the Zitos of the world will rail against the gay bakery example, because he defends gay marriage... But he will not support the KKK example, because it is not something he agrees with. The hypocrisy gets so old.

Most Christians believe that marriage is a religious institution, and not a government one. I tend to agree. Additionally, Christians see marriage as one man and one woman. So I can certainly understand why they don't want to put their name on something they spiritually are against, can't you?

Muslim bakers do the same thing (watch the video above), but nobody seems to care about that
 
sturg33 said:
I'm sure you know where I'm coming from, but I frankly don't think it matters why a business doesn't want to conduct business.

Having said that, the thing that irks me the most is the Zitos of the world will rail against the gay bakery example, because he defends gay marriage... But he will not support the KKK example, because it is not something he agrees with. The hypocrisy gets so old.

Most Christians believe that marriage is a religious institution, and not a government one. I tend to agree. Additionally, Christians see marriage as one man and one woman. So I can certainly understand why they don't want to put their name on something they spiritually are against, can't you?

Muslim bakers do the same thing (watch the video above), but nobody seems to care about that
Click to expand...

I understand your POV, sturg. I come down in a different place on personal/commercial freedom vs. regulation of commerce, and I find it an interesting and worthwhile debate.

As for the other, I am not unsympathetic, but I just don't "get" it. I don't understand how a Christian could be "substantially burdened" by a commercial transaction with a homosexual. I understand how a personal who is opposed to gay marriage might prefer not to participate in a gay wedding, but I'm fuzzy on where religion, and more specifically where a religious burden enters the picture. Christianity is not a legalistic religion.
 
zitothebrave said:
I'm not demanding anyhting, other than people who're in a specific business (wedding) serve anyone and not discriminate. If they were asked to decorate a cake covered in penises, that's a totally different thing. You're confusing selective issues with non-selective. Should a christian have to serve a gay? Yes. Should a christian running a pizzeria have to cater a gay wedding? No.

What you're grasping at here, is that you don't get the difference. I guess it's OK. But it's pretty sad.
Click to expand...

I think it is abundantly clear who is confused here.
 
zitothebrave said:
Uh oh. Here comes Bedell to tell you you're Christianing wrong
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I understand that different professing Christians can land differently on this issue. Now if Hawk holds a doctrinal view outside historic Christian orthodoxy and calls himself a Christian, I'll differ with him on his labeling.
 
Julio3000 said:
This always seems to boil down to people's ick factor with gays. Wrap it in the mantle of religious freedom all you like, but this is really just a cultural battle fought on another front.

Of all of the things that might "substantially burden" a Christian, why is this where we draw a line in the sand? Why is it always this? Something that seems so inconsequential in context . . . something that Christ's recorded words never addressed. Did Jesus advise us to avoid commerce with gay people? With anyone?

Is this religion, or cultural preference?
Click to expand...

I find this condescendingly dismissive. Yes, his words address the issue of sexual sin, of which homosexual unions would be but one manifestation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top