Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not able to watch videos right now (I'm on cell phone data). Care to describe your point with words?

 

[Prestor John]

I wonder who claimed your comment was a "Winner."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If the woodcarver takes no special orders, they take no special orders.

No, what I am asking is if the woodcarver does offer special orders, you don’t believe he should have the right to refuse a potential project because he finds it offensive?

He has no right to avoid carving images that he believes are offensive?

He does not have the right to decide what he does or does not want his business associated with?

His portfolio needs to include even those images he would rather not carve?

He would need to offer to carve these same offensive images for future customers?

He has no right to decide how he wants to promote his business or what image he wants for his business?

Different states, different judges. However, I did state my position.

It was actually the same State. Colorado. I don’t know about the same judge though.

So, your position is that she should have made the anti-LGBT cake, even though she felt that it was offensive and she did not want herself or her business to be associated with that kind of bigotry, and then afterward imagined that she had received the “gratitude” of organizations committed to fighting against anti-LGBT rhetoric and then considered the cakes to be a “donation” to their cause?

Your position does not make any sense to me.

Do you consider all homosexuals to be charity cases?

Yes. She serves the public.

You don’t believe she has any right to defend the image of her bakery?

You think she should be forced to be that bakery that make anti-LGBT cakes and receive any backlash that may cause to her business?

She and her bakery should forever be associated with anti-LGBT sentiments?

I don't hate Christians.

No, you don’t hate Christians.

You just hate everything they stand for and believe in.

No, you don’t hate Christians.

You just hate the idea of them having the same freedoms as you.

No, you don’t hate Christians.

You just hate everything about them.

However, I see the Bible as nothing but evil.

Yes, I understand that you like to judge and condemn the Bible and those who follow its precepts and then try to call others down by claiming that they judge and condemn people.

I understand this because I know that you are a hypocrite.

You judge and condemn and then turn around and try to find fault in others for “judging and condemning” (even though they are not guilty of either).

Misogyny, slavery, genocide, there is nothing "holy" about it.

Yes, the Bible does record many of the atrocities committed by ancient peoples.

Providing background and culture which adds evidence to the idea that it is an accurate record of ancient peoples.

You only find fault with the Bible because it also teaches against the lifestyle you have chosen to live and you are too immature to cope with anyone or anything disagreeing with you.

You want the Christian lifestyle, beliefs and culture to disappear.

That is intolerance and hatred.

Then you project your own intolerance and hatred onto others.

Homosexuals are fighting for equality under the law.

Commanding people to agree with you and do as you say or you will destroy their livelihood is not “equality under the law.”

I can’t force a baker to make an offensive cake by threatening them.

If I am not able to do that, why should you and other homosexuals be able to do that?

You want a “special privilege."

That is not a special privilege or right.

You don’t want equality.

You want tyranny.

You want to force people to agree with you and accept your lifestyle.

You are guilty of the same behavior that you complain Christians exhibit, proving your hypocrisy.

Asides from religious objections, there are no valid reasons for banning same sex marriage.

That is not true.

First, understand that the State recognition of marriage is not a universal right for many secular reasons.

States regulate marriage in many ways, for example, first cousins and closer blood relatives are prohibited from marrying, even if the individuals are sterile.

It is also illegal in the U.S. to attempt to marry more than one person. Some States even restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases.

My point is that marriage is a heavily regulated thing and there is good reason for it.

A State recognized marriage bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the State and other individuals. In a way, they receive a subsidy. Why is that?

Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest.

I know you are going to bring up the fringe cases of infertility among married couples, but let me just stop you here. Infertility is not obvious and for any State to try to ensure that all married couples be fertile would be very expensive and burdensome.

The State also should not deny those married couples who claim not to want children because no one has a mind-reading machine or crystal ball. No one would know if either spouse truly never wanted children and no one can see into the future to guarantee that they won’t.

Interracial married also does not affect fertility, so there is no need to go that route either.

A same-sex marriage would do nothing to serve the State interest of propagating society, so I see no reason for the State to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

Religious policy has no place running a state.

Yet, the beliefs and lifestyle of a private business owner has place running their private business.

Why did you again ignore your hypocrisy when it came to forcing people to go to war or forcing them to make a wedding cake?

Remember you said in post #893,

“We in America are privileged enough to have a large enough population that volunteer for it that we don't really need mandatory conscription.”

And then I replied to that by saying,

“Kind of like how we have so many bakers who are willing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings that we don’t need to force bakers who don’t want to bake them into baking them?”

When are you going to recognize this hypocrisy you have and deal with it?

You said that you don’t believe it is necessary to force anyone to go to war against their religious beliefs because we have so many other people who volunteer to go, so why do you think it is alright to force a baker to make a wedding cake against his religious beliefs when there are so many other bakers who would be willing to make the cake?

Stop running away from your hypocrisy. Deal with it.

 

[Prestor John]

They are indeed providing goods and services to the general public.

A private business has the right to refuse goods and services.

You are conflating the private with the public sector.

A private business owner is not a “public servant.” They can choose who they wish to do business with.

They can cater to certain a certain client base, but they can't refuse someone on the basis on a number of different things.

Anti-discrimination laws may prohibit the refusal of goods and services to someone based simply on their sexual orientation, but that does not apply to the participation in an activity the business owner finds offensive.

Denying goods or services to a nude person is not discrimination if that nude person happens to be black or homosexual.

Their race or sexual orientation was not why the goods or services were denied, but rather the fact that they were nude and that the business owner did not want to engage in any activity with a nude person.

The sexual orientation of the couple that wanted the wedding cake was not why the baker declined to bake it. It was the fact that the cake was meant for an activity that the baker did not want to participate in.

The baker’s level of participation in an activity he finds offensive is determined by him and no one else.

Equality under the law is not a special privilege.

That is not what homosexuals are fighting for.

They want tyranny.

If I do not have the right to force a business owner to participate in an activity they find offensive, why should homosexuals have that right?

Homosexuals should not be banned from getting married just because some Christians have a problem with (many, [in fact], have no problem with it and support it as a right).

Why should a homosexual couple get the same incentives that I do when I am producing children and they are not?

You can believe and try to paint it up like only Christians disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but that would be woefully ignorant of you.

He wasn't participating in it, and there is nothing to support his decision in the Bible.

His level of participation is determined by him and no one else.

You do not have the right to dictate the beliefs of others.

I do not personally believe that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding is sinful, but I don’t have the right to impose my belief upon anyone, including this baker.

I find your attempt to use the Bible to be in bad taste because even if the Bible clearly stated that homosexual behavior was sinful and that marriage was instituted by God (Wait. The Bible does teach those things!) – you would reject it all as “evil” anyway.

Do you believe that your (false) interpretation of the Bible should be imposed on this baker or anyone else?

If so, then that would be you claiming to have a special privilege.

In a country truly based on equality, you could not demand that someone else live by your (false) interpretation of the Bible.

In a country truly based on equality, everyone has the right to believe what they want and to practice that belief as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

No one should be forced to go to war, against their religious beliefs, because we have so many other people willing to volunteer to go to war.

No one should be forced to bake a cake, against their religious beliefs, because we have so many other bakers willing to volunteer to bake a cake.

"Tolerance" is giving the right to vote to more people than just white property owning men.

It was the States and the Courts that decided voter qualifications, not the Constitution.

Tolerance is not counting a human being as 3/5 a person.

You continually fail because you continually try to judge the past using the standards of today.

For their time, the Framers were extremely tolerant in this regard, considering that a slave anywhere else would have been counted as less than zero.

It is by judging a people and their practices in the past by the standards of their day that we can get a clearer view of how tolerant they were.

It was this method that led me to say that slavery in ancient Israel was superior to slavery anywhere else.

I never said it was “ideal” or “praiseworthy” as you deceitfully tried to claim I had said, but superior.

Anyways, none of these past experiences changes the fact that the U.S. is one of (if not the most) tolerant countries in the world today.

Instead of trying to change my country, go to Saudi Arabia and get hanged for being homosexual.

At least then you’d know how good you have it here.

That doesn't change the fact they were demanding their so-called "god given right" to slavery.

I never said that it did.

However, that does not change the fact that they also demanded their right to make money through slavery.

Your attempt to try to blame God, the Bible or Christians for the decisions made by those slave owners just doesn’t fly.

There is no superior form of slavery.

Yes, there is.

No matter how you dress it up, no matter how you do it, it is one of the greatest evils we can do to another person.

I agree, but that does not negate the fact that one form of slavery can be superior to another.

You said Jewish slavery was "superior," despite the fact those slaves were still property and could be severely beaten, married to whom their master desired, and were considered property.

I’m still waiting for you to quote me saying that it was “ideal” or “praiseworthy”, which was what you claimed and what I asked you to prove.

Just admit that you can’t prove I said that because I didn’t and move on.

That is nothing more than an excuse. If a parent is abusive, we press charges and sometimes even remove the children from the custody of the parent.

Yet, it is your ignorance of God and His relationship with His children that has led you to this false conclusion.

If someone were as ignorant of parenting as you are of God and His ways- they may consider any form of punishment enacted by a parent on their child to be “child abuse.”

You are free to bring up anything you believe to be an example of “abuse” by God, but be prepared to be stomped on.

When you want to strip someone of equality under the law, it is hatred.

Then you are full of hatred.

You want to take away a private business owner’s right to not participate in something they find offensive.

You want to take away anyone’s right to practice their religion.

You assume that if anyone disagrees with you or finds what you choose to do to be offensive, they must hate you.

You project this hatred because you are full of hatred.

That is an immature world view.

 

[Prestor John]

That is not love, that is not tolerance, it is hatred and seeing that group as "unworthy" and "undeserving" of the full privileges and rights of citizenship.

Again, you are erroneously conflating the buying of a cake (which you already admitted was not a right in your last post) with the “full privileges and rights of citizenship.”

I do not have the right as a citizen of the United States of America to force someone to participate in an activity that they have reservations against and do not want to participate in.

If I do not have that right then you and any other homosexual does not have that right.

You are fighting for special privileges.

Yes, the baker did judge by claiming that a homosexual marriage is wrong.

You can judge what people do without judging the person.

You can condemn what people do without condemning the person.

Just because you are incapable of doing that, that does not mean others are not capable.

People can disagree with what you do without judging and condemning you.

You, however, cannot handle that. You can’t deal with anyone disagreeing with you.

You assume hatred because you yourself hate.

This baker did not judge or condemn that homosexual couple. He was willing to serve them, but he could not participate in their wedding because of his religious beliefs.

Also, don’t forget your hypocrisy for trying to find fault in this baker for judging and condemning (even though he never did) while at the same time judging and condemning the Bible and Christian beliefs.

I wouldn't be going on about how god finds it detestable, and that they are an abomination, and how horrible they are.

Ok. Who has said any one that here about homosexuals?

They are still human beings, and still deserving of being treated well and with dignity.

Yet, their inclinations should not be entertained.

They should work against their attractions and try to change their feelings toward children.

Does condemning the practice of pedophilia condemn those who are attracted to children?

You do not condone pedophilia, does that mean you hate all people who are attracted to children?

You don’t believe it is possible to hate a practice, yet not hate the people who commit or who would potentially commit that practice?

If you can do it, why can’t Christians?

Why do you have the right to hate the sin, but not the sinner, while you don’t believe Christians should have that right?

It is not hatred to believe that someone’s behavior is wrong.

I handle it quite often.

Yes, but you don’t handle it well.

You are inconsistent, hypocritical and hateful.

You believe that you are entitled to special privileges and rights because you are attracted to someone of the same-sex.

You want all beliefs that differ from yours to vanish and never been seen or heard of again.

You, on the other hand, seem to not be able to stand it, at all, when equality is granted to a group your religion has taught you to view as "lesser than" and not worthy of equality under the law.

My religion has never taught me or anyone else to view anyone as “lesser than” or not worthy of equality under the law.

That is you projecting again.

I believe that homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights that I have.

I, however, do not have the right to force anyone, including business owners, to participate in an activity they find offensive.

If I don’t have that right, what makes you think you and other homosexuals should have that right?

What I'm saying is if you [break] the law, you need to be ready for the consequences. Whether the law is just or not is a different issue.

It is not a different issue than this thread.

We have been talking about whether or not the law is just.

Get with the program.

No, if you look back, I have been using the terms rights, liberties, and privileges. I do not use these terms interchangeably as they are not interchangeable. In this case, I have been using the term "liberty" or "civil liberty" to describe the act of going to a store to purchase a good or service. Legally, for things such as sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, military status, religion, creed, and so on, businesses cannot refuse service. You are not only denying civil liberties, you are denying the right to full protection and equality under the law.

Ok.

Your list does not include participation in an offensive activity.

Does that mean private business owners can refuse service if that service would cause them to participate in an activity they find offensive?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, you are erroneously conflating the buying of a cake (which you already admitted was not a right in your last post) with the “full privileges and rights of citizenship.”

What I believe in, and the courts have been consistently ruling, is that if you sell a cake to one person, you have to sell a cake to everyone. Look at a company like Pure Romance. Their parties are girls only, but they still sell to men. They are running a business and they have buyers. I have not taken a single business course, my own business is ran in a way that makes other business owners cringe, but even I see the very self-defeating nature of a business discriminating in such a way. So, it's illegal already in many ways, it's largely considered immoral and unethical by everyone who is in full support of allowing it, and it's a dumb business practice. If your stalker ex boy friend comes in, if someone is known as a trouble maker, those examples that are justifiable. One is prone to violence and typically a psychological struggle to maintain power and control, and the other could do anything from costing money to annoying other customers. But, when it comes to differences in ideology, that includes religious, you shouldn't be running a business if you can't get over it. It's not the thing for you, because you end up meeting a whole bunch of weirdos. But, ultimately, you are not there to like them, you are there to get their money, ideally in a way that gets them to come back and spread the word.

You are fighting for special privileges.

Equality under the law is not a special privilege, it is a right. Because I am an American citizen, I am fully entitled to the rights bestowed on other citizens. This includes the right to not be discriminated against and be protected from it. We are a nation for all, not just white heterosexual Anglo Conservative Protestants and Catholics. People outside of that group believe differently, and generally do see those wanting to bar homosexuals from marriage and control education to be the ones demanding special privileges. We petition the state that we legally be acknowledged as equal, you want to run the state.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They should work against their attractions and try to change their feelings toward children.

Their attractions will never go away though. They don't have to work against, they have to work with it, admit to themselves what they are, and find outlets that do not involve children. One British man some years ago had the creative idea of photoshoping adult women into children. Sounds odd and maybe horrible at first, but there was zero harm done overall. Some opt for castration (chemical typically) just to do away with the strong sexual urges.

You do not condone pedophilia, does that mean you hate all people who are attracted to children?

I don't think pedophiles should be stripped of their rights because I find their attractions reprehensible. Children cannot consent and are mostly not sexually curious or interested. The actions cannot be condoned because it involves abusing a position of authority. However, they should be fully entitled to use public shops just like anyone else.

You don’t believe it is possible to hate a practice

I've never claimed that.

yet not hate the people who commit or who would potentially commit that practice

Hatred is something that causes harms or reduces the quality of life for another. Saying they are not fully entitled to the rights freely given to everybody else when there exist no objective facts to oppose it, that is causing needless harm and reductions in their quality of life.

If you can do it, why can’t Christians?

The issue really is which Christians? You, as a group, do not agree over this issue. Many claim the love of Jesus mandates the Church welcome homosexuals with open arms, to tolerate, accept, and love them like anyone else, and to not turn them away but show them the love of Jesus. Many, however, also claim that because of a law given to the Jews that is actually more specific to the ritual practices of those "other tribes" but-who-really-cares-about-context gives them a right to turn such people away.
The courts have consistently ruled you can't discriminate, and future generations see this once great evil or mark of shame as "no...offensive activity." By the end of this century, it will be no different with homosexuals, and it will be of morbid curious wonder how anyone could ever hate someone for being homosexual or say they don't deserve equal rights. Really, no different than how today we have a hard time comprehending the idea of racial discrimination and home-bound women.

Yes, but you don’t handle it well.

You may be the only person who thinks that. I actually do have to put up with a lot, for just about everything, but yet I've not killed or even punched or slapped anyone. I really do want to slap some people though, especially those who doubt I can be a moral or good person without god, but I don't. I tend to civilly just end it and go along with my way to focus on things I'd rather be doing. Though some do provoke me into deciding that better thing is giving them a course on "this is what your religion actually says 101." You'd be amazed at how many people want to tell me to serve Jesus and the Bible proves it all yet they have absolutely no idea of what is really in there.

You are inconsistent, hypocritical and hateful.

I am being none of those. Of both of us, I am the one saying if you serve the public, you serve the public. There's nothing else to discuss because it's too hard, lengthy, and complex of a process of letting everyone claiming to be a special snow flake have special privileges. You serve the public, you serve the public. Simple, easy, smart, rational, it says no conflicts before they can start, and it affirms everyone is legally equal and protected under the law.

You believe that you are entitled to special privileges and rights because you are attracted to someone of the same-sex.

Not really. Not that I'm totally bored with or completely turned off from women, they just really aren't my preference.

My religion has never taught me or anyone else to view anyone as “lesser than” or not worthy of equality under the law.

You claim this, yet you state your entire position on appeals to your religion, and insisting that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated equally under the law, which includes protection against discrimination.

Your list does not include participation in an offensive activity.

Yet at some point in time such things were considered offensive enough that eventually someone called fowl loud enough to get things changed and now of course it's just unthinkable to see anything wrong with being black or a woman in the work place (especially in positions of authority). Really until not that long ago women wearing jeans was considered very improper and immoral, but hardly anyone cares today and the general consensus is only an abusive ******* would tell a woman she can't wear jeans.

Does that mean private business owners can refuse service if that service would cause them to participate in an activity they find offensive?

If you are a hardcore Buddhist or Hindu or Jainist pacifist, it would be illegal for you to turn away current or former members of the military because of their military status.

You want to take away a private business owner’s right to not participate in something they find offensive.

They don't necessarily have that as a right. In general, they don't. When it comes to who someone is a person, they don't.

You want to take away anyone’s right to practice their religion.

I've never claimed that. I will challenge religion, but I would not tell someone they cannot believe something.

You assume that if anyone disagrees with you or finds what you choose to do to be offensive, they must hate you.

No. I find saying "you are not deserving of equality" to be hateful. I disagree with members on various things on here, but for the most part I do not assume they hate me. But you don't have to hate an individual to hate who they are. However, it calls much into question when one side would stand up for the rights of both, but the other side only their own, their own side that wants to deny rights to a group that is harming no one or having any sort of negative influence on society.

First, understand that the State recognition of marriage is not a universal right for many secular reasons.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Why did you again ignore your hypocrisy when it came to forcing people to go to war or forcing them to make a wedding cake?

I said nothing about going to war. Defending your home and community, yes, but defending yourself is not going off to war. Every state needs a survival plan, mine would ensure the common citizen can fight back rather than being nothing more than cattle waiting for the slaughter.

Yet, it is your ignorance of God and His relationship with His children that has led you to this false conclusion.

You say I have this ignorance of god, but yet you do not support it. Rather, it is because I ceased my ignorance that I no longer follow your God. I read his words, his Bible, front to back, and realized he is very different from what they preach on the pulpit.

You continually fail because you continually try to judge the past using the standards of today.

That's called a measurement of progress. If someone looses weight, they can only say they have lost because they are comparing today with yesterday. If something is better, it can only be better because it was worse. You can't understand the past by today's standards, but we can still judge them. Such as, the Inquisition and Crusades were so horrible that many Christians today claim that "no true Christian" would do such a thing, yet, to the people doing those deeds, "no true Christian" would be opposed to it.

 

[Prestor John]

Seems like your issue goes deeper than just same-sex wedding cakes; you're objecting to the whole idea of anti-discrimination laws.

I don't have an issue with same-sex wedding cakes. I have said that multiple times on this thread.

I take issue with forcing someone to participate in an activity they find offensive or have religious beliefs against.

As to anti-discrimination laws - I do take issue with making special rules for minorities and with the idea of trying to legislate morality.

However, I argue that not wanting to participate in an activity that you find offensive is not discriminatory.

Now, I have to ask, why did you decide to focus on this rather than the obvious hypocrisy and intolerance of infringing upon someone's rights to freedom of religion?

How could you not know that I had said that I had no issue with same-sex wedding cakes unless you actually had not read my posts?

I'm not able to watch videos right now (I'm on cell phone data). Care to describe your point with words?

Not really.

You ignore the majority of my posts and focus only on those parts you feel can further your agenda.

 

[Markella]

People at times when they can not explain themselves will find a way to divert their own beliefs in one way or another. Why a person would care more about what someone else is doing as opposed to what they themselves are doing is beyond me. As far as I was taught to believe in Christianity, what you do and how you act is what matters, not what someone else is doing or how they are doing it;

 

[Skwim]

I don't have an issue with same-sex wedding cakes. I have said that multiple times on this thread.

I take issue with forcing someone to participate in an activity they find offensive or have religious beliefs against.

Just to put this in perspective, you're against the law.

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”
source



Back in 2012, Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips turned away a gay couple who came in for a wedding cake, citing his religious beliefs. When he was sued for denying the couple service based on their sexual orientation, an administrative law judge found Phillips in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. That decision was upheld on appeal.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court decided it would not hear Phillips’ case, so he’s taking it to the highest court in the land.
source​

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When it comes to owning humans as property, there is no such thing as "superior."

That is demonstrably false.

No, that is not "demonstrably false." To say so would be to make that an objective claim -- and they only way you could do that is to claim that God Himself mandates the ownership of other humans, and that the owner is "superior" to the slave.

I could only understand that as being completely subjective -- and not even necessarily agreed by all parties to the transaction. The "owner" may feel himself to be superior, and brainwashing may even convince the slave that she is inferior -- but unless you are going to tell us that God says this is so -- then it's all subjective feeling, not "demonstrably false" at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yet, homosexuals are demanding special privileges, excuses and laws.

They wanted marriage when many people do not believe that they qualify for it.

You are serious, aren't you? How very sad for you. What will you yourself give up because "many people do not believe that [you] qualify for it?"

What do my beliefs have to do with your? Then what do your beliefs have to do with me?

And for clarity's sake, when you say "many people do not believe that they qualify," you perhaps ought to consider whether, in many mature nations (most of Europe, especially Scandinavia, Canada, and YES, the United States) those in favour of gay marriage is large -- and growing. In the US, 55% support while only 37% do not, and in Canada it's 70% for and 305 against -- so why should the minority rule, in your opinion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I could only understand that as being completely subjective -- and not even necessarily agreed by all parties to the transaction. The "owner" may feel himself to be superior, and brainwashing may even convince the slave that she is inferior -- but unless you are going to tell us that God says this is so -- then it's all subjective feeling, not "demonstrably false" at all.

Paul teaches that slaves are to serve, especially so if the serve a Christian master. All may be equal before god, but, to me, spiders, ants, caterpillars and crickets are all "equal" when it comes to how insignificantly tiny they are and that I can "squash them like a bug," but, here are Earth, slaves will serve and they will do as they are told because they are nothing more than property.

 

[Prestor John]

Just to put this in perspective, you're against the law.

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”
source



Back in 2012, Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips turned away a gay couple who came in for a wedding cake, citing his religious beliefs. When he was sued for denying the couple service based on their sexual orientation, an administrative law judge found Phillips in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. That decision was upheld on appeal.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court decided it would not hear Phillips’ case, so he’s taking it to the highest court in the land.
source​

.

Pointing this out is meaningless. There once was a time when it was illegal for an African American to sit at the front of a bus.

Laws have been and can still be wrong. We all have a moral imperative to fight for what we believe is right.

It is obvious that Mr. Phillips did not refuse service to Mullins and Craig due to their sexual orientation.

He had offered them all other baked goods for any event, even their wedding, but he did not want to bake a wedding cake for any same-sex marriage.

Even if a heterosexual couple had asked Mr. Phillips to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, he would have refused.

The sexual orientation of his customers was not the determining factor in his desire to not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

He should not be forced to participate in an activity that he has religious convictions against.

Judge Spencer's ruling is wrong, it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and I will continue to point that out.

Colorado had another baker who refused to make a cake as requested because she felt that the requested design was offensive.

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.

Why could she opt out of doing what she felt was offensive but Mr. Phillips could not?

 

[Prestor John]

No, that is not "demonstrably false." To say so would be to make that an objective claim -- and they only way you could do that is to claim that God Himself mandates the ownership of other humans, and that the owner is "superior" to the slave.

I could only understand that as being completely subjective -- and not even necessarily agreed by all parties to the transaction. The "owner" may feel himself to be superior, and brainwashing may even convince the slave that she is inferior -- but unless you are going to tell us that God says this is so -- then it's all subjective feeling, not "demonstrably false" at all.

You have no idea what we are talking about.

I never said that any slave-owner was "superior" to his slaves or anyone else.

You are confused and have no idea what we are talking about.

 

[Prestor John]

You are serious, aren't you? How very sad for you. What will you yourself give up because "many people do not believe that [you] qualify for it?"

What do my beliefs have to do with your? Then what do your beliefs have to do with me?

And for clarity's sake, when you say "many people do not believe that they qualify," you perhaps ought to consider whether, in many mature nations (most of Europe, especially Scandinavia, Canada, and YES, the United States) those in favour of gay marriage is large -- and growing. In the US, 55% support while only 37% do not, and in Canada it's 70% for and 305 against -- so why should the minority rule, in your opinion?

I never claimed that the fact that many people believe that homosexuals do not qualify for marriage was a reason to deny them marriage.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about.

How about you actually read the conversations you are commenting on before jumping on something someone said and taking it out of context.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I never claimed that the fact that many people believe that homosexuals do not qualify for marriage was a reason to deny them marriage.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about.

How about you actually read the conversations you are commenting on before jumping on something someone said and taking it out of context.

Wrong, sir! I quoted your words exactly, and in context. You said (and I quote again):

Yet, homosexuals are demanding special privileges, excuses and laws.

They wanted marriage when many people do not believe that they qualify for it.

You are saying precisely that if "many people don't believe that gay people qualify for [marriage]" then it would be a special privilege (not a right) for them to have it. That's what the words say, and that's what the words mean.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A private business has the right to refuse goods and services.

You are conflating the private with the public sector.

A private business owner is not a “public servant.” They can choose who they wish to do business with.

You are deeply mistaken. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. (Nonprofits such as churches are generally exempt).

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, more than 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

 

[columbus]

I never claimed that the fact that many people believe that homosexuals do not qualify for marriage was a reason to deny them marriage.

It is often difficult to distinguish between "a Mormon's beliefs" and "Mormons beliefs". Especially when Mormons have spent millions of dollars and man hours on a campaign of lies trying to impose Mormon beliefs on everyone, including me.
You and Katzpur might prefer to distance yourselves from the actions of your church, but as one of the people your church persecutes I find it difficult to parse out the difference.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Wrong, sir! I quoted your words exactly, and in context. You said (and I quote again):

You are saying precisely that if "many people don't believe that gay people qualify for [marriage]" then it would be a special privilege (not a right) for them to have it. That's what the words say, and that's what the words mean.

Taken out of context.

Read the entire conversation.

 

[Prestor John]

You are deeply mistaken. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. (Nonprofits such as churches are generally exempt).

That is completely irrelevant to the example I have been discussing.

The basis of the baker's refusal of service was not the sexual orientation of the couple.

This is obviously from the fact that he offered that homosexual couple any other baked good for any event, even their wedding.

He just did not want to participate in an activity that was in violation of his religions convictions.

He is willing to serve homosexual. He is not willing to participate in a same-sex wedding.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

Neat.

And just as irrelevant.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, more than 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

Neat.

And just as irrelevant.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

The baker did not refuse to serve any particular group of people.

He just did not want to associate himself or his business with a practice he has beliefs against.

No discrimination. End of story.