Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

There is. You are suggesting it's justified, which is perhaps a different argument.

No. I am saying there is no discrimination at all whatsoever.

At what point in time does ownership of the cake transfer to the purchaser?

Either when they pay for it or pick it up. I don't know.

If the cake is never made, the customer never had ownership of it.

Should suit hire places be able to refuse hiring to gay couples?

Are you asking if a place that sells suits refuse to sell suits to a gay couple?

If that is what you are asking, I don't find it a comparable example.

Suits can be worn for many occasions. A wedding cake is baked only for a wedding.

 

[Prestor John]

With the commerce clause Congress does have authority over it.

Like I said the issue is authority not the customer, not the business owner, government. If government provides an exemption for religion people can bypass many of the current discrimination laws by merely invoking religion. As per my examples in the previous comment.

No discrimination took place, so the point is moot..

 

[Prestor John]

Featured Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

To get back to the original question - indeed WHY?

If you ask Christians if they want ISIS religious ideas forced on them, - they use logic and say, "hell no!"

Yet they wear blinders, and can't see themselves as a Christian ISIS when they are trying to force their religious ideas on the rest of us.

What is up with this Christians?

Your religion says no gay marriage, - then YOU don't do it. As for the rest of us, we aren't under your religious laws, so just keep them to yourselves.

ALL should then be happy.

*

Yet, you are trying to force people who disagree with same-sex marriage to participate in same-sex marriage.

What you said above can easily be directed at the homosexual couple who went out looking to be offended.

They could have just gone to the other baker and kept their activity to themselves.

 

[Prestor John]

And this is why I barely payed your posts any attention or bothered to even read most of it.

You didn't have to tell me, toots. I already called you out on it.

You would have known that if you had actually read my post.

Thank you for both proving me right and for keeping the willfully ignorant SJW stereotype alive.

 

[Shad]

No. It is a denial to participate in an activity.
He offered them baked goods for their wedding, just not a wedding cake. Each wedding cake is specialized to each unique celebration and he did not want to be a part of this celebration.
But, they wanted a wedding cake, so he told them he did not want to participate in their wedding and pointing them toward another baker who would be happy to participate.
He did not want to participate in an activity that he found offensive.The sexual orientation of his customers did not affect his decision. If a heterosexual had come in and asked him to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, he would have refused that heterosexual as well.

Each example is a denial of service based on an arbitrary reason which only applies exclusively to a minority and activities.

I think we would all benefit the most from you paying better attention.

No I pay attention, you dodge the issue of arbitrary denial of service which is not legal.

He felt that any more participation would cause him to violate his strongly held religious beliefs.

Religion is not a legal basis for denial of service.

Well, the courts made a bad call that's for sure.

Nope they have been making the right call as they see through this facade as easily as I do.

They claimed that the wedding was "strongly related" to their sexual preference, therefore they considered it discrimination, but that is so wrong and doesn't hold up under any other scenario!

Sexual orientation is a protected class. You just admitted to the legal definition of discrimination.

If a black guy wanted me to bake him a cake for a Black Lives Matter rally, if I deny to make that cake, is that discrimination too?

If you consider BLM a political view than no as political views are not protected classes but ideas people hold. If not a political view it is an arbitrary basis for rejection based on an idea one holds. It could be discrimination if the operator had an opinion beyond a denial. An opinion which would be scrutinized but never provide. So what is the reason for denial of service based on BLM? You argument, go

Even though I could have legitimate reasons to not want myself or my business to be associated with that movement, can you claim it is discrimination because the movement is so "strongly related" to the customer's race?

State said reasons. Merely saying you have "reasons" is not an argument.

BLM is not an exclusive group bound by race for membership nor support.

Under this interpretation no one could ever refuse service to anyone ever because anything, no matter how offensive, could be articulated as "strongly related" to their race, religion, sexual preference, etc.

Nope it would stand up in court as membership is not bound by race.

"You can't kick me out because I'm cursing and being physically threatening to your customers. I grew up in the hood. You are trying to deny me service based on my upbringing in a black community. That's racist."

Violence and threats are illegal thus a legal basis for denial of service. Neither is exempt from law based on where you lived nor your race. Swing and a miss.

Hate to break it to you buddy, but someone's sexual preference is also easy to use to cover any prejudice.

So? You are using sexual orientation and religion not some hypothetical you hand wave at.

If that homosexual couple had been decent, they would have gone to the other baker for their wedding cake, but instead they played the victim.

Decent people can also file a law suite against people acting indecently because of religion. You merely invoke decency to smear one group then act like Christian self-righteous is decency. Hilarious.

Everyone knows that they chose that particular bakery in order to push their anti-Christian agenda.

You mean push back against discrimination veiled by religion.

I'm not sure I entirely understand this comment.

Just merely an observation of what concerns you have. You seem to be bothered by sales of cakes. Muslims seem to be bothered about the links between Islam and terrorism.

I don't personally care about the cake. The baker did. That is why I care. Someone's freedom to practice their religion was violated. I care about that.

No the baker cared about their religion which creates the very basis for denial of service.

I would be just as upset if an employer or another authority figure wouldn't allow a Muslim to perform their prayers.

That is not a business contract but employment, different set of laws.

The right of the people to practice their religion should never be infringed.

Which has been shown to be a stupid idea over and over again. Is polygamy legal? Nope. Is human sacrifice legal? Nope. Is child marriage legal? Nope. Each one can be grounded in a religion.

People are free to misinterpret the scriptures all they want and to live by that interpretation. You just can't discriminate against someone because of their race.

Nor sexual orientation as it is in the same protect class clause as race.

Does that mean you have to agree with the Black Lives Matter movement? You have to participate in their activities, or you are racist and hate black people?

You are selling a product not taking part in a rally.

Does that mean you have to agree with Feminists today? You have to participate in their activities, or you are sexist and hate women?

You are selling a product not taking part in a rally.

Are you trying to claim that people don't have the right to believe these things about Islam?

Believe in? They can if they want. However this does not mean their belief turned into some sort of action is legal such as denial of service. After all are Christians not to avoid the influence of Satan and the teachings of false prophets? All I am doing is taking your "firmly held religious beliefs" principle to show how the basis is pure nonsense.

Are you trying to claim that people don't have the right to disagree with Islam?

Nope. I am saying they can not use that disagreement as part of an act in business involving Muslims. Swing and a miss

People don't have the right to disagree with you?

Never said that. Swing and a miss

Everyone has to agree with Islam and participate in their activities or they are an Islamophobe?

Selling a product is not taking part in Ramadan

This is what you are claiming?

Nope. It is the strawman you are putting forward. There is a difference.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You would have known that if you had actually read my post.

I did read them. But the way go on about how I want to force this and tyrannize that, you aren't even taking me seriously.

Thank you for both proving me right and for keeping the willfully ignorant SJW stereotype alive.

Now with accusing me of being a "willfully ignorant SJW" why should I assume you are even interested in having an honest and intelligent discussion?

 

[Prestor John]

I did read them.

But you just said in your last post,

"And this is why I barely payed your posts any attention or bothered to even read most of it."

Why do you claim to do one thing one second and then claim you didn't do that thing the next?

Can't you see why I may come to the conclusion that you aren't making yourself accountable for what you say and do?

But the way go on about how I want to force this and tyrannize that, you aren't even taking me seriously.

My arguments against you are based on what you have said.

If you don't think that people should be forced to do things against their will or that you want to tyrannize anyone, why don't you go back and re-read what you wrote and then amend, or re-explain, what you "actually meant" so it doesn't sound like that is what you want.

Just because I have an opinion about what you said that you don't like, that doesn't mean I am not taking what you say seriously.

Now with accusing me of being a "willfully ignorant SJW" why should I assume you are even interested in having an honest and intelligent discussion?

Well, first off, you claiming that you don't pay attention to or even read my posts is you claiming to be "willfully ignorant."

You are choosing to ignore (or be ignorant) of what I have said in regards to this issue.

And, you are, by definition, a Social Justice Warrior because you are fighting, or arguing, for the cause of social justice.

I believe that my assessment of you being a "willfully ignorant SJW" was fair, although I understand that it might not be flattering.

Lastly, your attempt to play the victim is very hypocritical considering that you have been claiming, from the start, that I am hateful because I disagree with homosexuality and don't want to associate with same-sex marriage.

Should I assume that you were never interested in having an "honest and intelligent discussion" because you made those claims about me?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you don't think that people should be forced to do things against their will or that you want to tyrannize anyone, why don't you go back and re-read what you wrote and then amend, or re-explain, what you "actually meant" so it doesn't sound like that is what you want.

Saying there will be no special privileges for people who serve the public and think themselves special snowflakes is not forcing or enacting any form of tyranny. There are already many things you cannot legally discriminate against, regardless of what reasons you give, including religious.

You are choosing to ignore (or be ignorant) of what I have said in regards to this issue.

You keep repeating yourself. Why read and consider every point when most of your posts say "force" in bold letters?

I disagree with homosexuality and don't want to associate with same-sex marriage.

Like it or not, America is a melting pot and we all have to associate and deal with people we would rather not. But, in the long run, doing so is better for the health and stability of society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree with interracial marriages and don't want to associate with interracial marriage.

I disagree with women in the work place and don't want to associate with women who work.

I disagree with racial integration and don't want to associate with black people.

I disagree with immigration and don't want to associate with Irish people.

Now, given how interchangeable your position is with social issues of the past, what really differentiates between how I edited those and the original? Except for the topic, there is none. And these four are simply unacceptable to nearly everyone.

I disagree with homosexuality and don't want to associate with same-sex marriage.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All people who enter into this world are imperfect and equipped with weaknesses. We were given these weaknesses to make us humble and remind us of how much we need the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, we were given weaknesses to understand how much we need Jesus?

Having a weakness is not sinful. It is only by succumbing to that weakness that we sin.

So, is it, or is it not "wrong" to harbor a weakness? You say it isn't a sin, but you don't say whether or not it is right, or wrong to have weakness. This is important because you state above that we are created with weakness in order to make us need Christ - which means weakness was fostered within us on purpose - ultimately this means it is "right" for us to have weaknesses, because the placement of weakness within us was an act of God for a purpose that some believe is the most necessary on Earth - seeking Christ.

[Jesus] cannot look upon weakness and sin with any degree of allowance, for He is perfect and the place He has called us to enter into is also perfect and free of those things.

So, we are given weakness - which is apparently right, good, and as it should be - because it is in accordance with the seeking of Christ. However, you also say here that Christ cannot abide by weakness - that there is no allowance by Christ for weakness. Where does that leave us? Stuck with the weaknesses we are purposefully given, and not only can't we allow those weaknesses to be exploited, but we aren't even allowed to have them in the first place.

Something is a little screwy with the system, I think. I picture a dog chasing its tail...

"Am I there yet?"
"Nope, you're succumbing to your weakness."
"Oh, got it... fixed! Am I there yet?"
"No... you still have weakness."
"Oh, crap... got it... no weakness."
"That's not possible, nor right, for I gave you weakness that you would understand to seek me."
"Crap... got it... weak again."
[repeat]

 

[columbus]

Yet, you are trying to force people who disagree with same-sex marriage to participate in same-sex marriage.

Let me try an argument I hear regularly, both on RF and in real life.

STOP BEING A SORE LOSER!
This great country of ours made some decisions based on the rules in place. You don't like them. Well tough s!*t. If you don't like it here then get the hell out. We don't need you for anything.
Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you asking if a place that sells suits refuse to sell suits to a gay couple?

If that is what you are asking, I don't find it a comparable example.

Suits can be worn for many occasions. A wedding cake is baked only for a wedding.

Well, then, would you say it is perhaps incumbent upon the tailor to ask what use is going to be made of the suits? I mean, you wouldn't want him participating in something against his beliefs through pure ignorance achieved by not doing due diligence would you?

You see, as I said much earlier in this post, I do not think for the slightest moment that a baker, who makes and decorates a cake, is "participating in a wedding" at all. He's participating in baking. The florist sells flowers, and whose wedding they turn up in (or funeral, for that matter) is of no consequence whatever.

Let's change it up a bit, and ask this: if a black man and white woman wish to marry, and it is something the baker finds abhorrent, should he be justified in refusing to put a black groom and a white bride on his cake?

My opinion, in such situations, is that the baker is inventing reasons for bigotry, when there is no actual reason that concerns him, because he is not involved except in the very most peripheral way.

 

[columbus]

My opinion, in such situations, is that the baker is inventing reasons for bigotry,

Irrational isn't it?

If somebody orders a cake with "Congratulations Jill and Steve" on it, it's an excellent and profitable endeavor. Change the "J" to a "B" and it's an abomination. The baker is being oppressed .
Where did his freedom go?
Tom

 

[Ingledsva]

Yet, you are trying to force people who disagree with same-sex marriage to participate in same-sex marriage.

If this were truly a religious ideal - rather than discrimination against gay people, - then why aren't they refusing cakes, rooms, rentals, etc., to divorced couples, and the other "SINS" the Bible mentions???

What you said above can easily be directed at the homosexual couple who went out looking to be offended.

They could have just gone to the other baker and kept their activity to themselves.

ING - No I'm not. If you have a public business, you should not be able to discriminate on religious beliefs.

If this were truly a religious ideal, - rather than discrimination against gay people, - then why aren't they refusing cakes, rooms, rentals, etc., to divorced couples, and the other "SINS" the Bible mentions???

The answer, --- Because they are specifically discriminating only against gay people!

Jesus said nothing against gay people, and he did things with so-called sinners, - including prostitutes, -

so how did the majority of Christians fall so far from his ideals, and teachings????

*

 

[Prestor John]

Sorry for the wait. My wife and I just had a baby on the 9th and I have been caught up with that.

Each example is a denial of service based on an arbitrary reason which only applies exclusively to a minority and activities.

I believe that a required dress code for clientele at certain establishments is rather arbitrary, but it is perfectly legal.

It is legal because one’s manner of dress is a matter of voluntary choice, not personal identity, and because these locations are privately owned.

A marriage is a matter of voluntary choice (at least I would hope so), not personal identity. Being married does not make a person hetero- or homosexual.

And the bakery was privately owned.

If I am understanding what you said above correctly, if the “denial of service” applied to the majority and its activities, it would be alright?

Like, for example, if a homosexual baker decided to bake wedding cakes only for same-sex weddings, you would not consider that discriminatory?

Either way, just like with the other Colorado baker who did not want to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT messages, it is clear that this baker would have declined to participate in any activity that he found offensive by baking and decorating a specialty cake to celebrate that activity, not only same-sex marriage.

This case is not a matter of denial of service. It is a denial of participation.

The baker was willing to serve the homosexual couple by offering them all manner of baked goods, but he denied to participate any further in their same-sex marriage by making a specialized wedding cake.

There is no reason to assume that his denial to participate applies only to minorities and their activities. I’m sure that there are many other activities he would also deny to participate in.

The sexual orientation of his customers was not a determining factor in his refusal to participate in a same-sex wedding.

No I pay attention, you dodge the issue of arbitrary denial of service which is not legal.

No.

If you had paid attention then you would have already known that the baker offered to bake the homosexual couple all other baked goods for their wedding except a wedding cake and you would not have been so confused.

He obviously did not deny them service due to their sexual preference because he offered them baked goods, even for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.

What he did refuse to do was participate any further in their same-sex wedding.

Religion is not a legal basis for denial of service.

I agree. Fortunately, there was no denial of service, only a denial of participation.

Not baking a cake for a black customer because he is black would be a denial of service based on discrimination, but not making a cake for a black customer because he wants it decorated to read, “Black Lives Matter. Kill all cops.” – would be a denial of participation in what could be considered an offensive message or activity.

The baker offered to serve the homosexual couple up until their request for his service would cause him to participate in an activity he found offensive and said participation would cause him to violate his religious convictions.

I may never attend a pro-abortion protest in support of their cause, but even making a single sign for that protest would be far too much participation then I would ever be comfortable having.

So, if I were a professional sign-maker, I would refuse to make a sign for that protest because that would exceed my limit of comfort and violate my right to live according to my personal beliefs.

The customer’s race, sex, religion, etc. would not be a determining factor in my decision to refuse to participate at all in that activity.

It would be wrong to force me to make a single pro-abortion sign if I have religious convictions against the practice and do not want to participate in any way with that activity.

It would be wrong to place me in a compromising position by forcing me to choose between either violating my personal beliefs or losing my livelihood.

Nope they have been making the right call as they see through this facade as easily as I do.

Just because you can’t comprehend living your life according to strong convictions or moral standards, that doesn’t mean someone else’s attempt to do so is a façade.

You make it seem like this baker just decided to “pick on” the homosexual “Media Darlings” just for the heck of it without considering the potential consequences that it might have on him, his family and their livelihood.

I feel that the only reason a man would refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is because he is trying to live his life according to some system of morals and beliefs.

There is no reason to assume that his stated reasons for denying to participate in a same-sex wedding are a façade or are grounded in hatred.

Yet, you will never consider that as an option because you need to assassinate this baker’s character or you’d have no case against him.

Sexual orientation is a protected class.

The sexual orientation of his customers was not a determining factor in this baker’s decision to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding.

You just admitted to the legal definition of discrimination.

No.

I just stated that the argument that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is discriminatory because it is “strongly related” to your customer’s sexual orientation is wrong.

If you consider BLM a political view than no as political views are not protected classes but ideas people hold. If not a political view it is an arbitrary basis for rejection based on an idea one holds.

Yet, the movement is “strongly related” to the race of my customer.

Don’t you see why I would claim that this argument does not apply to any other scenario?

Same-sex marriage can also be considered to be a political view because all the controversy that surrounds it is about whether or not the State should recognize those unions.

Same-sex marriage is not a “protected class”. The State recognition of same-sex marriage is a political view. An idea that people hold.

It could be discrimination if the operator had an opinion beyond a denial. An opinion which would be scrutinized but never provide.

What do you mean? Who is the “operator” in this scenario?

So what is the reason for denial of service based on BLM? You argument, go.

You mean denial of participation.

I wouldn’t want myself or my business to be associated with an organization that advocates and celebrates the murder of law enforcement officers.

I have the right to promote the type of image I want for my business.

Any kind of association with controversial issues can strongly affect the welfare of my business and my personal well-being.

State said reasons. Merely saying you have "reasons" is not an argument.

See above.

It was not my intention to make an argument about BLM.

I merely used it as an example of a controversial issue.

BLM is not an exclusive group bound by race for membership nor support.

Yes, but that doesn’t matter because it is “strongly related” to race.

And as we know from the decision involving this baker, an activity being “strongly related” to someone’s minority status (such as sexual orientation or race) is enough to claim that a refusal to participate in said activity is grounds for discrimination.

Which is wrong.

So, we are going to be seeing a lot more people being forced to participate in all kinds of activities that they find offensive and will make them extremely uncomfortable or they will lose their livelihood.

We are going to see many more violations of people’s Constitutional rights.

This was a very bad call and it is ripe for abuse. You can’t legislate morality.

 

[Prestor John]

Nope it would stand up in court as membership is not bound by race.

Yet the purpose, motivation, goals and intent of the organization is about race.

The Black Lives Matter movement is “strongly related” to race and if we apply the ruling of the baker case to this scenario it could easily be articulated that refusing to bake a cake for a BLM rally is grounds for discrimination.

Which is wrong.

Violence and threats are illegal thus a legal basis for denial of service.

I did not mean to say he was being violent or threatening people. What I meant was that he was using foul language and acting in a threatening manner. His mannerism were interpreted as threatening and they were making people uncomfortable.

Neither is exempt from law based on where you lived nor your race. Swing and a miss.

Are you sure?

How threatening or violent does a culture have to become until those things become actual aspects of that culture?

Considering that refusing to participate in an activity that could be considered “strongly related” to any aspect of a protected group or minority, where is the limit to said participation?

What if I don’t want to decorate a cake with the message, “Kill all cops”, but my customer decides to sue me because his opinion about cops stems from his upbringing in a minority community and is therefore “strongly related” to his race or even nation of origin?

There is no limit to a ruling like this.

Even if a court does eventually rule against the customer, why does the system even allow the situation to go that far and waste so much time and money?

So? You are using sexual orientation and religion not some hypothetical you hand wave at.

No I am not.

The sexual orientation of his customers had nothing to do with the baker’s refusal to participate in an activity he found offensive.

There is no discrimination.

Decent people can also file a law suite against people acting indecently because of religion.

So, in your opinion, to be “decent” is to agree with everyone and accept everyone’s behavior and to do everything and anything anyone else wants you to do?

It is not indecent to live your life according to your own moral standards.

It is not indecent to not want to participate in an activity that offends you or makes you uncomfortable.

What is indecent is trying to force people to accept your behavior and participate in your activities against their will and if they don’t want to, you seek to destroy their livelihood.

You merely invoke decency to smear one group then act like Christian self-righteous is decency. Hilarious.

No. I invoked decency to smear a single homosexual couple, not any group.

You may be incapable of separating individual justice from social justice, but I’m not.

I don’t believe that the baker is entitled to his Constitutional rights just because he is Christian.

I actually disagree with his decision.

However, he has the right to live by his religious beliefs and to not be forced into a situation where he has to choose to either violate those beliefs or lose his livelihood because he is a citizen of the United States of America.

You only criticize him and claim that he is “self-righteous” because you disagree with his beliefs.

I’d guess in your opinion that anyone who practiced what they preached would be “self-righteous.”

You mean push back against discrimination veiled by religion.

I appreciate your honesty.

Thank you for agreeing that the homosexual couple enacted a premeditated plan to use their sexual orientation as a means to “push back” against Christianity by targeting that bakery.

They were motivated by hatred with an intent to destroy the livelihood of a man they disagreed with.

There is no discrimination since service was not refused based on the couple’s sexual orientation.

Just merely an observation of what concerns you have. You seem to be bothered by sales of cakes. Muslims seem to be bothered about the links between Islam and terrorism.

Well, everyone should be bothered by the links between Islam and terrorism.

And, as I said before, I don’t care at all about the cake. I only care about the Constitutional rights of the baker.

If you look at this case objectively it becomes apparent that the homosexual couple were the ones who were actually concerned and bothered by the sales of cake.

They cared so much about that cake that they felt entitled, to not only have that cake, but to receive that cake from a particular man from a particular bakery who did not want to participate in their same-sex wedding.

No other baker or bakery would do.

They were the ones who were actually concerned and bothered about cake.

They assumed that they had a right to his participation when they didn’t.

No the baker cared about their religion which creates the very basis for denial of service.

Of course people care about their religion. People are willing to die for their beliefs.

Just because you can’t comprehend that doesn’t make it wrong.

His caring about his beliefs led him to his denial of participation in a same-sex wedding.

He did not deny service, because he offered baked goods. He just didn’t want to participate any further in an offensive activity.

That is not a business contract but employment, different set of laws.

I said employer or “another authority figure”, like a judge.

It is wrong for any judge to order someone to either violate their religious beliefs or lose their livelihood.

It is wrong for any Government to force a private business-owner to engage in a transaction.

Which has been shown to be a stupid idea over and over again.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I understand that the Constitution does not mean much to you.

Is polygamy legal? Nope.

The State has the authority to decide which unions to recognize or not.

The State does not have the authority to force someone to participate in an activity that they have religious beliefs against.

If the State suddenly claimed that polygamy was legal, you think it would be right for the State to force people to participate in that activity?

All bakers would need to bake wedding cakes for polygamous weddings, even though they may have strong religious or moral beliefs against the practice and do not want to participate in it at all?

Is human sacrifice legal? Nope.

All of our rights can only go so far until they begin to infringe on the rights of others.

None of the homosexual couple’s rights were infringed upon by the baker’s refusal to participate in their same-sex wedding.

They were still free to marry and to purchase a wedding cake.

They don’t have the right to force someone to participate in their wedding or to bake their wedding cake.

If the State suddenly claimed that human sacrifice was legal, you think it would be right for the State to force people to participate in that activity?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can understand why the two of you would feel that way. I just hope you realize that some of us Mormons are, in fact, your allies, and not your enemies.

If we're talking about Mormons who materially support a church that campaigns against LGBT rights, then I'd have to say that there's an asterisk on "allies".

 

[Prestor John]

Is child marriage legal? Nope.

Again, the State has the authority to decide which unions to recognize.

But not the authority to force someone to violate their religious beliefs.

If the State suddenly claimed that child marriage was legal, you think it would be right for the State to force people to participate in that activity?

All bakers would need to bake wedding cakes for child weddings, even though they may have strong religious or moral beliefs against the practice and do not want to participate in it at all?

Each one can be grounded in a religion.

Yes, they can be found in religion, but they are not exclusive to religion.

Polygamous relationships, murder and child marriage are practices found all around the world and not every person that has practiced them did so for religious reasons.

Nor sexual orientation as it is in the same protect class clause as race.

Irrelevant because no such discrimination took place.

You are selling a product not taking part in a rally.

Who is to judge how far is too far until they are participating?

For this baker, he was not participating in the same-sex wedding until he was asked to bake and decorate a wedding cake for the event.

That was too much for him.

Believe in? They can if they want. However this does not mean their belief turned into some sort of action is legal such as denial of service.

You mean denial of participation.

So an architect that is not a fan of Islam can be forced to design and/or build a Muslim mosque?

He/she has no options? Can’t opt out? Can’t pass the project to someone else?

A printing company can be forced to print copies of the Quran? They have no say in the matter?

A clothing store can be forced to sell hijabs and veils? Even if they don’t think it would be profitable to do so?

Don’t forget that anything “strongly related” to someone’s minority status can be grounds for discrimination.

After all are Christians not to avoid the influence of Satan and the teachings of false prophets? All I am doing is taking your "firmly held religious beliefs" principle to show how the basis is pure nonsense.

How have you proven that anything is “pure nonsense”?

If a Christian business-owner does not want to – design and build a mosque, print the Quran or sell hijabs – what makes you think you can force them?

What if a Muslim business-owner does not want to – design and build a Jewish Temple, print a Jewish tract or sell kippahs – what makes you think you can force them?

Nope. I am saying they [cannot] use that disagreement as part of an act in business involving Muslims. Swing and a miss.

Perhaps that is what you are saying now, but that was not what you said in your comment that I was referring to.

You said in post #1172, when talking about people using religion as a cover for prejudice, “I'm not an Islamophobe. The Bible says beware of false prophets and false spirits. Muhammad is a false prophet. Gabriel was really Satan"

This led me to ask you in post #1180, “Are you trying to claim that people don't have the right to disagree with Islam?”

I asked this because in your above mentioned quote you were trying to say that any Christian who disagrees with Islam based on their interpretation of the Bible must be an Islamophobe.

You were saying that it is wrong for anyone to disagree with Islam. No one can disagree with Islam without being an Islamophobe.

You can’t take something I said about your off-topic comment about prejudice and suddenly apply it to our discussion about business transactions.

Your comment that I addressed was not about business transactions, but about your claim that religion is often used as a cover for prejudice.

Please try not to quote me out of context again.

It would be wrong and discriminatory to refuse a Muslim service because of his religion, however, I believe that a private business-owner has the right to refuse to participate in any and all Islamic activities if he/she has religious reasons not to participate.

Never said that. Swing and a miss.

On the contrary, that is exactly what you are saying.

In post #1172, you brought up issues of race, gender and Islam because you disagree with many Christians over how they interpret the Bible in regards to these issues.

You disagree with how many Christians feel and believe about black people, women and Muslims.

However, instead of just claiming that you disagree, you also claimed that these people were racist, sexist and Islamophobic for having these beliefs about race, gender and Islam.

You were saying that since these Christians have these opinions, which disagree with your own, they must be racist, sexist and Islamophobic. They must be bad people.

You are saying that if people disagree with you in regards to these issues, they are filled with hate and prejudice, which are things that you believe no one has the right to harbor.

Therefore, you are claiming that no one has the right to disagree with you.

Selling a product is not taking part in Ramadan.

What if a Muslim asks a Christian woodworker to make him a special lantern, decorated with stars and crescents, for his celebration of Ramadan?

Does this woodworker have to make the specially ordered lantern, even if he may feel that that would cause him to participate in the Ramadan celebration, which may violate his own religious practices?

What if a Muslim woodworker was asked to carve a dreidel for a Jewish customer’s celebration of Hanukkah? That Muslim has to carve it? He has no control over his transactions?

How much participation is too much? How far should private business-owners be forced to go before it violates their personal beliefs?

Who makes that determination?

Nope. It is the strawman you are putting forward. There is a difference.

I kinda wish it was just a strawman. Really, I do, but it’s not.

I can’t believe there are people in this country who feel that it is right to force anyone to make a choice between practicing their religion or losing their livelihood.

I don’t believe that the Government should have the authority to force a consumer to buy a product or force a private business-owner to sell a product.

I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to the goods and services offered by a private business-owner.

At the end of the day you want to force people to conform to your way of life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet, you are trying to force people who disagree with same-sex marriage to participate in same-sex marriage.

Unless someone is forcing them to run a wedding cake shop, nobody is being forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.

 

[Prestor John]

If we're talking about Mormons who materially support a church that campaigns against LGBT rights, then I'd have to say that there's an asterisk on "allies".

Homosexuals could only claim they have a right to marriage once the definition of marriage was changed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints campaigned to protect the definition of marriage.

The Church has always campaigned for equal rights for homosexuals.

The Church just does not believe that anyone has the right to change the definition of marriage.