Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

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

Forcing a bakery to stop offering wedding cakes significantly hurts their business.

The baker was forced to make the choice between following his religious conviction or lose his livelihood.

He should never have been forced to make that choice.

If your solution for the baker is for him to pack up, go back to school and learn another trade or stop selling wedding cakes - you are an oppressor and a tyrant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forcing a bakery to stop offering wedding cakes significantly hurts their business.

And nobody's forcing any bakery to do that. They still have the option to sell wedding cakes to the public... the whole public.

The baker was forced to make the choice between following his religious conviction or lose his livelihood.

Change jobs, not lose his livelihood, but yes.

It's perfectly fine to follow your own conscience, but you need to realize that this will restrict your options.

Living by the dictates of your conscience is one thing; making others live by the dictates of your conscience is something else.

He should never have been forced to make that choice.

I understand you feel this way. I don't see it as a problem; that's the alternative that creates the best outcome for all concerned.

If your solution for the baker is for him to pack up, go back to school and learn another trade or stop selling wedding cakes - you are an oppressor and a tyrant.

So not being able to sell wedding cakes is "tyranny" now?

The government protects that bakery and shields it from competition through licensing, zoning, etc. I don't think it's too much to ask that in exchange for this benefit, the bakery has to meet a basic ethical standard.

 

[Shad]

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

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

There is no religious basis for not baking a cake.

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?

The state is not forcing anyone to marry a child.

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?

A wedding cake is not defined based on what you consider an acceptable marriage. The baker provides a service but denial service based on. Too bad your religious beliefs are vacant as it was completely acceptable for people below the current age to marry did so with religious blessings for centuries. All you have done is adopt stands outside your religion and called these part of your religion.

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

Irrelevant as I am talking about people using religion rather than another basis

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.

Again irrelevant as these people are not citing customs from India.

Irrelevant because no such discrimination took place.

Denial of service based on arbitrary reasons is discrimination.

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

Catering is not taking part in a wedding

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.

Catering an event is not taking part in said event.

That was too much for him.

So?

You mean denial of participation.

Nope as catering a wedding is a service which was denied.

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

Not being a fan is arbitrary. Hilarious that your comparison is that of an arbitrary standard

He/she has no options?

They can decide to accept a fine.

Can’t opt out?

No, they can say no and pay the fine

Can’t pass the project to someone else?

This would be a department issues not denial of services thus employee and employer relations and law

A printing company can be forced to print copies of the Quran?

Printing companies do not provide a service which is applicable to anyone. Some companies only print specific genres like fiction or history. Your example is too vague as you just toss out the idea without a clue about what you are talking about. They can also pay the fine. There is a difference between a denial of service and not providing the service at all.

They have no say in the matter?

See above.

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

Not carrying a specific type of clothing line is not a denial of service to the customer. It is service not offered at all.

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

Yes. Perhaps you should take note when you whine about bakers....

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

That your basis is arbitrary.

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?

If they are offering the services for the above they can pay a fine. They are not forced to complete a service. They can also remove the service completely to avoid issues. However when it comes down to it money matters enough that people whine about fines.

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?

No one forces them to accept the contract but rather they are fined due to arbitrary denial of services. No gun is held to their head.

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

No I was pointing out religious claims are arbitrary when applied to business as an excuse to denial service

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.

No I didn't. I was pointing out religious reasons are a dime a dozen and can be made up on the spot by using a few cherry picked verses and a creative interpretation to denial service in the public sphere. You can hold whatever opinion you want privately.

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

Nope I was using religious beliefs to point out how arbitrary and absurd claims of religion are within business.

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

Too bad you never read the comment fully as it applied to business. It was not off topic as the Bible was used to support racism and segregation

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

Yes it was. I was pointing out how religion can provide an arbitrary basis.

Please try not to quote me out of context again.

Hilarious when you did it even when my whole comment was about business.

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.

Private businesses are not private due to who owns it but how it offers services to the public. A private business can use membership as a requirement like Costco. You can change denial of service to participate all you want. It has no legal standing in public business.

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.

Which is regard to business and arbitrary religions excuses

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

So? I am talking about public businesses not opinion held in private.

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.

No I established that racists can use your artistry religious excuses as easily as bakers can.

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.

Nope as my examples use racist first not Christians as a whole.

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.

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

Again if the service is offered it can not be denied by arbitary excuses. Ironically you whined about me supposedly painting Christians as bigots (due to your inability to read) then provide such an example

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?

IF the service is offered yes. Again ironically you just provided an example you whined about above.

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?

If the service is offered either complete the service or pay a fine. Later just stop offering said service.

How much participation is too much?

Making an item is not taking part in Ramadan nor Hanukkah.

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

They are not forced to offer the service, they decided to do so then make excuses as they didn't think the service to a conclusion. Too bad for their shortsightedness

Who makes that determination?

The owner can. Too bad they seem to be too incompetent to think the service through.

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

It is since you have removed the context of business from the point. Try gain.

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.

They are not be forced. They are legally obligated to be consistent when offering a service that is not specific. A wedding is not merely what you want a wedding to mean.

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.

Again denial of service for arbitrary reasons is against the law. They are not force to offer the service, the owner decides that. They are not forced to complete the service as they can pay a fine, They can also remove the service from what they offer.

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

Private ownership is irrelevant when the services are offered to the public.

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

Nope. At the end of the day I am putting forward consistent business practices and law over arbitrary excuses.

 

[Shad]

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

So? Membership isn't which was the point.

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.

No as denial of membership or protesting of BLM does not have a requirement of race.

Which is wrong.

Irrelevant as you have made a nonsensical argument

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.

Acting in a threatening manner contains threats. You have no idea what the words you are using mean

Are you sure?

Yes.

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

Apply your standard to Christianity and it's history.... You have provided no real criteria. What is considered violent and threatening?

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?

Denial of service not participation. You point is irrelevant.

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?

Which is considered hate and violent speech as it is calling for an unlawful action against cops.

There is no limit to a ruling like this.

Empty claim.

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?

People want special privileges as they check X under a specific religion. It is not the customer creating this issue, the businesses are.

No I am not.

You are using a hypothetical of a person hiding something as if this was a standard case, it isn't.

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

Yes it does. As does the orientation of the primary people involved in the wedding.

There is no discrimination.

Yes there is, see above.

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?

No to be decent and well informed people should consider services they offer, any conflicts they may have then make a reasonable choice to either provide said service or not at all.

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

When you expect other people to accept your moral standards in business this grounding has no basis as you are not longer a private citizen but a public business.

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

Again shortsightedness of the owners is the problem. It is their problem.

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.

Nope. A business have certain standards of conduct. Christians do get to ignore this conduct nor laws whenever they feel like it.

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

Considering your points are about all Christians and homosexuals rather than single cases your point is moot. I am talking about a large context not merely some fool in Texas.

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

I am talking about protection laws which apply to individuals. You have no idea what social justice means.

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

Nor is the baker entitled to ignore the law by being a Christian

I actually disagree with his decision.

So?

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.

Business laws set where certain rights are not 100% applicable. Again no one is forced to offer a service, they decide to offer a service than whine due to their own shortsightedness.

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

Nope as holding your religious beliefs as above business laws is to be self-righteous. This is true considering there is an exception being made between different weddings.

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

Nope. Only those that think their views are above law.

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.

I did no such thing nor do you have evidence that 1. Customers knew of the owners views. 2. Customers knew that they would be denied service. 3. They planned to target Christians themselves.

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

Empty claim

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

Except service was denied on orientation of the event.

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

You missed the point. I was pointing out people are uncomfortable with facts.

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

You do not care about protection laws nor business laws. Selective bias, nothing more.

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.

Duh.... They were denial a service because the owner has issues with homosexuals. That is part of being discriminated again, the people targets feel it...

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 they cared that they were denied service based on arbitrary reasons and used the law in their favour.

No other baker or bakery would do.

Irrelevant. No one should need to use another business. That is what protection laws are all about.

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

Duh. Usually the target of discrimination have feelings over being discriminated against....

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

Nope they used laws which make such a denial of service illegal. You are whining that people used the law in their favour, nothing more.

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

Yet apparently their religion does not tell them to consider how they operate their business nor direct them to inform themselves regarding business law. If people want to die over their own shortsighted views let them.

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

Just because you ignore business laws and protected classes does not mean you are right. Try again.

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

Nope his shortsightedness and inability to think into the future regarding weddings was the problem.

He did not deny service, because he offered baked goods.

He denied a specific service which is wedding cakes. What he offered after this is irrelevant.

He just didn’t want to participate any further in an offensive activity.

Then stop making wedding cakes as wedding cakes are not defined by his subjective view point.

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

So? You still made a mistake by thinking employer and employee contracts are like customer and business contracts.

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

No they were given a choice. Either provide the service without the arbitrary and illegal denial of services, pay the fine or stop offering the service completely.

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

And no government has done so. Rather government have made it clear that religion is an arbitrary excuse

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

Hardly. You just ignore other laws nothing more.

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

And in this case the State recognized a union you do not. Get over it.

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

The State is forcing no such thing but maintain protection and business laws. The problem is the owner and you complain while ignore actual laws.

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?

No one is forced by the State to marry 5 people. Try again.

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?

Weddings are defined by whatever the owner decides. Religious reasons are arbitrary excuses in business, nothing more.

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

Hence protection laws and why the baker lost....

 

[Shad]

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

Denial of service for an arbitrary reason was an infringement of their rights

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

Yet were denied a service from a baker for an arbitrary reason which is illegal. Too bad.

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

And the baker does not have a right to denial service based on arbitrary excuses

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?

Irrelevant as human sacrifice is murder and violation of another person. Baking a cake is neither murder not violation of the person. Also human sacrifice is not a business..

 

[Shad]

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

No problem and congratulations

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

Which does not apply to a protected classes as none are identified as "not dressed"

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.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Your point is moot.

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.

Yet the type of marriage you complain about is part of the person's identity after all heterosexuals are not marrying the same-sex.

And the bakery was privately owned.

Irrelevant. It was open to the public rather than being based on membership

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?

Nope.

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

Yes as weddings are not defined as same-sex only.

Either way, just like with the other Colorado baker who did not want to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT messages,

Which is hate speech thus he had a legal grounding not an arbitrary one.

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.

One has a basis in law, your religious excuses do not.

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

No it was a denial of service by the operator. You words games have no merit. The baker was no forced into a marriage.

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.

Irrelevant. Black people could sit in the black section. Am I not generous!

There is no reason to assume that his denial to participate applies only to minorities and their activities.

Considering it was a denial of service based on a minority your point has no merit

I’m sure that there are many other activities he would also deny to participate in.

So? We are not talking about other activities.

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

The orientation of the wedding was which is still a denial of service based on arbitrary reasons.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No.

Yes as you attempt to redefine the service to avoid the laws which are used against these bakers.

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.

You have done nothing more than concede the argument

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

But not membership nor is the movement a business.

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

Yet you use these scenarios to bolster your argument..

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.

The State made it political centuries before the movement.

Same-sex marriage is not a “protected class”

Homosexuals are. To denial service based on this is illegal.

The State recognition of same-sex marriage is a political view. An idea that people hold.

Which took down a previous view developed centuries ago.

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

Various organizers for marches, protests, etc.

You mean denial of participation.

Nope denial of service as you are attempting to link business with political movements in order to vainly establish your business argument is the same. Since I reject that view point, and so do the courts, I am merely point out your jargon is nonsense.

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

Generalization, nothing more.

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

No you have to operate within legal boundaries.

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

Political views are not protected classes.

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

Yes it was. You are attempting to use a political view point in order to establish a caricature of baker's cakes so you can find a reason to maintain a denial of service for same-sex marriages. However since you ignore different laws which I point out your are backpedaling.

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

Which has a different context thus different laws thus your point was moot.

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

So what? The issue is about race membership within the movement. Just as Civil Rights issues were about 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.

By law it is.

Which is wrong.

Nope it is a law so all citizens are treated equally by business so that arbitrary reasons can not be used on a whim

So, we are going to be seeing a lot more people being forced to participate in all kinds of activities that they find offensive

No, they can pay the fine or change services.

and will make them extremely uncomfortable or they will lose their livelihood.

No one cares that you are uncomfortable nor that businessmen laws result in people losing their business.

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

Ignoring business laws is not an argument.

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

No one is doing so. The laws are about treating customer equally regardless of what your religious moral codes dictate. IE Your morality is irrelevant.

 

[Shad]

Have you considered scraping the laws completely?

 

[Prestor John]

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.

First off, this baker was a private business-owner, not a public servant. No one is entitled to his service.

Second, you are supporting “special snowflakes” by saying that one group of people has the right to force another group of people to act against their personal beliefs, but not the other way around.

Lastly, since you claim that the government should unjustly exercise their authority to force someone to act against their personal beliefs (which should be protected by the Constitution) – you support tyranny.

There are already many things you cannot legally discriminate against, regardless of what reasons you give, including religious.

There was no discrimination.

Refusing to participate in an activity is not refusing to serve someone based on their sexual orientation.

You keep repeating yourself.

Since I am directly responding to what you say, perhaps I repeat myself because you are repeating yourself?

Why read and consider every point when most of your posts say "force" in bold letters?

Can you give me a reason why you should not read and consider my points because I placed the word “force” in bold letters?

I don’t understand your argument that you are somehow justified in not reading what I say, but then commenting on what you did not read.

That is a nonsensical position.

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.

Why did you quote only a portion of my statement and then ignore the follow-up question?

You have been claiming that I am “hateful” for having my opinion since the start of our conversation.

Therefore, because of this fact, should I assume that you were never interested in having an honest and intelligent discussion?

Now, let me quote that statement I made in its entirety,

“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.”(Bold added)

What you need to realize is that I NEVER claimed that I did not want to associate with same-sex marriage.

I have stated numerous times to you and others throughout this thread that I have no issue participating in a same-sex wedding, or having a same-sex couple adopt children, or hanging out with a same-sex couple, or having my children play with their children or inviting a same-sex couple to my church.

I have also stated many times that I personally disagree with the baker’s decision to refuse to bake and decorate a wedding cake for that same-sex couple’s wedding.

In my statement quoted above I was sharing what YOU HAVE FALSLY BEEN CLAIMING ABOUT ME FROM THE START OF THIS DISCUSSION.

YOU CLAIMED that I was hateful of homosexuals.

YOU CLAIMED that I did not want to associate with homosexuals.

YOU CLAIMED that I did not want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

In my statement quoted above I was sharing what YOU HAVE FALSLEY BEEN CLAIMING ABOUT ME FROM THE START OF THIS DISCUSSION.

YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY PRESENTED THESE LIES ABOUT ME THROUGHOUT THIS DISCUSSION.

Now that that has been taken care of I need to ask –

Why do you continue to try to conflate a practice with a group of people?

In your made-up and false version of what I believed, all you claimed that I said was that I disagreed with a particular behavior and because I disagreed with that behavior I did not want to associate with a practice that celebrated that behavior.

Even though I clearly stated that I had no issue participating in a same-sex wedding, in your made-up and false version of what I believed, I never said that I did not want to associate or deal with homosexuals or with any other group of people.

From the beginning of this discussion you have been erroneously trying to conflate a practice with someone’s identity.

Someone not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding does not mean that that person would also not want to associate with a homosexual or a same-sex couple.

For example, you claiming that you would not want to attend any Christian church service does not necessarily mean that you would never want to associate with a Christian.

STOP TRYING TO MISREPRESENT WHAT I HAVE SAID AND WHAT I BELIEVE.

STOP TRYING TO ERRONESOULY CONFLATE A PRACTICE WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE.

I NEVER SAID THAT I DID NOT WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH SAME-SEX WEDDINGS AND I ALSO NEVER SAID THAT I DID NOT WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH HOMOSEXUALS, ANY SAME-SEX COUPLE OR ANY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE.

So you can cram your self-righteousness and your false sense of moral superiority about the health and stability of society up wherever you traditionally cram things.

Rather than spreading lies and deceit about me, how about you try applying honesty and decency to what you say? That is what would actually benefit society. People being honest and decent.

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.

First off, I NEVER SAID ANY OF THESE THINGS, so you should not write them as though I did. You should never have written these alternate versions you came up with as “quotes” from me.

Second, I have already explained that the original statement you based all these versions on was what YOU FALSLEY CLAIMED ABOUT ME, and that they did not actually represent what I believe.

You’d think that you had already screwed up royally enough, but you continue to screw up with all these versions you wrote and I will prove that here.

The original statement that YOU ATTRIBUTED TO ME was,

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

I would like to reiterate that I never said this.

Then I would like to point out that this original false statement was about me disagreeing with a behavior and therefore not wanting to associate with a practice that celebrated that behavior.

Notice how in that false statement you attributed to me, I did not claim that I wanted to avoid associating with any particular group of people.

This is how all but one of you other versions differentiate from the original false statement you attributed to me.

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

Notice you claimed that I disagreed with a practice (women working) and then claimed that that would mean I would then avoid associating with a particular group of people (women who work).

Completely different from the original statement falsely attributed to me, which was my disagreeing with a behavior and therefore not wanting to associate with a practice.

Just because someone has an opinion about the best role for a woman and that she should be a stay-at-home-mom does not mean that they do not want to associate with women who choose to work.

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

Again, you claimed that I disagreed with a practice and therefore would not want to associate with a particular group of people. Just as different and false as the original.

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

Etc.

So, to sum up, you failed because you tried to claim that my sharing what you falsely claimed about me was my ACTUAL BELIEF WHEN IT WAS NOT.

You also failed in your attempt to conflate a particular practice with a particular group of people.

Someone can disagree with homosexuality and not want to participate in a same-sex wedding, but still have no issue associating with homosexuals.

Last but not least, you failed again when you tried to create “interchangeable positions”, but you did so by completely changing the original false position (about disagreeing with a behavior and therefore not wanting to associate with a practice) into positions about disagreeing with a practice and therefore not wanting to associate with a particular group of people.

Those positions were not “interchangeable” at all.

You basically failed on all accounts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You basically failed on all accounts.

No, you failed to separate emotionally-fueled ramblings from critically reading my posts.

 

[Prestor John]

No, you failed to separate emotionally-fueled ramblings from critically reading my posts.

You did not read my post.

How about you actually read my post and try again?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You did not read my post.

How about you actually read my post and try again?

Why? You keep using bold faced and capital letters, inserting words that I am not using, and trying to misrepresent my positions.

 

[Prestor John]

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

Every single person who has lived, does live and will live upon the Earth needs the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven of sin, overcome death and eventually become like our Father in Heaven.

Our strengths often lead us to be prideful, which causes us to be blind to our need of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Our weaknesses often lead us to be humble, which causes us to notice how much we rely on the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We all have strengths and weaknesses. If all we had were strengths, then we would never consider that we need anyone’s help, so we would reject the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, He gave us all weaknesses, to remind us that we do in fact need Him. He promises that if we rely on Him and follow His dictates, He will help us turn our weaknesses into strength.

So, is it, or is it not "wrong" to harbor a weakness?

That depends on what you mean by “harbor.”

If you are using “harbor” to mean to simply “have” weakness, then no it is not “wrong” or “sinful” to have weakness.

However, if you are using “harbor” to mean “support”, “live by” or “succumb to” our weakness, then yes it can be “wrong” or “sinful”.

You say it isn't a sin, but you don't say whether or not it is right, or wrong to have weakness.

It is not wrong to have a weakness. It is technically “right” to have weakness, because it fulfills the plan of Our Father in Heaven.

Mortality is weakness. As long as we live in this world, we will have weakness.

That is the means by which we are tested here. We have been placed in an imperfect world and have been given a time to prepare to meet God by choosing between good and evil.

The Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ can help us overcome our weaknesses if we recognize that we have weakness and are penitent.

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.

We would need Christ regardless of any weakness. Even if we were all free from weakness, we would still need Christ.

The Lord has given us our weaknesses to keep us humble.

For example, our mortal bodies require us to breathe. That is a mortal weakness. We have it to remind us that we continually rely on the Lord because it is He who is lending us breath.

All the physical requirements we need to satisfy in order to continue to live in this world should remind us of how merciful the Lord is to us because He created a world where all of these things are provided.

This applies to personality or spiritual weaknesses as well.

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.

Yes, we were given many weaknesses as we entered into mortality.

However, you also say here that Christ cannot abide by weakness - that there is no allowance by Christ for weakness.

Exactly. That is why He has placed us into a state of existence that operates in accordance with time.

He has given us a place and also a period of time to live with our weaknesses. He has also given us the means to overcome our weaknesses, and becoming that much closer to perfection through the struggle.

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.

If you leave this mortal world without ever having struggled against your weaknesses, then the time that was given you was in vain.

This is why all prophets from the beginning have cried repentance to the people. This is our time to prepare to meet God. This is our time to perform our labors.

This life is a test and the weaknesses given to us are kind of like problems you would see on a math test.

The Lord wants us to use our time to solve those problems. He offers us all the information we need to solve those problems, as long as we apply what we learn from Him.

At the end of this life we will turn in our tests. Some people will turn in their tests with none of the problems solved, because they decided to succumb to their weaknesses instead of struggling against them.

Others will turn in partially-filled out tests. They will receive credit for what they got right, but will be penalized for what they got wrong. They answered questions incorrectly by trying to solve the problems by their own means and not by what the Lord had instructed them to do.

However, those who did all that the Lord asked of them will have turned in a complete test with all correct answers. They struggled against their weakness and using the Lord as their guide eventually overcame them.

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]

We should spend our time constantly seeking the Lord. As we do this and apply what we receive from Him, our weaknesses will become strengths.

I have overcome many weaknesses in my life, but I will always have more. The struggle will continue throughout our mortal existence. No one, except the Lord Jesus Christ, will ever become perfect in this life.

However, as long as we struggle against our weaknesses, we are doing as He asked us and the promises He made to us will eventually be fulfilled.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Peop

Forcing a bakery to stop offering wedding cakes significantly hurts their business.

The baker was forced to make the choice between following his religious conviction or lose his livelihood.

He should never have been forced to make that choice.

If your solution for the baker is for him to pack up, go back to school and learn another trade or stop selling wedding cakes - you are an oppressor and a tyrant.

People make that choice everyday. We are all forced to. A christian cop is not going to tell his boss, "hey, I cant kill anyone because god told me not to" nor is a judge allowed to side if a client is guilty because his god deems all people sinners.

Unless its your private business, no christian shouldnt be forced to do anything he or she did not put themselves in a position to follow rules that contrict their morals.


Good example.

A former serial killer comes in to buy a gun and bullets. I am m own manager. Killing Is against my morals. He is a killer. So I turn him down and say I shouldnt be "forced" to sell my weapons if "I feel" he is going to use it against "my" morals.

Yet, this guy hasnt bee convicted since what 60 years ago.
He has his lincense. He is aware that he cant have the gun and bullets the same day
He is aware of the background check


By what rights do you have over him to deny him the same rights as non convicted people to buy a gun and bullets?

How does my morals override the law on discrimination?

If the people selling wedding cakes didnt want gay people to buy their cakes, they should say its a provate business or have something Legally saying they can refuse service to X people beause it is against our religion.

Without that, yes, the christian owner who sellsnthe cake will be forced to sell cake to ALL people who are married. It has nothing to donwith christian morals. Thats like the roman inquis again killing because no one accwpts their god. Its about other people. If the owners dont care about other people, why be in a line of business that you must woeok with ALL people not Just the ones you agree with?

Kinda like on RF. At the end of that big "upgrade notice" it says god bless. If the owner is christian, so be. It would be a whole nother thing to say this, deny every other religion a chance to use their site, then say "its religious debates."

See the Comparison. Its a contradiction. Marriage between two people is legal regardless of gender. If that person doesnt want to support a legally given right by selling their cake, dont be in a line of business that supports legal rights for gay individuals.

Like I wont work to sell guns because I dont agree with it.

The christian isnt the victim here.

 

[Prestor John]

Why? You keep using bold faced and capital letters, inserting words that I am not using, and trying to misrepresent my positions.

Can I hear your argument for how the use of emboldened and capital letters makes someone's comments not worth reading?

Can I hear your argument for how responding to someone's comments without reading them makes sense?

Can you provide an example of how I have "inserted words"?

Can you provide an example of how I tried to misrepresent your position?

Can you provide anything at all that supports what you say and claim?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can I hear your argument for how the use of emboldened and capital letters makes someone's comments not worth reading?

It does imply you are doing a bunch of yelling and shouting. This is basic Internet Etiquette 101.

Can you provide an example of how I have "inserted words"?

About the hundred times or so you've claimed I am trying to force people to do things. "Do your job" is about the only thing I'm saying people need to do, and that we already have legal protections against certain things, such as a business who would refuse to serve black people or cater to their weddings, or someone who refuses to promote a woman regardless of religious beliefs. The only "force" is forcing my foot down to say "no special privileges and rights for special snowflakes."

Can you provide an example of how I tried to misrepresent your position?

Kind of goes along with above, but there are also your own futile efforts to cover your own tracks, such as:

The original statement that YOU ATTRIBUTED TO ME was,

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

I would like to reiterate that I never said this.

When in reality you did factually state just exactly that, post #1187:

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

Can you provide anything at all that supports what you say and claim?

Can you provide anything without yelling and screaming and trying to say I said things I didn't and you didn't say things you did say.

 

[Prestor John]

It does imply you are doing a bunch of yelling and shouting. This is basic Internet Etiquette 101.

Well, you would be the one implying that, not me.

Notice that I do not bold and capitalize with all posters. I do it only for those posters who consistently ignore my posts or try to skew the major points of my arguments, like you.

Emboldening or capitalizing words make them a little harder to ignore or change. Also, doing so does not make the characters illegible or confusing nor does it negate my arguments.

So, my next question to you would be – Even if I was “yelling”, why would you try to use that as an excuse to not read my comments?

Isn’t that just a very weak strawman? A lame attempt by you to justify your willful ignorance or laziness?

About the hundred times or so you've claimed I am trying to force people to do things.

That is your position though.

I told you that if you did not mean this that you should go back, reread your posts, and then amend what you “meant” to say.

But as it stands now, you claim to support the idea that a government can force a person to choose either to violate their personal beliefs or lose their livelihood.

"Do your job" is about the only thing I'm saying people need to do, and that we already have legal protections against certain things, such as a business who would refuse to serve black people or cater to their weddings, or someone who refuses to promote a woman regardless of religious beliefs.

What is the “job” of a private business-owner?

Is it not whatever they believe will generate the most wealth? Increase the welfare of their business and their personal well-being?

You are confusing the private and public sectors. This baker never took an oath that he would serve the public.

If a black person walked into my business and did something I found inappropriate or offensive, I don’t have to serve that black person.

If I have my own catering business and a potential customer wants me to cater an event that I found inappropriate and offensive, I don’t have to cater that event.

Their skin color makes no difference.

If I am a private-business owner, I do not have to promote a woman employee if I don’t feel that she deserves it.

There are no legal protections for participation in an activity.

This baker refused to participate in a same-sex wedding. He did not refuse to serve a same-sex couple.

The only "force" is forcing my foot down to say "no special privileges and rights for special snowflakes."

Yet you are demanding special privileges and rights for special snowflakes.

You just said that a business has to serve black people, a caterer has to cater a black person’s wedding and that a private-business owner has to promote their female employees.

The reason that I keep saying that you want to force people to do these things is because, according to you, if any of these business-owners refused to do any of those things, you would want to use the system in some way to force them to comply. Either through paying fines or by gun-point.

That is the only way your version of government works. Force.

Kind of goes along with above, but there are also your own futile efforts to cover your own tracks, such as:

When in reality you did factually state just exactly that, post #1187:

You would have benefited from reading my entire post, because you just made yourself look very foolish.

In my last post #1208, I asked you why you quoted only a portion of the statement I had made in post #1187 and then I said,

“Now, let me quote that statement I made in its entirety,

“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.”(Bold added)

What you need to realize is that I NEVER claimed that I did not want to associate with same-sex marriage.

I have stated numerous times to you and others throughout this thread that I have no issue participating in a same-sex wedding, or having a same-sex couple adopt children, or hanging out with a same-sex couple, or having my children play with their children or inviting a same-sex couple to my church.

I have also stated many times that I personally disagree with the baker’s decision to refuse to bake and decorate a wedding cake for that same-sex couple’s wedding.”

Just in case you still don’t understand, when I said, “I disagree with homosexuality and don't want to associate with same-sex marriage.” I was claiming that that was what you had been claiming I said.

That was why I added the BOLD to my quote from post #1187, to point out that I was making a comment about what you had claimed, not what I had claimed.

I said that you had falsely claimed that I hated homosexuals and the false reasons you gave were because I – 1.) Did not agree with homosexuality and 2.) Did not want to associate with same-sex marriage.

Even though it is true that I do not agree with the behavior of homosexuality, I never claimed that I would not associate with same-sex marriage.

Not only that, but the fact that I have very clearly stated many times on this thread that I disagreed with the baker’s decision and that I had no issue participating in a same-sex wedding works against you as well.

So now this is the second time you have tried to quote me out of context. I thought my original correction from my last post was enough, but since you continue to ignore what I say, I will correct you again.

I have no hope that you will read this, but I include it for any and all other posters to read so that they will plainly see how you keep trying to misquote me.

I NEVER SAID THAT I DID NOT WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

Can you provide anything without yelling and screaming and trying to say I said things I didn't and you didn't say things you did say.

It is absolutely impossible for me to yell and scream over this internet forum.

I bold and capitalize to grab your attention so that you would hopefully read what I wrote, but it seems that it was a wasted effort since you still refuse to read my posts.

I have not misrepresented anything you have said. You have not provided a single example of me doing that.

I have, however, been able to provide examples of when you have tried to quote me out of context, like how you did in your last two posts.

You keep making yourself look foolish by remaining ignorant and/or lazy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, you would be the one implying that, not me.

No, it's actually this established thing called Internet etiquette. Here is a part of it here:
www.truthcall.com/capital_letter_etiquette.html

Do not digitally disrespect others by using all caps. It is rude. People "in the know" do not use all caps, if you want to be taken serious and appear like your in the know do not use all caps.

It is proper netiquette to refrain from using all capital letters in internet correspondence. Using all capital letters in electronic communication is like shouting at someone in person. It is a common technique used by HUSTLERS to get attention.

Good internet etiquette prohibits using all capital letters in communication. 'All caps' is considered shouting on the internet. Shouting is not polite. Therefore, it is bad netiquette to use all caps on the internet because shouting is not polite.

Everyone avoids loud people. Using all caps is being loud on the internet. Users who use all caps are avoided. This is a universal rule of netiquette.

The attention that a person gets from using all caps is not positive attention. It is negative attention. People that use the internet regularly are put off by all caps. People who do not know any better, newbies, may be attracted to it.

In reality, shouting at someone is done to get their attention through intimidation. Shouting breaks the standard level of volume and tone, a voice should carry, to force someone into doing something. This is not socially acceptable in a civilized society because it is a use of force not reason.

Shouting at people is unreasonable in most cases. It raises the case that standard text should carry to bully a reader. This is not acceptable.

It does not matter what form of internet communication you are using, shouting is not acceptable. There are caveats and exceptions. Subject lines, headings, and advertisements are often in all capital letters for readability reasons.

It is acceptable for website heading to be in all caps, but not personal messages. All Caps is popular on classified advertising and auction websites because it is a good way to make your ad stand out. I do not recommend responding to ads with all caps.

Don't believe it do your own online search for netiquette. Everyone could use a little netiquette! Nough said.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is the “job” of a private business-owner?

Is it not whatever they believe will generate the most wealth? Increase the welfare of their business and their personal well-being?

You are confusing the private and public sectors. This baker never took an oath that he would serve the public.

If a black person walked into my business and did something I found inappropriate or offensive, I don’t have to serve that black person.

What is the "job" of anyone? I'll tell you - it is to kiss their clients' behinds in order to win repeat business. Or, if you only deliver to internal resources within your company, then it is to keep those internal resources (higher ups, lateral co-workers, whatever) happy in order to make sure it reflects well on you and you get to keep your job. Where do you think the phrase "the customer is always right" came from?

Personally, I wouldn't give business to, or grace with repeat business any place where I knew, or found out that services had been denied based on religious grounds. I'd also probably warn my friends off of the place also. I'm not much for cavilers and complainers - especially when it comes to religious objections over small-time situations. I'd do my part to stamp out such objections in business by keeping my money to myself.

If you're wondering why I didn't reply to the series of replies you recently made to points and questions of mine I posted some time ago, I have to admit, in reading over it I didn't find any of your comments/answers sufficient or compelling... basically I gave up on the conversation.

 

[Prestor John]

No, it's actually this established thing called Internet etiquette. Here is a part of it here:
www.truthcall.com/capital_letter_etiquette.html

It is funny that that is the only thing you chose to comment on. Your pathetic strawman.

From what position of authority is the writer on this...what is this...a conference call center?...speaking from and do I recognize that writer's authority?

Yeah, I don't care about any of that.

I have already told you why I embolden and why I capitalize.

If you want to hide behind this weak attempt at playing a victim to justify your running away from the truth bludgeoning I am giving you, that's fine.

Use any lame excuse you want to convince yourself that you don't need to engage.

It just makes you look worse and worse.

 

[Prestor John]

What is the "job" of anyone? I'll tell you - it is to kiss their clients' behinds in order to win repeat business. Or, if you only deliver to internal resources within your company, then it is to keep those internal resources (higher ups, lateral co-workers, whatever) happy in order to make sure it reflects well on you and you get to keep your job. Where do you think the phrase "the customer is always right" came from?

Personally, I wouldn't give business to, or grace with repeat business any place where I knew, or found out that services had been denied based on religious grounds. I'd also probably warn my friends off of the place also. I'm not much for cavilers and complainers - especially when it comes to religious objections over small-time situations. I'd do my part to stamp out such objections in business by keeping my money to myself.

If you're wondering why I didn't reply to the series of replies you recently made to points and questions of mine I posted some time ago, I have to admit, in reading over it I didn't find any of your comments/answers sufficient or compelling... basically I gave up on the conversation.

First and foremost, your comment about "services being denied" is not relevant here because the baker offered his services. He just did not want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

You are free to give up whenever you want.

You are free to choose where you would like to do business.

You are free to kiss the butts of all your clients when you run a business.

However, you cannot force someone to give up, just because you would have given up.

You cannot force someone to do business, just because you would have chosen to do business.

You cannot force someone to adopt your method of doing business.

It is wrong to force someone to have to choose between practicing their religious beliefs or losing their livelihood.

You can boycott and protest a business because it's owner decided to practice their religion, that is your right, but neither you nor the government should have the right to force that business-owner to violate their beliefs.

That would be akin to forcing you to give business to a place that had refused to provide service based on religion, which you would have moral misgivings about doing.

A private business-owner should run their business the way they want to run it. You and the government should just stay out of it.