Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Shad]

Um…no.

Ownership means that you do get to decide how your business operates.

Irrelevant as private ownership does not make it a private business by business regulation there is no membership required.

How is that?

Simply. You hold standards one group can follow but not other groups.

An EMT is not a private business-owner.

Irrelevant as the claim violating one's religion beliefs is your argument not ownership.

So explain how I have a double-standard.

One person can use religion for a denial of service while other people can not

…no one said that they were.

You were talking about being federal employees in direct relation to my point about EMTs.

Regardless, EMTs are required to fulfill their duties according to the instruction of their employer or the employment contract they signed.

So are bakers by business and anti-discrimination laws.

Would you mind pointing out where you shared this point?

My point was about EMTs I just messed up the quote.

Because if you agree that no one is entitled to the service of a private business-owner, then you would not take issue with the baker refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding.

Sure no one by law is entitled to a service. However the baker denied a service for an arbitrary reason. IF the reason were say a political message service can be denied.

It would break federal law for a doctor to prescribe marijuana.

Doctor certifies the patients have conditions in order to use the resource. Hence certification in this case is a prescription.

They can offer a recommendation, but they cannot prescribe it.

No they certify patients

This is so because the Federal government still categorizes marijuana as a schedule I drug.

Yet States are doing otherwise and it is states that enforce many federal laws. In the end these States are ignoring federal law just as sanctuary cities and police that do not check the legal status of those they have contact with.

According to the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), in the FAQs section of their website they answered the question, “May physicians legally prescribe marijuana?” with,

“No. Although a handful of states have legislation authorizing doctors to prescribe marijuana (These laws were all passed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in expectation that the federal government would eventually reschedule marijuana.), doctors in these states may not legally do so without violating federal law. Federal policy dictates that physician who prescribes marijuana or other Schedule I drugs to a patient may be stripped of his or her federal license to prescribe drugs and prosecuted. In addition, physicians will not prescribe marijuana because there are no legal state supply sources from which a patient could attain the drug.”

http://norml.org/marijuana/medical/item/medical-frequently-asked-questions

Recommend is merely legal trickery as the doctor must certify a patient in order for them to use legal distribution centers.

Also, according to the US National Library of Medicine under “Guidelines for prescribing medical marijuana” it reads,

“The process of making “recommendations” for marijuana places physicians in the position of suggesting that patients use a schedule I substance (marijuana) for medical uses.” (Bold added)

And,

More legal trickery. A patient if with an illness that marijuana can help still must go to their doctor for certification to use it as a medical solution.

“Physicians who provide such recommendations are, at a minimum, exposing themselves to civil litigation from marijuana smokers who have adverse outcomes.” (Bold added)

And,

More legal trickery.

“Physicians should remember that marijuana remains a schedule I drug, that it has not been approved as safe and efficacious by the Food and Drug Administration, and that the use of marijuana by patients holds inherent risk. We do not support recommending the medicinal use of marijuana.” (Bold added)

Guidelines for prescribing medical marijuana

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071601/

More legal trickery.

All that this amendment claims is that federal money cannot be used to prevent States from implementing their own state laws concerning the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.

No that is merely a conflict between state and fed in which the fed caves as it can not force the states to go against their own laws.

It does not change the fact that a doctor cannot legally prescribe marijuana without breaking federal law because it is still classified as a schedule I drug.

Nor does it prevent a patient from being able to sue their doctor for malpractice if they were to suffer any adverse effects after using marijuana based on their doctor’s recommendation.

Certification not recommendation. It is still legal trickery.

So, since this amendment did not change the classification of marijuana nor prevent a patient from being able to sue for malpractice, a doctor cannot prescribe marijuana without breaking federal law and they open themselves up to potential prosecution if they recommend its use.

More legal trickery.

A doctor’s recommendation, if compliant with State laws, can allow a patient to purchase marijuana for medical use from a local dispensary or supplier.

Yet, that does not change the fact that marijuana is still classified as a schedule I drug, the FDA claims that it has no medical use and that patients can potentially sue their doctors for malpractice.

It is legal trickery by the state to bypass federal law and pharmaceutical dispensation policy

However, those States that allow marijuana use, for either medical or recreational use, are still doing so in opposition to Federal law.

Agreed

For example, anyone who crosses the International Border into the U.S, even if it were into a State where marijuana use was legal and they also have a medical card, can be fined/arrested if they possess marijuana (depending on the amount) because they are breaking Federal law at a Federal border.

Those are national vs national laws, border laws and custom laws. All three fall under the executive branch thus is a federal matter only. States

How is proving that blood transfusions for others does not violate a JW doctor’s beliefs not make your example irrelevant?

Except my example was back by the position that the JW can decide for themselves along with subtle implication regarding if they do.

You haven’t heard of the Hippocratic or other similar oaths taken by many who practice medicine?

As if that is going to trump a religious belief. Heck your next point about Catholic hospitals proves my point that religion trump the oath.

I don’t think a Catholic hospital should be forced to perform any procedures that would violate their religious views. That includes abortions and sex-transitioning procedures.

Yet what about your so-called Hippocratic oath.... Why does this not apply to Catholics....

And, as far as I know, the powers that be agree with me on that.

Which powers would that be?

First, the idea that the WT has changed their views is not relevant. Why would it be?

It is relevant as it shows inconsistent views subject to change from a so-called consistent religion.

Second, why the sudden need for sources? I don’t remember you supplying sources for any of the things you have claimed.

I requested a source. You not requesting one is not an argument against my request. You just never bothered to ask.

I just did a quick perusal of many of your comments and haven’t seen any source mentioned. But I admit I could be wrong.

You didn't ask for a source. Again your point is not an argument against my request. If you didn't bother to request sources from me that is your problem.

Anyways, if you read any and all JW material (including the WT) you will see that the only thing they are strict about in regards to blood is receiving it for themselves.

And they have guideline for doctors.

They can give blood and perform blood transfusions based on their own conscience.

Along with subtle implication if they do so they are wrong.

As long as a nurse or doctor is up front with their employer at the time of their employment about their religious beliefs concerning blood, abortions, sex-change operations, etc. - they cannot be forced to take part in any of those particular procedures.

They can still care for the patient, but just not participate during those procedures.

What about your so-called Hippocratic oath? Funny how it is useful for one point when it than you abandon it later as it can be used against the above points.

Also, they cannot be fired for wanting to live according to your beliefs.

Actually in some states people can be fired without cause such as Texas. They can also be fired if the job requires them to perform the procedure.

Do you not know what the Watchtower is?

Yes.

Are we still having two different discussions here?

No

Yeah. You seem to be really confused.

Nope. You seem to think private owned business is the same as a private business which is defined by membership such as Costco. A business that is open to the public without membership is a public business regardless of ownership. It is public in the sense that it is open to anyone that walks through the door.

I have only been talking about the right of a private business-owner to not be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

You are under the mistaken impression that a private ownership means it is not a business open to the public without any requirements such as membership.

Why are you trying to conflate my position with all these cases that have nothing to do with it?

I conflate nothing. I am pointing out private ownership is irrelevant when the business is open to the public.

I did not distort your point. I merely brought you back on track.

No you distorted my point as you think privately owned is the same as a private business open to members only.

I did not build up a strawman. You did.

Nope. I pointed out your mistake regarding how public and private access applies which has nothing to do with ownership.

I didn’t scroll through all your comments, so I could be wrong. I just don’t remember you feeling the need to use sources yourself or to demand any from me until now.

So what? IF you wanted a source ask. All you are doing is complaining that I asked for a source while you never bothered.

 

[Shad]

Anyways, maybe if you offered any source that actually countered my arguments or were relevant to our discussion at all I might feel the need to provide them.

I have offered plenty. My arguments have nothing to do with your providing sources or not. Blame yourself as it is your problem.

Well, to be fair, black people have been just as capable of oppressing other black people and white people over human history. Even before there was a Bible.

Wasn't my point. My point is that religious beliefs can not be validated thus can be used for any reason anyone wishes to come up with. More so many Christians used the Bible to accept slavery and poor treatment of people they considered less such as the so-called curse of Ham.

Trying to blame only one race of people, or the Bible, for something that all peoples have done at one time or another is pointless.

Except that wasn't my point. My point was it is easy to use religion to cover for horrible views as religion is treated almost unquestionable by people.

Not only that, but it was other white people (who also referenced the Bible) who ended slavery in the Western World, so what was your point again?

So what? My point still stands that people used the Bible to endorse views they liked which can be used in modern times.

Anyways, my argument has been that a private business-owner should be able to manage his/her business in good conscience and should not be forced to participate in any activity that would cause them to violate their religious beliefs.

Irrelevant due to anti-discrimination and business laws. They are free to stop selling wedding cakes but they wont as weddings are a cash cow industry.

I know you keep trying to distract from my argument by talking about all these life-saving jobs (none of which are private business-owners), but all that did was waste everyone’s time.

No my point was to take your argument about cakes and use it when a life is in balance.

No one is entitled to the goods or services of a private business-owner.

And no one is entitled to denial a service because they do not like one aspect of the service they provide because of the customer.

 

[Prestor John]

That's the "one man and as many women as he wants" definition, right?

No, not really.

One man and one woman is the default. The "norm".

The Lord sometimes calls the righteous among His chosen people to "raise up seed" unto Him, or in other words, marry more women and produce more children, but that has only happened a handful of times.

Also, if the Lord had commanded polygamy, He usually chose who would participate in it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, not really.

One man and one woman is the default. The "norm".

The Lord sometimes calls the righteous among His chosen people to "raise up seed" unto Him, or in other words, marry more women and produce more children, but that has only happened a handful of times.

Also, if the Lord had commanded polygamy, He usually chose who would participate in it.

Ah... so "one man and as many women as God wants (which is usually one)."

And you're saying that this is what the LDS Church campaigned for?

 

[Prestor John]

Ah... so "one man and as many women as God wants (which is usually one)."

And you're saying that this is what the LDS Church campaigned for?

The practice was not illegal when the Church first practiced it.

When the law was eventually set up to oppose the practice it was a violation of the Saint's right to practice their religion and many members and leaders voiced their arguments against the law.

Many even continued to enter into polygamous relationships against the law, however, they were eventually reminded that the Lord had previously counseled the Saints to obey the laws of the land, even if they did not respect His laws.

So, the religious freedoms of the Saints were disregarded (again) and the Lord declared through His prophet that the Church would no longer sanction any more polygamous relationships.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The practice was not illegal when the Church first practiced it.

Debatable.

When the law was eventually set up to oppose the practice it was a violation of the Saint's right to practice their religion and many members and leaders voiced their arguments against the law.

Many even continued to enter into polygamous relationships against the law, however, they were eventually reminded that the Lord had previously counseled the Saints to obey the laws of the land, even if they did not respect His laws.

IOW, the law hasn't reflected your understanding of the "definition of marriage" for quite some time, even ignoring the same-sex marriage issue. Correct?

And now you support a definition of marriage that you describe as disrespect of "His laws" in order to oppose same-sex marriage?

So, the religious freedoms of the Saints were disregarded (again) and the Lord declared through His prophet that the Church would no longer sanction any more polygamous relationships.

...on Earth. They still sanction polygamous marriages in general. The LDS Church has no problem with sanctioning the celestial marriage of a widower who was in a celestial marriage with his deceased wife, does it?

 

[dgirl1986]

How is this thread still going? Seriously.

 

[Prestor John]

Debatable.

Go for it.

Debate.

IOW, the law hasn't reflected your understanding of the "definition of marriage" for quite some time, even ignoring the same-sex marriage issue. Correct?

No. Not at all.

Marriage has always been defined as a covenant between one man and one woman. Since the beginning. Adam and Eve.

There have been times when the Lord commanded that His faithful take up the practice of plural marriage, but those were never calls for all men to take on multiple wives.

The Bible is full of faithful men, but not all were called by God to take on multiple wives. For example, Abraham and his grandson Jacob had multiple wives, however Isaac, Abraham's son and Jacob's father, had only the one wife.

In the early LDS Church God called some of His faithful servants to enter into the practice of plural marriage. That was His Law to them. They followed His Law and were blessed.

Plural marriage is the exception not the rule.

And now you support a definition of marriage that you describe as disrespect of "His laws" in order to oppose same-sex marriage?

Nope. I sure don't.

...on Earth. They still sanction polygamous marriages in general. The LDS Church has no problem with sanctioning the celestial marriage of a widower who was in a celestial marriage with his deceased wife, does it?

In mortality, yes.

The laws of Man have no authority after death.

 

[columbus]

How is this thread still going? Seriously.

Religious people still claiming that gay marriage is a danger to the family and God hates it, but polygamy is OK sometimes if God has a change of Mind a couple of times in a decade or two.
But only in their religion, about a century and a half ago. You aren't invited to that party. Because religious people know these things, who is invited to the party and who isn't.
It's magical.
That sort of thing.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Religious people still claiming that gay marriage is a danger to the family and God hates it, but polygamy is OK sometimes if God has a change of Mind a couple of times in a decade or two.
But only in their religion, about a century and a half ago. You aren't invited to that party. Because religious people know these things, who is invited to the party and who isn't.
It's magical.
That sort of thing.
Tom

I'm glad you're having fun. Ignorance and sarcasm look good on you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm always in awe at how hard Liberals try to play dumb. Christian business are being forced out if the owners refuse to engage in homosexual speech. No business owner is being forced to engage in drinking, gambling, or tattoos. And, as far as I know, business are allowed to discriminate against people on the grounds of drinking, gambling, and tattoos.

Someone asked why Christians care about same sex marriage. The answer is because Christians are being forced to play a role in it. That's simple enough for anyone but a Liberal to understand.

No, Christian business owners are being sued for failing to abide by the rules for getting a public business license which indicates if you want to run a business open to the public then you have to be willing to serve the entire public. Baking a cake is NOT participating in a wedding... it's simply creating a pastry. If you create pastries but you don't want to sell them to the entire public them DO NOT open a public business. If you'd prefer to pick and choose who you serve then get a license to open a PRIVATE club, just like everyone else who wants to pick and choose who they serve.

 

[Prestor John]

No, Christian business owners are being sued for failing to abide by the rules for getting a public business license which indicates if you want to run a business open to the public then you have to be willing to serve the entire public. Baking a cake is NOT participating in a wedding... it's simply creating a pastry. If you create pastries but you don't want to sell them to the entire public them DO NOT open a public business. If you'd prefer to pick and choose who you serve then get a license to open a PRIVATE club, just like everyone else who wants to pick and choose who they serve.

It is YOUR OPINION that baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding is not participating in that wedding.

Thank you for sharing YOUR OPINION. I just hope you understand that not everyone is going to agree with YOUR OPINION.

Since the freedom to live by one's religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs or punishing someone for living/working according to their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A private business owner is not a public servant. No one is ENTITLED to their labor.

 

[Katzpur]

It is YOUR OPINION that baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding is not participating in that wedding.

Thank you for sharing YOUR OPINION. I just hope you understand that not everyone is going to agree with YOUR OPINION.

Since the freedom to live by one's religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs or punishing someone for living/working according to their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A private business owner is not a public servant. No one is ENTITLED to their labor.

John, I'm wondering what your feelings are about German Christian business owners who, during the Second World War, posted signs in their shop windows saying, "No Jews." I may be wrong, but I suspect you wouldn't approve of that action. If I'm right, could you please explain what the difference is? I mean, in both cases, a business owner is refusing service to someone based on that person's beliefs or lifestyle. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. It's not the baker's personal endorsement of someone's marriage.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is YOUR OPINION that baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding is not participating in that wedding.

Thank you for sharing YOUR OPINION. I just hope you understand that not everyone is going to agree with YOUR OPINION.

Since the freedom to live by one's religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs or punishing someone for living/working according to their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A private business owner is not a public servant. No one is ENTITLED to their labor.

Well, if you hold the opinion that baking a pastry that's not even used in the marriage ceremony somehow makes the baker a 'participant' in the wedding, then you're just plain silly. Where does this 'participation' end? Is the farmer who raised the chickens that laid the eggs used in baking the cake ALSO 'participating' in the wedding?

I've been married. We had people in the wedding party who participated in our wedding ceremony. The minister who performed the ceremony was also a participant. Did we consider the person who prepared the food that we ate at a party AFTER the ceremony was over to have participated in the ceremony? Absolutely NOT!

As for forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs, no baker has EVER been FORCED to open a business that serves the public. If for some silly reason the baker's religion prevents him or her from serving the entire public, then he or she has the CHOICE to not apply for a PUBLIC business license. By expecting the baker to follow the exact same rules as every OTHER owner of a public business, no one is violating his/her religious rights. Just because your religious beliefs might conflict with established secular law does not mean you get to ignore the established secular law. That's like claiming that if a man's religion tells him he must behead his wife for cheating on him, that throwing him in jail for murder would be violating his religious rights.

And no, the owner of public business is not a public servant, but they HAVE chosen of their own free will to open a business that serves the PUBLIC. And just like ANY OTHER owner of a public business, they need to be prepared to serve the entire public. IF they insist of PICKING & CHOOSING who they'll serve, they have the option of opening up a PRIVATE CLUB. Instead of pretending like he/she is being persecuted, the baker simply needs to follow the same rules that everyone else is expected to follow. Having a specific religious belief does NOT give the baker special rights.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The baker offered to serve the homosexual couple with many baked goods for any event, even their wedding.

He just did not want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding because of his religious convictions.

He did not deny homosexuals service. He denied to participate in a same-sex wedding.

There is no discrimination.

Let's see... the couple asked the baker to bake a type of cake that the baker bakes on a regular basis, but the baker refused to provide this service to them. Sure sounds like the baker denied the homosexuals service.

And I never heard ANYTHING about this couple inviting the baker to PARTICIPATE in their wedding ceremony. All they did was ask the baker to prepare a pastry that would be served AFTER the ceremony was OVER. That's hardly participation on the baker's part. Where does this 'participation' end in your opinion? Is the farmer who raised the chickens that laid the eggs that the baker used in the cake ALSO a 'participant' in the wedding? I mean, seriously.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, if you hold the opinion that baking a pastry that's not even used in the marriage ceremony somehow makes the baker a 'participant' in the wedding, then you're just plain silly. Where does this 'participation' end? Is the farmer who raised the chickens that laid the eggs used in baking the cake ALSO 'participating' in the wedding?

I really don't know what to say other than that I think you've posted an excellent example. If a woman goes into a bridal store to buy a wedding gown, should the clerk who is helping her (or perhaps the owner of the store) ask her if she's marrying a man or another woman before being willing to sell her a dress? If a man calls a hotel to reserve the bridal suite, is the person taking the reservation supposed to ask if he's marrying a woman or another man before charging his credit card? I'm all for people being able to practice their religion without being made to engage in activities they believe to be morally wrong. But isn't there a point at which common sense ought to come into play?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is YOUR OPINION that baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding is not participating in that wedding.

Thank you for sharing YOUR OPINION. I just hope you understand that not everyone is going to agree with YOUR OPINION.

Since the freedom to live by one's religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs or punishing someone for living/working according to their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A private business owner is not a public servant. No one is ENTITLED to their labor.

I find this attitude somewhat bizarre. What seems to be implied here is that businesses have rights, while consumers don't. That if I own and operate a business, I can run that business however I want and I am accountable to nobody but myself because nobody is "entitled" to my service.

I'm sorry, but consumers DO have rights. If I decided to open a business and begin trading, in order to do so I must operate within certain legal guidelines and statutes - these include laws about unjust discrimination and fair service. If I expect to make money from providing a product or service to people willing to pay for that service, there are a whole bunch of regulations and laws in place to ensure that I am operating said business that does not infringe upon the freedoms or rights of other people. This isn't some new concept that the internet dreamed up so that gay people can get access to the cakes they want. It's literally a part of national trade law.

Nobody's rights are being impinged if I publicly offer a service in exchange for money via a business that I operate within the law, but then am prevented from breaking said law by using my business to unjustly discriminate against members of society by denying them said service. You have a right to operate a business, but you do not have a right to use that business to discriminate against people, because consumers ALSO have rights. If I hold a deep, religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin, and I make a decision to open a bed and breakfast in my home town, I do so in full knowledge that the facilities I allow people access to in exchange for money may well be used by homosexuals. At that point, any complaint I have about homosexuals staying in my hotel are moot. If it were an issue to begin with, then I am unable to operate within the laws required for me to legally run said business, and I shouldn't have opened a bed and breakfast in the first place.

If you own a bakery that sells wedding cakes (or cakes for a variety of occasions), you do so in full knowledge that people are going to hire your services to produce cakes for events or occasions you don't always personally agree with. If that's an issue for you, then you shouldn't be running a bakery to begin with, and people who are so short-sighted that they could not see that deserve to be taken to court. End of.

 

[Prestor John]

Hey Katz. I love you.

John, I'm wondering what your feelings are about German Christian business owners who, during the Second World War, posted signs in their shop windows saying, "No Jews."

It is very easy for people to look back at past events and judge based on our current standards and expectations.

We do this and often applaud ourselves by saying, "I never would have done that!" Well, hindsight is 20/20.

I believe that it is important for people who want to look back and try to judge the past to avoid the cultural bias of presentism because it tends to distort the subject matter.

I would not fault a Christian business-owner in Nazi Germany for putting up a sign that said, "No Jews" because I understand that there was a lot of Anti-Jewish legislation passed in Nazi Germany that separated/restricted the Jews from German society.

I would also not fault any Southerners who kept the Jim Crow laws during that same time period. Those were legislated and enforced laws.

I'm not going to judge people in the past based on what I believe is right or wrong today.

I may be wrong, but I suspect you wouldn't approve of that action.

I wouldn't approve of that action today, but I wouldn't fault them for doing so in Nazi Germany.

The baker in question did not deny to bake the homosexual couple a cake for their wedding. He denied to bake a wedding cake for their wedding because he felt that that would cause him to promote/encourage/engage in a practice that he found offensive.

So, for these reasons, I do not find what you asked to be a good comparison. I feel that I more accurate example would be if someone put up a sign which read, "No Kosher."

They are not denying service to Jews. They are just saying that they are not going to accommodate their religious preference.

The baker did not deny the homosexual couple service. He denied to participate in their same-sex wedding.

If I'm right, could you please explain what the difference is?

Well, for starters, unlike Nazi Germany, the U.S. has the Constitution, the First Amendment of which claims that the religious beliefs of citizens are protected.

Second, putting up a sign that read, "No Jews" would be akin to putting up a sign that read, "No Homosexuals."

This baker did not have such a sign because he did not want to deny his services to homosexuals. He had no issue baking cakes for homosexuals for all kinds of events, even same-sex weddings.

A cake is just a cake right? He can make a cake for anyone for any occasion.

However, a wedding cake is used only for one occasion and he did not want to promote a practice that he had religious reasons to believe violated that occasion.

He offered to bake them cakes for their wedding. He just did not want to bake a wedding cake for that occasion.

I mean, in both cases, a business owner is refusing service to someone based on that person's beliefs or lifestyle.

No. The baker never refused to serve the homosexual couple. He refused to participate any further in their same-sex wedding.

A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

Yes, wedding cakes are only for weddings. That was the reason why he did not want to bake them one.

It's not the baker's personal endorsement of someone's marriage.

According to who? You or the baker? In this case I believe that only the baker's opinion matters.

If he felt that baking that wedding cake would cause him to violate his religious beliefs (which are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) then that homosexual couple should have gone to another baker.

They were not denied any rights. They had the right of movement. They had the right to travel. They had the right to take their business elsewhere.

However, they did not care about the Constitutional rights of others, so they played that "used and abused" professional "victim card."

I still love you Katz. Even if we never agree on this or many other issues.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I wouldn't approve of that action today, but I wouldn't fault them for doing so in Nazi Germany.

So, in other words, you would abide by what the law required of your business. Would that include anti-discrimination law?

The baker in question did not deny to bake the homosexual couple a cake for their wedding. He denied to bake a wedding cake for their wedding because he felt that that would cause him to promote/encourage/engage in a practice that he found offensive.

He was not being asked to endorse, promote or encourage homosexuality. He was asked to produce a cake - something that, as a maker of cakes (including wedding cakes) he is reasonably expected to do, and must do so in accordance with law.

So, for these reasons, I do not find what you asked to be a good comparison. I feel that I more accurate example would be if someone put up a sign which read, "No Kosher."

They are not denying service to Jews. They are just saying that they are not going to accommodate their religious preference.

Nope, not even close. The baker wasn't asked to bring in special "gay ingredients" to make a "gay cake". They were asked to make a cake - something that have the ability to make, and something they make for a variey of people and occasions. This was no different.

The baker did not deny the homosexual couple service. He denied to participate in their same-sex wedding.

They weren't participating in the wedding. They were making a cake for it. What about that is difficult to understand?

Well, for starters, unlike Nazi Germany, the U.S. has the Constitution, the First Amendment of which claims that the religious beliefs of citizens are protected.

That doesn't include the right to discriminate against others based on that belief, and it certainly doesn't give a business owner the right to use their business to discriminate either. His BELIEFS are protected, not his actions.

Second, putting up a sign that read, "No Jews" would be akin to putting up a sign that read, "No Homosexuals."

This baker did not have such a sign because he did not want to deny his services to homosexuals. He had no issue baking cakes for homosexuals for all kinds of events, even same-sex weddings.

A cake is just a cake right? He can make a cake for anyone for any occasion.

However, a wedding cake is used only for one occasion and he did not want to promote a practice that he had religious reasons to believe violated that occasion.

That is a weak excuse. They provide wedding cakes for a variety of weddings, and yet denied the service in this instance purely because of the sexual preferences of those involved in the ceremony. That is unjust discrimination, by law.

He offered to bake them cakes for their wedding. He just did not want to bake a wedding cake for that occasion.

Irrelevant.

No. The baker never refused to serve the homosexual couple. He refused to participate any further in their same-sex wedding.

No, he refused to make them a WEDDING CAKE.

Yes, wedding cakes are only for weddings. That was the reason why he did not want to bake them one.

You're going around in circles.

According to who? You or the baker? In this case I believe that only the baker's opinion matters.

Then you're wrong. Consumers also have rights, and laws exist to ensure that people are treated fairly by businesses that offer services. It's no different if I wanted to buy a wedding cake for my interracial wedding and the baker refused me purely on the basis of the wedding being interracial and them not agreeing with it - that is still discrimination, because the only difference between my wedding and another wedding he may have make a cake for is the RACE of the people involved in it. I very much doubt that you would honestly condone that sort of discrimination, so it baffles me that you're defending the EXACT SAME kind of discrimination here.

If he felt that baking that wedding cake would cause him to violate his religious beliefs (which are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) then that homosexual couple should have gone to another baker.

It's not violating his religious beliefs for him to provide a service that he offers in exchange for money.

They were not denied any rights. They had the right of movement. They had the right to travel. They had the right to take their business elsewhere.

They had the right to not be discriminated against by business owners purely on the basis of their sexuality. That is law.

However, they did not care about the Constitutional rights of others, so they played that "used and abused" professional "victim card."

Nothing infringes on the right of the baker. The baker offered a service and then REFUSED to provide that service on the basis of the sexuality of the people willing to pay for it. That is a contravention of THEIR rights. The fact that you are trying to spin this as if it is the homosexuals that are somehow acting as if they are in the wrong, while the baker is entirely innocent, is utterly backwards to me.

 

[columbus]

He was not being asked to endorse, promote or encourage homosexuality. He was asked to produce a cake - something that, as a maker of cakes (including wedding cakes) he is reasonably expected to do, and must do so in accordance with law.

Here's what makes the wedding cake thing so ridiculous to me.

If the baker is asked to write "Congratulations Jill and Steve!" on a cake it's a lovely and profitable endeavor. "Congratulations Bill and Steve!" is an abomination, requiring a baker to change that squiggle of icing is religious persecution.
How ridiculous can you get?
Tom