How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[1213]

You dont know, you believe, and you act on fear based on those beliefs because you are scared your god has a bad aim and eill punish the sinners and saints alike, indiscriminately.

Thank you for proving that you don’t know me. And thank you for showing that you have no problem to make up imaginary stuff.

I don’t think God has bad aim. I think God is good and what ever He does is good. So, I really don’t see any reason to fear God. Why would I fear that good happens? I hope that good happens. And if good is that God destroys me, I would be happy that good happens.

I want to do God’s will because I know it is good and I also love God and want that His will happens, because He is good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thank you for proving that you don’t know me. And thank you for showing that you have no problem to make up imaginary stuff.

You're the one claiming we have to behave and appease your god or else you "know" bad stuff will happen.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yes there is such a compromise, and part of that compromise is that the religious are constrained from certain faith based practices.

That is not religious freedom which is ensured by the U.S. Constitution.

Why should they be? If other people have to abide by certain laws why should people be exempt from them just because they're Christians or those with sincere moral or religious convictions?

You have yet to convince me these cases break any laws.

But the necessity of having to look elsewhere amounts to imposing a burden not imposed on others.

Says who?

I'm sure if someone else wanted a cake for an event that the baker believed violated their personal beliefs they would refuse to do it for them as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem blithely unaware that rather than live and let live, the liberals often have an angry agenda!

Once again, "live and let live" would require the religious to put their beliefs aside for one moment and serve their customers in accordance with law.

You don't want "live and let live". You want "let the religious live and let live, while everyone else has their rights removed because only the religious deserve tolerance and equality".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Says who?

It's fairly obvious, isn't it?

"I am part of group X. I can purchase a cake anywhere."
"I am part of group Y. I cannot purchase a cake from anywhere and must find a cake shop that serves my group."

That's literal segregation.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Once again, "live and let live" would require the religious to put their beliefs aside for one moment and serve their customers in accordance with law.

You don't want "live and let live". You want "let the religious live and let live, while everyone else has their rights removed because only the religious deserve tolerance and equality".

Stop pointing out the double standard! Don't you know that's persecution!? Stop persecuting Christians! This is literally worse than the Holocaust!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's fairly obvious, isn't it?

"I am part of group X. I can purchase a cake anywhere."
"I am part of group Y. I cannot purchase a cake from anywhere and must find a cake shop that serves my group."

That's literal segregation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, "live and let live" would require the religious to put their beliefs aside for one moment and serve their customers in accordance with law.

You don't want "live and let live". You want "let the religious live and let live, while everyone else has their rights removed because only the religious deserve tolerance and equality".

Not at all, uptight atheists don't have to serve gays (or straights) as they see fit. You really must learn to argue the proposition and not the straw man proposition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court confirmed that the right to same-sex marriage is established in rights found in the 14th Amendment, which means same-sex marriage has been legal in the US since 1868. The US government was breaking the law by failing to recognize this fact.

I must agree, in 1868, people were completely "down" with gay marriage despite every state having sodomy laws in their statutes. (Rolls eyes...)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Slavery was once upheld as a societal and biblical norm.

Same-sex marriage is building more acceptance every day in Christianity. Many Christian denominations not only

How do you feel about same-sex slavery?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all, uptight atheists don't have to serve gays (or straights) as they see fit. You really must learn to argue the proposition and not the straw man proposition.

Look at the OP. They are literally arguing for a specifically religious exemption from anti-discrimination law - something that "uptight atheists" are not exempt from, yet you believe you should be.

Why?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I must agree, in 1868, people were completely "down" with gay marriage despite every state having sodomy laws in their statutes. (Rolls eyes...)

Oh dear. Did you just equate gay marriage and sodomy?

You realize those are two different things, right? Or do you confuse marriage and anal sex all the time? If so, I feel sorry for your partner.*

Spoiler

*Or pleased for them. No kink shaming here!.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

It's fairly obvious, isn't it?

"I am part of group X. I can purchase a cake anywhere."
"I am part of group Y. I cannot purchase a cake from anywhere and must find a cake shop that serves my group."

That's literal segregation.

You and I both know that if two heterosexual men decided to get married and asked the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop to make them a cake for the event - he would refuse.

The sexual orientation or "group" of the customer is not a determining factor here.

 

[1213]

You're the one claiming we have to behave and appease your god or else you "know" bad stuff will happen.

Where I have claimed so?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where I have claimed so?

Here.

Knowing that something that is not nice will come and trying to avoid it, doesn’t

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I must agree, in 1868, people were completely "down" with gay marriage despite every state having sodomy laws in their statutes. (Rolls eyes...)

Lawrence v. Texas established that those laws were unconstitutional.

Anti-sodomy laws were illegal in your country from the day they came into force. It just took a while for the justice system to recognize this fact.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You and I both know that if two heterosexual men decided to get married and asked the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop to make them a cake for the event - he would refuse.

The sexual orientation or "group" of the customer is not a determining factor here.

Do you think Jesus would approve of being willfully obtuse and arguing in bad faith?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You and I both know that if two heterosexual men decided to get married and asked the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop to make them a cake for the event - he would refuse.

On the basis that the wedding isn't a heterosexual one.

Hence, discrimination.

For the exact same reason that a white man wanting to buy a wedding cake for his wedding to a black woman being refused a cake on the basis that his wife was black is racial discrimination. We both know that if that's what was happening, you wouldn't be defending them.

This isn't rocket science.

The sexual orientation or "group" of the customer is not a determining factor here.

The sexual orientation of the wedding is, since that's the ONLY difference between a gay wedding and a straight one, in the same way that the race of the individuals getting married is the only difference between a non-interracial wedding and an interracial one.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The sexual orientation of the wedding is, since that's the ONLY difference between a gay wedding and a straight one, in the same way that the race of the individuals getting married is the only difference between a non-interracial wedding and an interracial one.

Another way to look at it, men are allowed to marry women, therefore not allowing women to marry women is discrimination.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh dear. Did you just equate gay marriage and sodomy?

You realize those are two different things, right? Or do you confuse marriage and anal sex all the time? If so, I feel sorry for your partner.*

Spoiler

*Or pleased for them. No kink shaming here!.

Now you're just being difficult, bless your pagan heart, when you understand my point: saying gay marriage has been "legal" since the 1860's belies your knowledge of 19th century culture (and that you use unfair debate tactics).