"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 737
#421
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
he same level of scrutiny would seem to apply to the cake man.  You can't just refuse service to homos because they are "sinners" and then cheerily serve every other "sinner" (divorcee, adulterer, murder, thief, tax cheat, Sabbath violator) that walks through your door.
can someone who preforms religious marriages refuse to wed a gay couple for religious objection?  I believe the law says yes even if they remarry divorced people.  So I'm not convinced on this consistency standard you bring up because there are many examples that show your consistency objection isn't important legally.

The cake guy makes cakes for everyone EXCEPT the gays.  TONS of other "sinners" pay him good money every day.
he makes cakes anyone can buy including gays, he does not make cakes for gay weddings only, you accused me of being inaccurate, how ironic.

#422
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are not arguing legality you are arguing religiosity and there is no religious consistency with the religious objection to same sex marriage.
Topic's author
#423
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
The cake guy makes cakes for everyone EXCEPT the gays.  TONS of other "sinners" pay him good money every day.
We have been over this, multiple times.. 
Ok,

The cake guy claims to make cakes for everyone. 
Except homos.

Maybe he really is secretly a hateful bigot rather than a practicing Christian, but he has never been shown not to make cakes for people because they have sinned. 
Except homos.

It appears as though people construct an image that they can hate, so that it can be attacked.  I don't understand how you fall for it, over and over again.
Why does this guy object to making cakes for homos?
#424
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
You are not arguing legality you are arguing religiosity and there is no religious consistency with the religious objection to same sex marriage
I'm not sure I follow, if you won't marry gays and that is the practice and policy of the church he attends, then it would be consistent to not preform a duty that would directly support or legitimize a gay wedding.

#425
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
The cake guy makes cakes for everyone EXCEPT the gays.  TONS of other "sinners" pay him good money every day.
We have been over this, multiple times.. 
Ok,

The cake guy claims to make cakes for everyone. 
Except homos.

Maybe he really is secretly a hateful bigot rather than a practicing Christian, but he has never been shown not to make cakes for people because they have sinned. 
Except homos.

It appears as though people construct an image that they can hate, so that it can be attacked.  I don't understand how you fall for it, over and over again.
Why does this guy object to making cakes for homos

He would also object to cater as requested by men, women, disabled people, young, old, "white", "straight", "bisexual" you name it....All sorts of "protected classes" of people.  You know this.  I mean, seriously, consider how obvious it is what you are really doing.  You could have just as easily selected "men" as the fake victim of the evil baker. Anyone with eyes that can see would know the motive behind your contention isn't to "protect gays".
Topic's author
#426
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
He would also object to cater as requested by men, women, disabled people, young, old, "white", "straight", "bisexual" you name it....All sorts of "protected classes" of people. 
What?

You know this.  I mean, seriously, consider how obvious it is what you are really doing. 
Please, tell me what I know and I'm thinking.

You could have just as easily selected "men" as the fake victim of the evil baker.
I truly have no idea what you're referring to here.

Anyone with eyes that can see would know the motive behind your contention isn't to "protect gays".
What is my motivation?
#427
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What you are missing and therefore why you don't understand is that the religious objection to same sex marriage is that homosexuality is a sin. Divorce and premarital sex and any number of other things are sins and for consistency would constitute an objection to marriage of those sinners but hypocrisy prevents that behaviour.
Topic's author
#428
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Also, I told you before that Orthodoxy is not a religion that comes from the bible.
So it's indistinguishable from make-believe.
#429
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@disgusted
What you are missing and therefore why you don't understand is that the religious objection to same sex marriage is that homosexuality is a sin. Divorce and premarital sex and any number of other things are sins and for consistency would constitute an objection to marriage of those sinners but hypocrisy prevents that behavior.

It is not possible to have premarital sex in marriage.  The idea that the man is objecting to sinners is idiotic, or an insulting presumption without warrant.
#430
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
I get that part 3RU7AL has been saying it, what you seem to not understand from my post was, it's perfectly legal to not marry gays but marry everyone else, so hypocrisy doesn't seem to apply does it?
#431
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Marriage has nothing to do with "gay".  If you make the vow and say I do, the both of you in totality are in it for better or worse.  You don't marry attraction.  You don't marry love.  You marry a person, all of them, through it all.

#432
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
No, if you sign the municipal paperwork wherein your state and local government acknowledge this commitment, THEN you're in it. You can vow all you want to each other out in the woods or in a church or anywhere else, but you are not legally married without the state's assent. 
#433
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm talking about actual marriage, obviously.
#434
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
WHat's the difference between "actual marriage" and "legally binding marriage"?
#435
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Once again you conflate religion with legal. Churches can marry two Llamas if that's what they want, they just have no right to tell anyone else who can be married.
Topic's author
#436
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm not sure I follow, if you won't marry gays and that is the practice and policy of the church he attends, then it would be consistent to not preform a duty that would directly support or legitimize a gay wedding.
Only if the Church has a written rule specifically prohibiting making cakes for gay weddings.

The Church itself may choose not to host gay weddings. [LINK]  This alone does not prohibit members from attending or otherwise participating in gay weddings.

For example, [LINK]
#437
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Is that a sincere question?  The existence or legitimacy of something is not contingent upon recognition by a government.  
#438
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
So it's indistinguishable from make-believe.
You would say that if it did come from the bible. You are being disingenuous.

#439
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
The existence or legitimacy of a marriage is indeed contingent upon the state recognizing it, because being married carries state-subsidized benefits and other obligations. For example, try to use someone else's medical benefits without a document from the state recognizing a legal union between two people. 
#440
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Marriage has not to do with benefits.  The purposes to which state representatives deem practical is besides the point.

  There is no inherent need for the state to discriminate on the basis of marriage.
#441
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
Can you tell me the difference between legally binding marriages and "legitimate" marriages? There's no inherent need for anyone to discriminate based on sexual preference, either. 

#442
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
@Snoopy
Marriage has nothing to do with "gay".  If you make the vow and say I do, the both of you in totality are in it for better or worse.  You don't marry attraction.  You don't marry love.  You marry a person, all of them, through it all.
marriage is a contract which was used to join families to gain power, strength and land etc.  At the very core it is a contract/agreement, nothing more.
um ok?  that is talking about the individuals rather the person whom the service is being requested ie a gay marriage.  I'm libertarian on this issue which is why I support the person who does not want to do something, I don't care if or what reason is given. in context of course.

@3RU7AL

Only if the Church has a written rule specifically prohibiting making cakes for gay weddings.
that means an individual can't make any interpretation or value judgement for them selves and they don't have a choice.
The Church itself may choose not to host gay weddings. [LINK]  This alone does not prohibit members from attending or otherwise participating in gay weddings.
which is contradicted by the above.  So in the first sentence you state the Church makes the rules which must be followed but in the 2nd you say individuals have choice, which is it?

If a church does not recognize gay marriage and will not perform any ceremonies for, then it would stand to reason that members might not choose to support gay marriages/weddings would it not?  From their p.o.v. gay weddings are like space aliens, people talk about them but they don't really exist.





Topic's author
#443
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
So it's indistinguishable from make-believe.
You would say that if it did come from the bible. You are being disingenuous.
Make-believe written down is fiction.

There's a subtle, yet important difference.
#444
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@ludofl3x
There's no inherent need for anyone to discriminate based on sexual preference, either. 
I would suppose so as well.


Can you tell me the difference between legally binding marriages and "legitimate" marriages?
This could actually be a bit blurry depending on what is considered "good law".  Some people may not recognize what congress passes, and the executive branch of government signs off as valid law for whatever reason.  What you are referring to as legally binding is based upon contract enforceable under claims to authority which may or may not be legitimate.  What I am referring to as legitimate is not contingent upon the current regime, rather based in truth.  


#445
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
This could actually be a bit blurry depending on what is considered "good law".  Some people may not recognize what congress passes, and the executive branch of government signs off as valid law for whatever reason.  What you are referring to as legally binding is based upon contract enforceable under claims to authority which may or may not be legitimate.  What I am referring to as legitimate is not contingent upon the current regime, rather based in truth. 

So now we can pick what laws are legitimate or "good" and only follow those? That can't be what you're saying. It doesn't matter if you recognize what the government passes, you still have to choose between abide by it or be committing a crime, it's very simply. In any case, please explain the bolded and how you determined it to be 'truth.' Maybe you can then show me how someone decides which sins are worthy of denying people service over, and which ones aren't. Is it fair to say you do not think marriages in faiths or even denominations outside your own are illegitimate?
Topic's author
#446
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Only if the Church has a written rule specifically prohibiting making cakes for gay weddings.
that means an individual can't make any interpretation or value judgement for them selves and they don't have a choice.
The individual can refuse to do anything they please and say "Idonwanna".  But what they can't do is BLAME it on "religion" without showing the text.

The Church itself may choose not to host gay weddings. [LINK]  This alone does not prohibit members from attending or otherwise participating in gay weddings.
which is contradicted by the above.  So in the first sentence you state the Church makes the rules which must be followed but in the 2nd you say individuals have choice, which is it?
If the Church chooses not to host gay weddings (themselves, at their own Church), this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not individual members are allowed to attend or otherwise participate in gay weddings (at any other location).

If a church does not recognize gay marriage and will not perform any ceremonies for, then it would stand to reason that members might not choose to support gay marriages/weddings would it not? 
Sure, but the one thing does not make the other thing mandatory.  It's not a RULE.  There's no rule that says "don't make gay cakes".

From their p.o.v. gay weddings are like space aliens, people talk about them but they don't really exist.
That is certifiably insane.  GAY WEDDINGS ARE REALLY REALLY REALLLLZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!

Why would you make rules prohibiting "space alien marriage in Church" if that is something that doesn't exist and therefore can never happen?

You don't need a law that says "don't jump over the moon" or "don't turn into a helicopter" because we already know that can't happen.
Topic's author
#447
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
The idea that the man is objecting to sinners is idiotic, or an insulting presumption without warrant.
Why does cake man object to gay marriage?

Because the holy scripture says gay = bad.

But the holy scripture also says divorce = bad and adultery =  bad and violating the Sabbath = bad.

How does someone justify cherry-picking just the one gay thing out of the basket?
#448
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
This could actually be a bit blurry depending on what is considered "good law".  Some people may not recognize what congress passes, and the executive branch of government signs off as valid law for whatever reason.  What you are referring to as legally binding is based upon contract enforceable under claims to authority which may or may not be legitimate.  What I am referring to as legitimate is not contingent upon the current regime, rather based in truth. 

So now we can pick what laws are legitimate or "good" and only follow those? That can't be what you're saying. It doesn't matter if you recognize what the government passes, you still have to choose between abide by it or be committing a crime, it's very simply.
Heh, do you worship the government?  On another note, do you hate the Supreme Court?



In any case, please explain the bolded and how you determined it to be 'truth.' Maybe you can then show me how someone decides which sins are worthy of denying people service over, and which ones aren't. Is it fair to say you do not think marriages in faiths or even denominations outside your own are illegitimate?
Where I am from, we are informed and instructed by a professional, make a vow, and say "I do" before witnesses.  The members of church do not hold the ultimate claim to authority, but they are fully capable of pronouncing marriage as valid.
#449
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
Heh, do you worship the government?  On another note, do you hate the Supreme Court?

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I can hate the Supreme Court but I can't use that as a reason to disobey the laws and expect to get away with it. Can you explain why you're asking, I'll gladly answer?

Where I am from, we are informed and instructed by a professional, make a vow, and say I do before witnesses.  The members of church do not hold the ultimate claim to authority, but they are fully capable of pronouncing marriage as valid.
This doesn't answer my question. I will restate. I presume you are CHristian. Are Hindu marriages 'legitimate' in your view? Are they real? I mean they're denying your god exists, and are in direct conflict with the ten commandments. Would it be cool of the cake guy to refuse to make their wedding cake based on that objection?
#450
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
The idea that the man is objecting to sinners is idiotic, or an insulting presumption without warrant.
Why does cake man object to gay marriage?

Because the holy scripture says gay = bad.

But the holy scripture also says divorce = bad and adultery =  bad and violating the Sabbath = bad.

How does someone justify cherry-picking just the one gay thing out of the basket?

The scriptures do not say "gay = bad"

It has been explained previously to you, that the man may refuse towards any offer, regardless of whatever "gay" is, if they do not want to implicate themselves in the actual act.