-->
@3RU7AL
sounds totalitarian to me, and I disagree with that.
"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate
Posts
Total:
737
-->
@secularmerlin
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)
Probably. Don't over think it.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What is moral is opinion. What causes harm can be measured in many cases. What specifically makes homosexuality immoral and interracial marriage moral? Certainly neither one harms the person baking the cake.homosexual sex has been deemed immoral for a long, long time and in just about every country, I'm not sure if that's true for interracial couples.
-->
@secularmerlin
Many racists have historically couched their objections as religious and I fail to see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a black man and refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual man.
one includes the act of homosexual sex, the other does not.
-->
@Snoopy
I agree. How is refusing someone the services necessary to perform a wedding different?For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)Probably.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?one includes the act of homosexual sex, the other does not.
-->
@secularmerlin
What is moral is opinion. What causes harm can be measured in many cases. What specifically makes homosexuality immoral and interracial marriage moral? Certainly neither one harms the person baking the cake.
I don't know, it's a religious thing and if we are to have freedom of religion then their beliefs must be accepted.
I'm not defending religion, just freedom.
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree. How is refusing someone the services necessary to perform a wedding different?
that is not what happened, they had the ability to purchase a cake from the case, they wanted to enter into a contract for his creativity,skill,physical labor to make a custom, unique cake/thing to acknowledge,celebrate whatever their gay wedding and by agreeing he felt that would be accepting and legitimizing a gay wedding which he objects to.
-->
@secularmerlin
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)I agree. How is refusing someone the services necessary to perform a wedding different?
While I don't know why they are being refused, in one situation, people have apparently managed to convince the majority of society that it needs a business license from them, probably enforce something against the minority who don't want or have business licenses, and are now acting as a gatekeeper to people they deem unfit. In the other, someone is minding their own business, apparently to do with wedding services, as they see fit.
For the second one, I'm not sure if you literally mean refusing to entertain service for someone like, "Joe, I've tried to be reasonable with you, and I've had enough! You need to leave." or as if they are being requested a service where they haven't been able to negotiate a mutual agreement.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
How does this differ from objecting to am interracial marriage or a Jewish wedding in religious grounds? I'm afraid you cannot have it both ways. Either religious freedom gives carte Blanche to discriminate on religious grounds of it does not. If you feel that the baker would be justified in refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual person's wedding then you are also saying that he can refuse to do it for a disabled person's wedding or a black person's wedding. Is that your contention?I don't know, it's a religious thing and if we are to have freedom of religion then their beliefs must be accepted.I'm not defending religion, just freedom.
-->
@secularmerlin
It is a matter of whether the government is justified. Even blatant racism would not technically be hurting anything on a level between individuals since the result is that no agreement is reached, so it is not like anyone is actually committing something which might resemble a crime.
-->
@Snoopy
While I don't know why they are being refused, in one situation, people have apparently managed to convince the majority of society that it needs a business license from them, probably enforce something against the minority who don't want or have business licenses, and are now acting as a gatekeeper to people they deem unfit. In the other, someone is minding their own business, apparently to do with wedding services, as they see fit.For the second one, I'm not sure if you literally mean refusing to entertain service for someone like, "Joe, I've tried to be reasonable with you, and I've had enough! You need to leave." or as if they are being requested a service where they haven't been able to negotiate a mutual agreement
The situation is that one person sees another as immoral for reasons that are beyond their control (race, disability, sexual orientation etc.) and are using their religious beliefs to justify refusing them service even if they are perfectly reasonable paying customers that are doing nothing objectionable beyond being who they are.
If the case were that the customer were being unreasonable or a financial arrangement cannot be agreed upon then no "religious freedom" act would be necessary as we already have legislation that deals with those issues and we would not be having this discussion at all.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
he felt that would be accepting and legitimizing a gay wedding which he objects to.
On what specific (non arbitrary) grounds? As 3RU7AL has stated repeatedly the bible commands against marriages being performed on saturdays and between devorcees and to weddings where lobster rills are served but none of those would seem to br an issue. Why specifically are we drawing a line at homosexual marriage?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Also please address the following.
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?
-->
@secularmerlin
How does this differ from objecting to am interracial marriage or a Jewish wedding in religious grounds? I'm afraid you cannot have it both ways. Either religious freedom gives carte Blanche to discriminate on religious grounds of it does not. If you feel that the baker would be justified in refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual person's wedding then you are also saying that he can refuse to do it for a disabled person's wedding or a black person's wedding. Is that your contention?
as I said objecting to the act of homosexuality or a religious event is not the same as objecting to someone's skin color, vastly different things.
@Snoopy
put it very well
they are being requested a service where they haven't been able to negotiate a mutual agreement.
and if we are to have freedoms then people shouldn't be forced to reach agreement under threat of force in the context I have outlined already.
I believe many religions have a long history on various issues. Afaik divorced people can't get remarried in a Catholic church, or that was the case at one time.
do you believe the bible is black and white or mostly open to interpretation?
-->
@secularmerlin
The situation is that one person sees another as immoral for reasons that are beyond their control (race, disability, sexual orientation etc.) and are using their religious beliefs to justify refusing them service even if they are perfectly reasonable paying customers that are doing nothing objectionable beyond being who they are.
Okay, thanks. So that would just leave the first section.
In one situation, people have apparently managed to convince the majority of society that it needs a business license from them, probably enforce something against the minority who don't want or have business licenses, and are now acting as a gatekeeper to people they deem unfit. In the other, someone is minding their own business, apparently to do with wedding services, as they see fit.
If the case were that the customer were being unreasonable or a financial arrangement cannot be agreed upon then no "religious freedom" act would be necessary as we already have legislation that deals with those issues and we would not be having this discussion at all.
You would think, but what you are saying is tantemanout to justification for repealing the Bill of Rights. Hopefully it is unnecessary, but history proves that we should not trust that to be the case. A minority interest group is going to do what it needs to do, and that its interest is not founded on religious liberty, which is at risk. Its not all that different from the perspective introduced in the OP. This has been explained once to you in one way. I would think you would understand that abuse and corruption is a known issue by now.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
as I said objecting to the act of homosexuality or a religious event is not the same as objecting to someone's skin color, vastly different things
I'm afraid that I do not see the difference. Please tell me specifically what the difference is?
-->
@secularmerlin
It is a conscious act.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I believe many religions have a long history on various issues. Afaik divorced people can't get remarried in a Catholic church, or that was the case at one time.
A church is essentially a private club a bakery is not. If you wish to reap the benefits of opening your buisness to the general public then you must open your buisness to the entire general public.
People shouldn't be forced to reach agreement
The issue is not a failure to reach a financial agreement it is refusal of a service that is ordinarily open to the general public. We already have legislation that deals with financial agreements so if that were all then we would not need a "religious freedom bill" and we would not even be having this conversation.
Also please address the following.
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?
-->
@secularmerlin
Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity, an invalid oxymoron. It is good to be a virgin, and it is fine to marry. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.
-->
@Snoopy
No it is not.what you are saying is tantemanout to justification for repealing the Bill of Rights.
It is a conscious act.
What is the above in response too?
-->
@Snoopy
Marriage in this context is a legal designation not a religious one. Otherwise no legislation would be necessarry or apply.Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity. It is like an oxymoron. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.
-->
@secularmerlin
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?
as I have previously explained, I know little about religion and am far from a religious scholar, but there does seem to be a long history of objecting to homosexual sex, or is that incorrect?
I believe the muslims have a pretty specific idea about homosexuals even from my limited understanding and specific things and ways as to what do to on the issue of homosexuality. Since it sounds like they have specifics on this issue to they get a pass on refusing to provide services for a gay event?
-->
@secularmerlin
Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity. It is like an oxymoron. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.Marriage in this context is a legal designation not a religious one. Otherwise no legislation would be necessarry or apply.
Also, just a note here, Christianity did not invent Marriage (and therefore does not own it).
Marriage existed for tens of thousands of years before MOSES was even born.
-->
@secularmerlin
Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity. It is like an oxymoron. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.Marriage in this context is a legal designation not a religious one. Otherwise no legislation would be necessarry or apply.
What legislation are you referring to as necessary?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but there does seem to be a long history of objecting to homosexual sex, or is that incorrect?
And there is also an equally long history of objecting to eating bacon-cheeseburgers and marrying a divorcee.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm afraid that I do not see the difference. Please tell me specifically what the difference is?
we are going in circles here, how can I explain the difference between a ceremony,event,act (verbs) and skin color (noun) in any more of a plain way than I already have?
If you wish to reap the benefits of opening your buisness to the general public then you must open your buisness to the entire general public.
honestly I'm trying hard not to get frustrated here, the business was/is open to the general public, they could have purchased a cake from the case, his creativity, skill, artistic interpretation, his physical labor for which someone wishes to enter into a contract with him for is at his discretion. Do you recall people who were forced to work and had no choice, we called them slaves.
-->
@3RU7AL
Also, just a note here, Christianity did not invent Marriage (and therefore does not own it).Marriage existed for tens of thousands of years before MOSES was even born.
You might be making a logical error here. That is, what you are referring to as marriage may not be what English speakers (Christians) referred to since the origins of the word till around the 21st century. Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.
-->
@3RU7AL
And there is also an equally long history of objecting to eating bacon-cheeseburgers and marrying a divorcee.
lol you are really trying hard here I see that but come on LOL
you don't ask to enter into a mutual contract to have a person eat bacon-cheeseburgers do you?
so only your interpretation matters then, because you believe theirs is incorrect?
because, as you claim, they allow for other sins or things you think are prohibited in the bible that they can't object to homosexuality, it's all or nothing for you, correct?
The issue is not a failure to reach a financial agreement it is refusal of a service that is ordinarily open to the general public. We already have legislation that deals with financial agreements so if that were all then we would not need a "religious freedom bill" and we would not even be having this conversation.
correct, with a contract there has to be an offer, acceptance and a "meeting of the minds" and some other things depending. Which is why I have previously stated no reason has to be given.
you ask me for something or to do something I should have the right to say no because I'm not a slave.
-->
@Snoopy
Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.
So you're basically saying we agree.