stop comparing gay marriage and acceptance to race, only gay stuff is documented as wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.

Making a cake is such a religious activity! You sound like the restaurant owners who didn't want to serve black people back in the day.

EXACTLY like the restaurant owners who didn't want to serve black people.

I don't understand how anyone can't see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I will help my gay neighbors when I can, but I would not provide a cake for a union that I think is sinful. You can laugh at me all you want -- I just want to live my life freely as I believe they should be able to do.

I asked about this on another thread, but no one answered -- Did the Indiana bakers face any governmental penalties for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake? Were they arrested? Were they fined? As far as I can tell, the only penalty they suffered was lots of people posting online about what jerks they are, and one lonely protester outside their shop.

If that's correct, how were the bakers prevented from "living life freely"? They made a choice to deny services to someone, and they were mocked in response. Isn't that a justifiable position on both sides?

In Oregon, same case fined the baker over 100K. She lost her bakery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I don't see any meaningful distinction.

Being born gay is no different than being born black, or female, or disabled, or in a less fortunate country.

So anyone in those "categories" is a freak in society's eyes? Is that what you're saying?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Americans are against gay marriage. Gays have largely won it thru the Courts. Good for them. Now the minority wants to club the majority into baking cakes and taking pictures of their "marriages."

What a charade. Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the dawn of time.

That is not remotely true. You might want to do a bit of Googling to broaden your knowledge base.

Huh? Google what exactly?

Maybe "history of marriage" for a start.

I did that and I don't see anything particularly relevant- would you kindly provide some links? Seriously I would appreciate it and I will read them. Thanks

Start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Read the sections on types of marriage and the history of marriage.

You've got me scratching my head- I see some antecedents for polygamy but not really for gay marriage....

I assume that you realize that polygamy -- a form of marriage with a far longer history than monogamy -- is not marriage "between a man and a woman" but rather marriage "between a man and some women". If you are looking for antecedents for gay marriage, maybe look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

You can also read this:

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:How does it feel to be living in the past and not realizing it? What other elements of modernity have passed you by without your knowing it?

Ask the Muslim countries you defend the same question when it comes to gay rights, rights of women, etc.

I am fully opposed to anti-gay policies and/or attitudes in any country regardless of the majority religion of that country. You, on the other hand, stand hand in hand with the prejudicial practices of those countries you want me to question. So, I can I can skip asking those countries and just ask you.

In this country, we are supposed to be free to practice our religion without government interference. You might not like it, and free market might put some out of business as a result of it, but that's as it should be. Since these shop owners are not swinging gay people from cranes or pushing them off buildings, I'm fine with any shop owner refusing to participate in a gay wedding by making a specialty item for the event. I find it reprehensible that Christians are being targeted by activists and are destroying lives, while at the same claiming they support equality and tolerance. If they truly did, they would say 'we don't understand, but support your right to live by your religious beliefs' and find another shop.

Sometimes those claiming to be most tolerant actually aren't. This is a trend throughout progressive activism, from gay activism to LGBT activism and throughout women's rights supporters as well as attacks on religion. All the while spewing some of the most hateful bile out there.

From a purely psychological view, it's actually quite fascinating

Would you be okay with someone refusing to participate in an interracial wedding? In a wedding where a divorced person was remarrying without the church's permission?

Personally? Do I think such individuals should be able to do so? Yes. Why? Because person A's right to be themselves does not supersede person B's right to be free from that person. And in my opinion, no one has a right to anyone else's labor, especially through force of government. The Indiana law simply echoes the 1st Amendment, preserving an individual's right to practice their religion without interference from government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people have a right to live their lives as they choose. If they don't want to make wedding cakes for gay weddings, then they shouldn't have to. However, they should be encouraged to post it on their door just like the NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE.

That way everyone knows before they enter the store what the deal is. Of course, they will go out of business, but that's their right. The marketplace will take care of those people much more effectively than any law could.

Yep. Might not be a wise business practice. Fully agree with your premise.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm way too tired for semantics. What's your take on this?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

That article is too convoluted to read. It is difficult to make heads and tails of things. If I understand correctly, the pro-gay marriage slogan incident took place in Ireland. Also, if I understood correctly, the author called US-based bakeries. Ireland's laws don't apply to the US and, therefore, I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. I am not sure that a lawsuit targeting a baker for refusing to put a specific slogan on a cake would be successful in this US. In that case, a baker could successfully refuse to put either pro-gay or anti-gay slogans on cakes.

The author, as is often the case, is confused about the meaning of "free speech". Free speech is an individual's freedom to speak, not the freedom to force others to speak.

The other issue is the failure to distinguish between the refusal to provide a service because it is not a service you want to provide and a refusal to provide a service because of a characteristic of the customer. For instance, I don't think anyone would expect to be able to compel a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches. However, in many places, the same Jewish deli could be sued for refusing to serve members of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Therefore, if a baker refuses to sell cakes with anti-gay slogans, I believe he is on firm ground. However, if the same baker refused to sell a cake to an anti-gay customer, I would find his ground to be much less firm, though legally he still might be able to get away with it because I am not aware of laws prohibiting discrimination against anti-gay people.

It was the first link that popped up. If you google it, you will find a barrage of articles--choose any one you like. Do not attack the source, talk about the idea.

From what I understand, the Christians did not turned down customers, because they were gay. They refused to provide a service, because it was not a service they wanted to provide, i.e. be part of a ceremony they opposed philosophically.

I can see how tempting it is to try seeing nuance where there is none. I for one have little interest in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.

You CAN live however you want, and everyone else should be able to as well.

NO ONE is suddenly going to start forcing heterosexual people into homosexual marriages, or even deny heterosexuals the right to continue to enjoy the exact same marriage rights they currently have for their heterosexual unions. This isn't even about forcing religious institutions to perform marriages they don't believe in, it's about recognition of marriage under the (secular!) law. If you can choose who you marry, so should everyone else. Your rights are not diminished by giving someone else the same rights.

Seriously, most folks don't give a flying f*ck about gays and their marriages. But the few obnoxious gays just can't help being a PITA for everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm way too tired for semantics. What's your take on this?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

That article is too convoluted to read. It is difficult to make heads and tails of things. If I understand correctly, the pro-gay marriage slogan incident took place in Ireland. Also, if I understood correctly, the author called US-based bakeries. Ireland's laws don't apply to the US and, therefore, I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. I am not sure that a lawsuit targeting a baker for refusing to put a specific slogan on a cake would be successful in this US. In that case, a baker could successfully refuse to put either pro-gay or anti-gay slogans on cakes.

The author, as is often the case, is confused about the meaning of "free speech". Free speech is an individual's freedom to speak, not the freedom to force others to speak.

The other issue is the failure to distinguish between the refusal to provide a service because it is not a service you want to provide and a refusal to provide a service because of a characteristic of the customer. For instance, I don't think anyone would expect to be able to compel a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches. However, in many places, the same Jewish deli could be sued for refusing to serve members of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Therefore, if a baker refuses to sell cakes with anti-gay slogans, I believe he is on firm ground. However, if the same baker refused to sell a cake to an anti-gay customer, I would find his ground to be much less firm, though legally he still might be able to get away with it because I am not aware of laws prohibiting discrimination against anti-gay people.

It was the first link that popped up. If you google it, you will find a barrage of articles--choose any one you like. Do not attack the source, talk about the idea.

From what I understand, the Christians did not turned down customers, because they were gay. They refused to provide a service, because it was not a service they wanted to provide, i.e. be part of a ceremony they opposed philosophically.

I can see how tempting it is to try seeing nuance where there is none. I for one have little interest in that.

Well-said. And you are correct.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm way too tired for semantics. What's your take on this?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

That article is too convoluted to read. It is difficult to make heads and tails of things. If I understand correctly, the pro-gay marriage slogan incident took place in Ireland. Also, if I understood correctly, the author called US-based bakeries. Ireland's laws don't apply to the US and, therefore, I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. I am not sure that a lawsuit targeting a baker for refusing to put a specific slogan on a cake would be successful in this US. In that case, a baker could successfully refuse to put either pro-gay or anti-gay slogans on cakes.

The author, as is often the case, is confused about the meaning of "free speech". Free speech is an individual's freedom to speak, not the freedom to force others to speak.

The other issue is the failure to distinguish between the refusal to provide a service because it is not a service you want to provide and a refusal to provide a service because of a characteristic of the customer. For instance, I don't think anyone would expect to be able to compel a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches. However, in many places, the same Jewish deli could be sued for refusing to serve members of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Therefore, if a baker refuses to sell cakes with anti-gay slogans, I believe he is on firm ground. However, if the same baker refused to sell a cake to an anti-gay customer, I would find his ground to be much less firm, though legally he still might be able to get away with it because I am not aware of laws prohibiting discrimination against anti-gay people.

It was the first link that popped up. If you google it, you will find a barrage of articles--choose any one you like. Do not attack the source, talk about the idea.

From what I understand, the Christians did not turned down customers, because they were gay. They refused to provide a service, because it was not a service they wanted to provide, i.e. be part of a ceremony they opposed philosophically.

I can see how tempting it is to try seeing nuance where there is none. I for one have little interest in that.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You provided a source and asked for my take on it. I provided my take and you now criticize me for providing my thoughts on the source. If you are not interested in my thoughts on a source you provide, maybe you shouldn't provide a source and ask for my take on it? Now I don't even know which Christians you are talking about; the Christians in the article to which you referred or some other Christians?

Your suggestion that providing cakes to straight weddings and providing cakes to gay weddings are two different businesses requires significant nuance, something that I find ironic coming from a person who has little interest in nuance. In this instance, I am inclined to agree with your impatience with nuance and suggest that the business is actually the provision of cakes to weddings. As such, refusing to provide service to a couple based on sexual orientation is clearly discriminatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm way too tired for semantics. What's your take on this?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

That article is too convoluted to read. It is difficult to make heads and tails of things. If I understand correctly, the pro-gay marriage slogan incident took place in Ireland. Also, if I understood correctly, the author called US-based bakeries. Ireland's laws don't apply to the US and, therefore, I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. I am not sure that a lawsuit targeting a baker for refusing to put a specific slogan on a cake would be successful in this US. In that case, a baker could successfully refuse to put either pro-gay or anti-gay slogans on cakes.

The author, as is often the case, is confused about the meaning of "free speech". Free speech is an individual's freedom to speak, not the freedom to force others to speak.

The other issue is the failure to distinguish between the refusal to provide a service because it is not a service you want to provide and a refusal to provide a service because of a characteristic of the customer. For instance, I don't think anyone would expect to be able to compel a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches. However, in many places, the same Jewish deli could be sued for refusing to serve members of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Therefore, if a baker refuses to sell cakes with anti-gay slogans, I believe he is on firm ground. However, if the same baker refused to sell a cake to an anti-gay customer, I would find his ground to be much less firm, though legally he still might be able to get away with it because I am not aware of laws prohibiting discrimination against anti-gay people.

It was the first link that popped up. If you google it, you will find a barrage of articles--choose any one you like. Do not attack the source, talk about the idea.

From what I understand, the Christians did not turned down customers, because they were gay. They refused to provide a service, because it was not a service they wanted to provide, i.e. be part of a ceremony they opposed philosophically.

I can see how tempting it is to try seeing nuance where there is none. I for one have little interest in that.

Is it common for the cake baker to be part of the ceremony?? Mine just put it in a box and a guy delivered it.

Well-said. And you are correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.

You CAN live however you want, and everyone else should be able to as well.

NO ONE is suddenly going to start forcing heterosexual people into homosexual marriages, or even deny heterosexuals the right to continue to enjoy the exact same marriage rights they currently have for their heterosexual unions. This isn't even about forcing religious institutions to perform marriages they don't believe in, it's about recognition of marriage under the (secular!) law. If you can choose who you marry, so should everyone else. Your rights are not diminished by giving someone else the same rights.

Seriously, most folks don't give a flying f*ck about gays and their marriages. But the few obnoxious gays just can't help being a PITA for everybody.

And those race agitators from the north were disrupting the peaceful world of 1960 Mississippi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.

As a fellow Christian, I find this offensive. Jesus dined with prostitutes and thieves. Do you really think he'd have a problem with you baking a cake for a gay couple? You REALLY need to read the red words in your Bible and think about how you can live your life in the spirit of Jesus.

I am so incredibly sick and tired of this perception that we are all like op and this pp. We are not. I go to an Episcopal church. Our congregation consists of gay couples and mixed race couples. Nobody even thinks twice about it. we also welcome the homeless man who sometimes joins us. We don't question why he has Nike shoes (newsflash: a REAL Christian probably gave him those shoes as a *gasp* handout!). Oh, and we tell our kids that of course they can pray in school any time they want...SILENTLY! We believe that it's our responsibility to teach others about our faith...but not through laws and politics. We do so by inviting people to our service, or to Vacation Bible School, or any other church function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.

As a fellow Christian, I find this offensive. Jesus dined with prostitutes and thieves. Do you really think he'd have a problem with you baking a cake for a gay couple? You REALLY need to read the red words in your Bible and think about how you can live your life in the spirit of Jesus.

I am so incredibly sick and tired of this perception that we are all like op and this pp. We are not. I go to an Episcopal church. Our congregation consists of gay couples and mixed race couples. Nobody even thinks twice about it. we also welcome the homeless man who sometimes joins us. We don't question why he has Nike shoes (newsflash: a REAL Christian probably gave him those shoes as a *gasp* handout!). Oh, and we tell our kids that of course they can pray in school any time they want...SILENTLY! We believe that it's our responsibility to teach others about our faith...but not through laws and politics. We do so by inviting people to our service, or to Vacation Bible School, or any other church function.

You need to go back and read your scriptures some more.

Jesus told the adulteress to GO AND SIN NO MORE ( John 8:11). He did not say prostitution, adultery, thieving were OK. I've been seeing these idiotic posters on the internet (and perhaps they are hanging them in your church) that suggest that Jesus dining with prostitutes is an acceptance of prostitution. Again, read John 8:11 -- it's really not that obtuse, you'll get it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us specifically to be kind to gay people. However, gay sex is a sin. This is why Pope Francis has been accepting of the idea of celibate gays within the priesthood.

I treat all people with respect including gays, who I generally like and get along with very well.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Americans are against gay marriage. Gays have largely won it thru the Courts. Good for them. Now the minority wants to club the majority into baking cakes and taking pictures of their "marriages."

What a charade. Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the dawn of time.

That is not remotely true. You might want to do a bit of Googling to broaden your knowledge base.

Huh? Google what exactly?

Maybe "history of marriage" for a start.

I did that and I don't see anything particularly relevant- would you kindly provide some links? Seriously I would appreciate it and I will read them. Thanks

Start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Read the sections on types of marriage and the history of marriage.

You've got me scratching my head- I see some antecedents for polygamy but not really for gay marriage....

I assume that you realize that polygamy -- a form of marriage with a far longer history than monogamy -- is not marriage "between a man and a woman" but rather marriage "between a man and some women". If you are looking for antecedents for gay marriage, maybe look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

You can also read this:

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

Ok, yes, I understand your citation to polygamy now. Polygamy was never mainstream in any Western tradition, and I don't see supporters of modern gay marriage inviting the Mormon's to come along. The opposite -- the talking heads make a point that gay marriage will not lead to polygamy and other non-traditional unions.

But I do appreciate you pointing out that reasoning to me and I'll look at the random history link next.