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?

It's happening:

https://carm.org/christian-fined-refuse-photograph-same-sex-wedding

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-grandma-florist-fined-1001-ordered-to-work-gay-weddings-but-refuses-says-she-wont-betray-jesus-state-threatens-to-take-her-home-business-away-136613/

Anonymous wrote:

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

So, what part of your religion requires you to operate a business?

Indeed. Maybe one day we will all go on public assistance.

Such an incisive argument! You make the choices between baking a cake for a gay wedding and going on public assistance. You expect us to take you seriously when you're getting so melodramatic?

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the pope, Mohammed or who ever changes the text, gay is wrong and is part of their religion. None of those religions say anything about race.

You may not be aware of this but in the segregated South and South Africa under apartheid, the churches there said it was biblical teaching that races should not mix and justified segregation using this as a basis.

The house we purchased in rural Mississippi five years ago came with a clause that said the house could never be sold to an "oriental", "an Indian", or a "negro". Seriously. I still have a copy of the paperwork. Obviously that completely unenforceable now. But when the house was built in 1932, it was part of the neighborhood by-laws.

OP, you need to do some research. The mormon church (and several other Christian denominations) taught that AAs were cursed by God until the late 70s. It was against the law in many states for a white person to marry an AA.

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.

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/

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible was used to advocate for slavery. So yes it was a religious issue then too.

So 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?

You seem confused. The original previous poster obviously believes what used to happen in the past is wrong and, in fact, almost every alive today believes it is wrong. That is not living in the past, but living in the present.

There are other folks -- you may be among them -- who use the Bible today in a manner similar to how it was used in the past. Unlike those who now believe that past Biblical justifications for slavery were wrong, these folks don't understand that today's Biblical justifications of homosexuality are also becoming archaic. It is those folks -- and again, you may well be among them -- that are stuck in the past.

I am not. I am as good at spitting out senseless garbage as the next guy. Being on the receiving end is something else entirely, isn't it?

I wasn't on the receiving end. But, is it too much to ask that your garbage make sense? Anyone alive today who believes slavery is justified due to the Bible is living in the past. Anyone alive today who believes homosexuality is wrong due to the Bible is just a step behind them.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible was used to advocate for slavery. So yes it was a religious issue then too.

So 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?

You seem confused. The original previous poster obviously believes what used to happen in the past is wrong and, in fact, almost every alive today believes it is wrong. That is not living in the past, but living in the present.

There are other folks -- you may be among them -- who use the Bible today in a manner similar to how it was used in the past. Unlike those who now believe that past Biblical justifications for slavery were wrong, these folks don't understand that today's Biblical justifications of homosexuality are also becoming archaic. It is those folks -- and again, you may well be among them -- that are stuck in the past.

I am not. I am as good at spitting out senseless garbage as the next guy. Being on the receiving end is something else entirely, isn't it?

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

So, what part of your religion requires you to operate a business?

Indeed. Maybe one day we will all go on public assistance.

How was the Bible used to justify slavery? Here you go:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-abolitionism/

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.

They do. They just expect you to respect their rights as a citizen and customer.

"Documented as wrong"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible was used to advocate for slavery. So yes it was a religious issue then too.

So 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?

You seem confused. The original previous poster obviously believes what used to happen in the past is wrong and, in fact, almost every alive today believes it is wrong. That is not living in the past, but living in the present.

There are other folks -- you may be among them -- who use the Bible today in a manner similar to how it was used in the past. Unlike those who now believe that past Biblical justifications for slavery were wrong, these folks don't understand that today's Biblical justifications of homosexuality are also becoming archaic. It is those folks -- and again, you may well be among them -- that are stuck in the past.

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?