Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but that's Oregon, where the laws are different from Indiana. Below are a few links discussing the Oregon situation. There, the legislature passed a law explicitly forbidding business from discriminating based on things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So bakers could not refuse to sell to gay couples, or someone who is black, or even to Christians! According to Wikipedia (FWIW), Indiana does NOT have a similar law, so an Indiana baker did not need the Indiana RFRA to let him be a discriminatory jerk, unless the people of some particular county chose to pass such a law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indiana)

Also, FWIW, the Oregon bakers "risked" fines of up to $150,000, but were never actually fined. They did NOT close their shop because of fines. Instead, "The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals," which I see as pretty justified. I assume you aren't suggesting customers should be forced to buy cakes from a business they disagree with, just because the owners happen to be anti-gay Christians, right?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

And that's very relevant - because government interference is what caused all that to begin with. Indiana saw that and got ahead of it, as well they should. They 'risked' fines - you honestly make that distinction? That's HUGE from the standpoint of whether or not one should keep one's business open. I have a small business and would close shop immediately if I 'risked' a fine that large from government, especially if it meant compromising a personal belief that was protected by the first amendment. Reminds me of the mafia and how they pressured businesses 'pay us to protect you...or else'..

Customers can and should shop where they want, when they want. If that's what closes a shop, that's free market. But it should be on a fair playing field. n an all out nationwide media vendetta goes after a small bakery shop, do you really think it fair to the baker? Atom bomb to kill a fly? At some point, this game will backfire.

You're misunderstanding what happened in Oregon. The bakery fought the fine and won because the evidence wasn't totally clear against the bakery. The bakery did NOT close because of a risk of fines. The bakery closed because of the public backlash against its discrimination. Customers shopped where they wanted, and the bakery closed because of the free market. That's exactly what you propose, so what's your beef with Oregon?

And as for the threat of fines, I'd say Oregon's legislature passed a law, just like Indiana's did. I don't recall a huge cry against it. In Indiana, they passed a law and faced a huge backlash, so now they're backpedaling in Indiana. Free market of ideas, right?

It doesn't matter, does it, considering there was a legal battle over the fine to begin with. What part of government is stepping on first amendment rights to you not get? Please tell me why gay rights trumps Christian rights.

I am all for the free-market solution.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Preparing and celebrating a meal with a prostitute might not be the same thing as packing a goodie bag for her to help her next trick go more smoothly. There are many areas of life where you could make a distinction between "loving the person" yet draw the line at participating in their sinful behavior. You can help a homeless pedophile with food, clothing and shelter, but you wouldn't make a cake for him to share with the child he was lusting after. You welcome your drug addicted (child, neighbor, relative) into your home and care for them, but you don't provide their pipe for them.

My parents always welcomed me and my boyfriend into their home, and even sent us all appropriate gifts. But, they refused to buy us furniture or even help us move into our apartment. My brother refused to read at my sisters wedding, because he disapproved that she had been living with her boyfriend before they got married. I thought It was a dick move, but he was following his own moral and religious code. There are fine lines and nuances in life which make all the difference. The government should refrain from interfering in those personal judgement calls unless there is a very compelling reason and there is no other way to achieve a given goal......sort of like these RFRAs state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you want the courts to decide what is and isn't in the Christian religion?

How does allowing non-religious people to have same protection under the law take away from someone's ability to practice religion. Don't cram your Christian beliefs down my throat. If you believe that being gay is wrong, fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you and prevent others from living their lives based on YOUR belief.

Wouldn't you repeat exactly the same things to the ever-suing gays?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So something like "Whites Only" is acceptable?

Why not "Balds Only"? "Fats Only"? Your echo chamber starts affecting your ability to think outside the box.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you want the courts to decide what is and isn't in the Christian religion?

How does allowing non-religious people to have same protection under the law take away from someone's ability to practice religion. Don't cram your Christian beliefs down my throat. If you believe that being gay is wrong, fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you and prevent others from living their lives based on YOUR belief.

Wouldn't you repeat exactly the same things to the ever-suing gays?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you want the courts to decide what is and isn't in the Christian religion?

How does allowing non-religious people to have same protection under the law take away from someone's ability to practice religion. Don't cram your Christian beliefs down my throat. If you believe that being gay is wrong, fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you and prevent others from living their lives based on YOUR belief.

Wouldn't you repeat exactly the same things to the ever-suing gays?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you want the courts to decide what is and isn't in the Christian religion?

How does allowing non-religious people to have same protection under the law take away from someone's ability to practice religion. Don't cram your Christian beliefs down my throat. If you believe that being gay is wrong, fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you and prevent others from living their lives based on YOUR belief.

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.

So you want the courts to decide what is and isn't in the Christian religion?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So something like "Whites Only" is acceptable?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but that's Oregon .... There, the legislature passed a law explicitly forbidding business from discriminating based on things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. ... the Oregon bakers "risked" fines of up to $150,000, but were never actually fined. They did NOT close their shop because of fines. Instead, "The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals," which I see as pretty justified. I assume you aren't suggesting customers should be forced to buy cakes from a business they disagree with, just because the owners happen to be anti-gay Christians, right?

And that's very relevant - because government interference is what caused all that to begin with. Indiana saw that and got ahead of it, as well they should. They 'risked' fines - you honestly make that distinction? That's HUGE from the standpoint of whether or not one should keep one's business open. I have a small business and would close shop immediately if I 'risked' a fine that large from government, especially if it meant compromising a personal belief that was protected by the first amendment. Reminds me of the mafia and how they pressured businesses 'pay us to protect you...or else'..

Customers can and should shop where they want, when they want. If that's what closes a shop, that's free market. But it should be on a fair playing field. n an all out nationwide media vendetta goes after a small bakery shop, do you really think it fair to the baker? Atom bomb to kill a fly? At some point, this game will backfire.

You're misunderstanding what happened in Oregon. The bakery fought the fine and won because the evidence wasn't totally clear against the bakery. The bakery did NOT close because of a risk of fines. The bakery closed because of the public backlash against its discrimination. Customers shopped where they wanted, and the bakery closed because of the free market. That's exactly what you propose, so what's your beef with Oregon?

And as for the threat of fines, I'd say Oregon's legislature passed a law, just like Indiana's did. I don't recall a huge cry against it. In Indiana, they passed a law and faced a huge backlash, so now they're backpedaling in Indiana. Free market of ideas, right?

It doesn't matter, does it, considering there was a legal battle over the fine to begin with. What part of government is stepping on first amendment rights to you not get? Please tell me why gay rights trumps Christian rights.

I am all for the free-market solution.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll try to remember how important sources are to you. I guess it was silly to assume you'd be interested in discussing ideas rather than specific links and people. It was also too far-fetched to assume you'd consider a hypothetical scenario for the sake of discussion. My bad.

On the merits: you don't have to accept or tolerate anything at all. That's okay in my book, because I think everybody is intitled to his or her opinion (even if I find it wrong or offensive). As long as you don't claim being accepting and tolerant, there is no issue. The issue arises when you are being a hypocrite by claiming acceptance and not accepting.

You are correct that I consider sources important and find it difficult to discuss a topic when the details of that topic are not clearly presented. I am a literal person and when I am asked my take on a link, I imagine that I am expected to provide my take on that link. I find it confusing when that is not the expectation.

You are also correct that I am a hypocrite for not tolerating the intolerance of others. I feel shameful about that and will attempt to do adequate penance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all tried it with Chick-fil-a and it kinda backfired. I'd remember that going forward.

You may want to updated your understanding of the Chick-fil-a situation. As I understand it, the company and its foundation have stopped funding anti-gay organizations. The campaign against Chick-fil-a worked.

Good business decision, given they want to expand into big cities. I was talking, however, about the 2012 effort and how the big boycott push created a backlash.

The boycott is the reason that they changed their funding. Sorry if your conservative overlords did not explain this to you. Find more reliable sources of news.