Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polskieserce

What will the Catholic Church do about homosexuals filing lawsuits against Christian business owners?

Recommended Posts

CatherineM

That's a good point. I shop at many Muslim owned shops. Groceries mostly. They don't sell pork or alcohol. They only stock what they want to sell. There is a bakery, but I don't think they make cakes, just sweets like halva or baclava. I suspect that a homosexual would be hesitant to ask a Muslim baker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hna.Caridad
11 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

I'll go along with it when the Supreme Court rules Muslim bakeries have to serve homosexual "marriage" ceremonies as well.  (Which they don't and haven't.)  

 

As always, it is Christianity that is being singled out and persecuted in these cases.  I don't pretend it's anything more than that.  

As for what would the Church do about this?  Probably nothing.  Is there such a thing as Christian businesses only serving Christians?  Is this the wave of the future for Christian business owners?  How do we do that in America?  

 

So, do you actually know a homosexual couple that was denied service at a Muslim bakery?  If so, did they take the case to court?  If so, did they lose the case?

If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", I have to wonder: why would you imply that Muslims and their businesses get special treatment in the U.S.?  Are you aware that when you invent and then spread stories and situations that are false, that you are bearing false witness?

In the U.S., Muslim bakeries and businesses have to abide by the same laws as Christian bakeries & businesses (and secular bakeries & businesses, for that matter).  

I'm not saying that Christians (or Muslims, for that matter) aren't persecuted in the U.S.  I am saying that lying and calumny aren't tools worth using for anyone who is trying to spread & share the Gospel of Christ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce
On 2/27/2017 at 0:47 AM, Peace said:

No. That is not true. We all pay tax, but we are not all entitled to the same services from the state. As one example, your income would need to be below a certain level to qualify for welfare benefits such as public housing. I do not qualify for welfare benefits although I pay tax. The state can set qualifications for the services it renders, and the fact that an entity pays taxes does not necessitate that it receive particular services from the state, if the state also sets other qualifications for those services that the business does not meet (such as being a non-discriminatory entity).

And a police officer has no duty to render assistance to a specific person, unless there is a special relationship between the two (Warren v. District of Columbia; Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

There is no penalty. They simply do not qualify for the benefits that they desire to use, because they are not a non-discriminatory business.

No. They can pump water out of a well or put solar panels on their roof.  If they want to run a discriminatory business, then they have to pay the costs for these things themselves.  There are other people who pump their own water and supply their own electricity.

You do not have any right that the State assist you in conducting a discriminatory business.

And why should the tax dollars that come out of my paycheck be used to fund a business that would discriminate against me? Does Planned Parenthood have a right to use your tax dollars to perform abortions?

No. It is not OK for businesses to discriminate. As I mentioned in my initial post, racism is wrong and error has no rights. If someone wants to ban them completely from discriminating I am perfectly fine by that.

I already addressed your fallacious tax argument above.

Practicing Catholics are not racist and do not discriminate, so your hypothetical should pose no problem for them.  As for your freedom of association, the very same Supreme Court says that there is a right to privacy under which women may perform abortions.  In the case of either racism or abortion, error has no rights, so I am not particularly concerned with what the constitution or the Supreme Court may have to say about these things.

The police cannot pick who they choose to protect.  You can go on youtube and see police officers preserving the peace at nazi rallies.  In the video below, you even see black officers present.  I highly doubt the black officers are thrilled to be there.

Aryan Nation March on US Capitol

The qualification requirements for welfare are not comparable to police protection or businesses choosing to discriminate.  Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to dictate who people must associate with?  When the Constitution was originally written AND actually honored, people did have the freedom to pick who they wanted to associate with.  Since that time, the Constitution has never been amended to allow the government to force different groups of people to associate with one another.  Given the fact that I am a socialist, it should be no surprise that I am no fan of the Constitution.  However, that is one part of the Constitution that I support.  Even if a new Constitution is drafted in the future (not as impossible as some of you may think), I would still support for Freedom of Association to be embedded into it.

I will fight tooth and nail for freedom of association.  Without it, where does it end?  Will Catholic doctors risk losing their medical licenses for not providing abortions?  Will florists and bakers have to sell products geared toward celebrating abortions?  Will business owners have to worry about getting sued because they didn't hire enough homosexuals?  Will business owners have to spend thousands to construct new bathrooms for men pretending to be women and vice versa?  Lol give me a break.

I fully and UNCONDITIONALLY support freedom of association.  Private individuals are not obligated to provide services to one another.  If you are a business owner and you don't want to hire women/homosexual/blacks/disabled/people/etc, then that is your constitutional right to do so.  To all of you who are saying it's not ok for businesses to discriminate, you are basically projecting your desires onto the Constitution.  In your imagination, you are turning the Constitution into something it never was and never will be (unless it is formally amended or replaced with a new Constitution).  If freedom of association was fully restored, then yes, life would be much harder for racial minorities and unpopular groups.  But the Constitution, going by its original purpose, allows that.

Rand Paul makes some very good points in this video:

MSNBC: Ron Paul on Civil Rights Act of 1964

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The police cannot pick who they choose to protect.  You can go on youtube and see police officers preserving the peace at nazi rallies.  In the video below, you even see black officers present.  I highly doubt the black officers are thrilled to be there.

Aryan Nation March on US Capitol

The qualification requirements for welfare are not comparable to police protection or businesses choosing to discriminate.  Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to dictate who people must associate with?  When the Constitution was originally written AND actually honored, people did have the freedom to pick who they wanted to associate with.  Since that time, the Constitution has never been amended to allow the government to force different groups of people to associate with one another.  Given the fact that I am a socialist, it should be no surprise that I am no fan of the Constitution.  However, that is one part of the Constitution that I support.  Even if a new Constitution is drafted in the future (not as impossible as some of you may think), I would still support for Freedom of Association to be embedded into it.

I will fight tooth and nail for freedom of association.  Without it, where does it end?  Will Catholic doctors risk losing their medical licenses for not providing abortions?  Will florists and bakers have to sell products geared toward celebrating abortions?  Will business owners have to worry about getting sued because they didn't hire enough homosexuals?  Will business owners have to spend thousands to construct new bathrooms for men pretending to be women and vice versa?  Lol give me a break.

I fully and UNCONDITIONALLY support freedom of association.  Private individuals are not obligated to provide services to one another.  If you are a business owner and you don't want to hire women/homosexual/blacks/disabled/people/etc, then that is your constitutional right to do so.  To all of you who are saying it's not ok for businesses to discriminate, you are basically projecting your desires onto the Constitution.  In your imagination, you are turning the Constitution into something it never was and never will be (unless it is formally amended or replaced with a new Constitution).  If freedom of association was fully restored, then yes, life would be much harder for racial minorities and unpopular groups.  But the Constitution, going by its original purpose, allows that.

Rand Paul makes some very good points in this video:

MSNBC: Ron Paul on Civil Rights Act of 1964

 

This is quite idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul
13 hours ago, Hna.Caridad said:

 

So, do you actually know a homosexual couple that was denied service at a Muslim bakery?  If so, did they take the case to court?  If so, did they lose the case?

If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", I have to wonder: why would you imply that Muslims and their businesses get special treatment in the U.S.?  Are you aware that when you invent and then spread stories and situations that are false, that you are bearing false witness?

In the U.S., Muslim bakeries and businesses have to abide by the same laws as Christian bakeries & businesses (and secular bakeries & businesses, for that matter).  

I'm not saying that Christians (or Muslims, for that matter) aren't persecuted in the U.S.  I am saying that lying and calumny aren't tools worth using for anyone who is trying to spread & share the Gospel of Christ.

 

I'm not being calumnous, it's all over the interwebz, lol.  There are dozens of videos on people going "undercover" to test this out at Muslim bakeries.  Funny that the liberal media ignores it.  And the Muslims don't get in trouble for it at all.  

There was some little teenage kid who answered a reporter's question once at her family's pizza parlor, remember that?  One little response was enough to trigger the leftists and they went all furious hell over that pizza parlor for refusing to cater at a homosexual wedding.  (AS if anyone would even want pizza parlor at their wedding, but that's besides the point.)  This little kid told a reporter that her family doesn't believe in homosexual marriages, and so their pizza parlor wouldn't serve a homosexual wedding.  There was even some rabid lesbian who wanted to murder that family and raze their pizza parlor for that little kid saying such a thing.

But these videos on youtube that have millions of views showing a muslim baker refusing homosexual couples goes unnoticed.  Leftists aren't triggered.  Muslims get preferential treatment from the liberal propagandists.  No one sues muslim bakeries, and I'll tell you why, because unlike Christians, Muslims WILL DO something about standing up for their beliefs and it's usually not nice.  So people avoid troubling them at all.  We Christians aren't like that so we get sued and our livelihoods destroyed.  Muslims have gained respect out of fear.  No one is afraid of Christians, we're doormats.  

Let's wait and see the Supreme Court force a muslim baker or florist or photographer to participate in a gay wedding.  I doubt we will ever see such a thing... we will wait for eternity before that happens.  

Edited by dominicansoul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
On 2/16/2017 at 8:07 PM, CatherineM said:

My thoughts are if you're in a public service business, stuff will happen you don't like. How about doing funeral flowers for a dead mobster or pedophile. How about a wedding cake for someone marrying outside the church?  I did wills for gay people and name changes for transsexuals. It didn't kill me. It didn't destroy my faith. Working with death row inmates didn't cause me a near occasion of sin. 

My neighbor smokes pot. I can still be a good neighbor without condoning his lifestyle. I could be nice to a convicted murderer without losing my soul. I attended funerals for people who died of aids without once thinking that their death was God's punishment. Making a cake for a gay couple isn't going to kill you especially when most of the straight people buying them are co-habitating and therefore also in sin. 

 

On 2/23/2017 at 0:54 PM, havok579257 said:

the issue i have with this whole this is similar to what catherine said.  The problem is the christian business is saying that to serve a gay couple goes against their beliefs.  Fine, I get that.  Although are they also refusing care the the majority of couples getting married who are living together and having premarital sex?  I highly doubt they are refusing service to the majority of people(since in this day and age a large majority of people have premarital sex and live together prior to marriage) who do things that goes against their beliefs.  Its hypocritical to say I wont serve a person because they are gay and it goes against my beliefs but I am ok serving this couple who has premarital sex and lives together even though they go against my beliefs also.

 

In my mind, if your going to take a stand a refuse service to any group of people based on your beliefs, then you need to be consistant and refuse service to all groups of people who go against your beliefs.  Which for someone in the wedding business, means rejecting the vast majority of customers.  Either be consistant or deal with it.

 

On 2/24/2017 at 9:59 AM, little2add said:

 So long as the activity is legal, the business owner has no right to deny services.   Selling flowers is a business transaction, not an endorsement of a lifestyle.   

 Personally if I was going to spend money I would not want to do business with a hostile  Enterprise.    It is very likely that the lawsuit is just a publicity stunt started only to get attention and notoriety.     After all who was really harmed by this, they are dozens of florist that would happily provide  their services in the area.   I suspect that this florist is a victim of a witchhunt and nothing more 

 

On 2/24/2017 at 0:00 PM, Peace said:

@polskieserce

If racism is wrong then a person has no strict right to racially discriminate, because error has no rights.

But if you say that people should have a right to racially discriminate (I suppope based on their natural rights as private citizens) then they should not be allowed to use any public resources or public benefits to conduct their business. That means that they cannot incorporate as a limited liability entity, obtain any business tax breaks, use any publicly provided utilities such as publicly supplied water, gas, electricity, etc.

On the other hand, if they desire to avail themselves of those public resources and benefits, they are subject to public laws and the will of the majority that businesses not discriminate. 

 

On 2/26/2017 at 6:45 PM, HisChildForever said:

Yes, exactly this. I don't understand why some businesses make a fuss over a gay couple's wedding cake. It's like, well then the business owners better ask every client to complete a morality checklist before providing them service. 

 

On 2/28/2017 at 9:22 AM, Anomaly said:

It isn't just an attack on Christians.  If you are in business, you have to treat all customers the same.  We have identified that you can't act discriminatory about certain characteristics, such as race, creed, sexual orientation. 

If you are a baker, then you know  you may be asked to make cakes for occasions you don't like.  If it's such a personal problem, then sell shoes instead.   If you are so Christian, than act like one.  Personally, if I went into a place to discuss my son's wedding to his boyfriend and was greeted with Allah Ahkbar or Jesus Loves You signs I probably would choose another baker.  Or not bring up anything about gender.  It's not their issue.   If it's a matter of same sex cake toppers, the business can just say they're available elsewhere, you have a limited line you provide. 

Holy cow!  I had no idea that there were so many people here who have no idea what freedom is.  This is America, people!

Polskieserce is absolutely right on this.  People arguing against him are extremely ignorant.  For the state to rule against the business owner goes against absolutely EVERYTHING this country stands for.  And it's really, really sad for me to see comments like this on Phatmass of all places.  But the fact that it is here only shows why it is such an issue right now, because so, so many people are ignorant and take for granted what they don't understand.  If people actually had a clue, then the state would have ruled otherwise.

I've never used such harsh language on this site before, but it's really needed right now.  Everyone above really needs to spend some time researching the other side to try to understand it.  If you don't, you're doing yourself a disservice and everyone else that you talk to about this issue.

Nobody has a right to force me, at gunpoint, to do anything with my business that I don't want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
21 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

 

 

 

 

 

Holy cow!  I had no idea that there were so many people here who have no idea what freedom is.  This is America, people!

Polskieserce is absolutely right on this.  People arguing against him are extremely ignorant.  For the state to rule against the business owner goes against absolutely EVERYTHING this country stands for.  And it's really, really sad for me to see comments like this on Phatmass of all places.  But the fact that it is here only shows why it is such an issue right now, because so, so many people are ignorant and take for granted what they don't understand.  If people actually had a clue, then the state would have ruled otherwise.

I've never used such harsh language on this site before, but it's really needed right now.  Everyone above really needs to spend some time researching the other side to try to understand it.  If you don't, you're doing yourself a disservice and everyone else that you talk to about this issue.

Nobody has a right to force me, at gunpoint, to do anything with my business that I don't want to do.

just because people don't agree with your definition of freedom does not mean people don;t know what freedom is. you have some untrue idea of freedom in the united states.  all your rights granted by the constitution have some caviot to them.  your freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want.  your cant get on tv and say you wish someone would kill the president or yell fire in a crowded theatre.  you have the right to bare arms but that does not give you the right to own weapons of mass destruction because you claim you need that to defend yourself.  all the rights granted to you by the state are not absolute.  they never have been and the founders never enviosioned them to be absolute.  

 

if your talking about God's law, then last I checked God never said it was ok to be a racist or bigot.  

 

finally, one last point i have been making this entire thread.  how does logic follow that a business owner refuses to serve someone who is gay because it goes against their beliefs but is ok serving couples who live together and have sex even though it goes against their beliefs?  if you are going to claim you can't serve someone because it goes against you beliefs, then fine, be consistant.  don't serve anyone who lives a lifestyle who goes against you beliefs.  selectivly choosing which beliefs you enforce is wrong.  your selectivly enforcing your beliefs because in the end you care about making a profit and not serving the gay community only cuts into their profits a tiny amount.  if they actually stood by their beliefs and did not serve all couple who live together pre-marriage then this would be a different story.  these people are not different than someone like nancy pelosi whi selectivly picks which part of her catholic faith to procalim and which ones she ok with ignoring.  either be consistant or serve everyone.  if you want to refuse service to someone because it goes against your beliefs, then fine, go for it but you should be required to refuse service to all who go against your beliefs.  don't serve the gay community, those who live together pre marriage, if your catholic refuse to serve those who have had divorces and are re-married, if your certain christian religions refuse to serve all other religions but yours.  if your going to envoke your beliefs then be consistant and don't pick and choose based off of profit.

2 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

I'm not being calumnous, it's all over the interwebz, lol.  There are dozens of videos on people going "undercover" to test this out at Muslim bakeries.  Funny that the liberal media ignores it.  And the Muslims don't get in trouble for it at all.  

There was some little teenage kid who answered a reporter's question once at her family's pizza parlor, remember that?  One little response was enough to trigger the leftists and they went all furious hell over that pizza parlor for refusing to cater at a homosexual wedding.  (AS if anyone would even want pizza parlor at their wedding, but that's besides the point.)  This little kid told a reporter that her family doesn't believe in homosexual marriages, and so their pizza parlor wouldn't serve a homosexual wedding.  There was even some rabid lesbian who wanted to murder that family and raze their pizza parlor for that little kid saying such a thing.

But these videos on youtube that have millions of views showing a muslim baker refusing homosexual couples goes unnoticed.  Leftists aren't triggered.  Muslims get preferential treatment from the liberal propagandists.  No one sues muslim bakeries, and I'll tell you why, because unlike Christians, Muslims WILL DO something about standing up for their beliefs and it's usually not nice.  So people avoid troubling them at all.  We Christians aren't like that so we get sued and our livelihoods destroyed.  Muslims have gained respect out of fear.  No one is afraid of Christians, we're doormats.  

Let's wait and see the Supreme Court force a muslim baker or florist or photographer to participate in a gay wedding.  I doubt we will ever see such a thing... we will wait for eternity before that happens.  

i am so sick of the term liberal media.  i am in no way in support of liberalism but calling the media liberal media just because they don't post support ofr all of your beliefs is wrong.  all media leans one way or another.  conservative media, liberal media, catholic media.  every media has a slant someway because its run by human beings.  but to claim this great conspiracy by all media that is not far right is dumb.

 

so because musilms will resort to violence that makes them strong and because christians don't resort to violence then we are a doormat?  following that logic, Jesus was a doormat also.  i highly doubt your saying that.

 

its really simple, has anyone been refused service at a musilm store for being gay AND have they filed a lawsuit?  has the courts ruled in favor of the musilm businesses being allowed to discrimminate?  if these are no, then you have no leg to stand on.  if people choose to not sue the musilm bakery then that is their choice.  unless you have proof of actual court cases, your just making things up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The police cannot pick who they choose to protect. 

Yes they can. If you decide to have a KKK rally on your front yard the police are under no obligation to show up and ensure that nobody punches you in the face.  You are quite mistaken.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

You can go on youtube and see police officers preserving the peace at nazi rallies.  In the video below, you even see black officers present.  I highly doubt the black officers are thrilled to be there.

Aryan Nation March on US Capitol

I suggest that you read an elementary book on logic.

The fact that police officers choose to preserve peace at a Nazi rally on a particular location does not mean that they are obligated to do so. The black officers were likely there because their supervisors told them to attend. But there is nothing that obligates their supervisors to instruct the lower-level officers to attend.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The qualification requirements for welfare are not comparable to police protection or businesses choosing to discriminate. 

The specific requirements do not have to be the same. The general principle is that a state may impose qualifications for receipt of the services that it provides. The state is under no obligation to provide services to a business that racially discriminates. Neither the text of the US Constitution or judicial precedent states such a thing.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

 

Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to dictate who people must associate with?

 You can associate with whoever you want to associate with. Nobody is stopping you from doing that.

What I said was that the government does not have any obligation to render services to a business that chooses to racially discriminate. Neither the US Constitution nor judicial precedent states that a racially discriminatory business has an unlimited right to receive services from the state. Show me any portion of the US Constitution or judicial precedent that states such a thing and then we can talk. Otherwise you are simply blowing smoke.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

  When the Constitution was originally written AND actually honored, people did have the freedom to pick who they wanted to associate with.  Since that time, the Constitution has never been amended to allow the government to force different groups of people to associate with one another. 

The state refusing to supply your business with services or benefits in no way forces you to associate with anyone. You can have a KKK rally every morning at your place of business if you prefer, buy you have no right to ask the state to assist you in doing so.

The state obtains funds by way of taxing its citizens (myself included). Again, why must my tax dollars be used to fund services to a business that would racially discriminate against me?  You have not answered the question because you cannot. If you have freedom to hold a KKK rally at your place of business, I and other people like me have the same freedom to not have our tax dollars spent on services that fund your business.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Given the fact that I am a socialist, it should be no surprise that I am no fan of the Constitution.  However, that is one part of the Constitution that I support.  Even if a new Constitution is drafted in the future (not as impossible as some of you may think), I would still support for Freedom of Association to be embedded into it.

I do not care about your personal opinions.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

I will fight tooth and nail for freedom of association.  Without it, where does it end?  Will Catholic doctors risk losing their medical licenses for not providing abortions?  Will florists and bakers have to sell products geared toward celebrating abortions?  Will business owners have to worry about getting sued because they didn't hire enough homosexuals?  Will business owners have to spend thousands to construct new bathrooms for men pretending to be women and vice versa?  Lol give me a break.

I would much rather give you a course in logic or law.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

I fully and UNCONDITIONALLY support freedom of association. 

I do not care about your personal opinions.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Private individuals are not obligated to provide services to one another.  If you are a business owner and you don't want to hire women/homosexual/blacks/disabled/people/etc, then that is your constitutional right to do so. 

No. It is not. That issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court, who has authority to interpret the constitution. You have no authority. The only thing that you can do about it is to continue to whine on the internet about it like a baby. Or you can get over it.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

To all of you who are saying it's not ok for businesses to discriminate, you are basically projecting your desires onto the Constitution.  In your imagination, you are turning the Constitution into something it never was and never will be (unless it is formally amended or replaced with a new Constitution). 

No. You are imposing your desires onto the Constitution.  You are asserting that it provides for rights that the Constitution does not provide. You do not know what you are talking about.

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

If freedom of association was fully restored, then yes, life would be much harder for racial minorities and unpopular groups.  But the Constitution, going by its original purpose, allows that.

Rand Paul makes some very good points in this video:

MSNBC: Ron Paul on Civil Rights Act of 1964

And I suppose that you and Rand Paul have authority to decide the original purpose of the constitution?  You have no such authority. All you have is a personal opinion on the matter, and one that has no logical basis in the text of the constitution itself or judicial precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
15 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

just because people don't agree with your definition of freedom does not mean people don;t know what freedom is. you have some untrue idea of freedom in the united states.  all your rights granted by the constitution have some caviot to them.  your freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want.  your cant get on tv and say you wish someone would kill the president or yell fire in a crowded theatre.  you have the right to bare arms but that does not give you the right to own weapons of mass destruction because you claim you need that to defend yourself.  all the rights granted to you by the state are not absolute.  they never have been and the founders never enviosioned them to be absolute.  

 

if your talking about God's law, then last I checked God never said it was ok to be a racist or bigot.  

 

finally, one last point i have been making this entire thread.  how does logic follow that a business owner refuses to serve someone who is gay because it goes against their beliefs but is ok serving couples who live together and have sex even though it goes against their beliefs?  if you are going to claim you can't serve someone because it goes against you beliefs, then fine, be consistant.  don't serve anyone who lives a lifestyle who goes against you beliefs.  selectivly choosing which beliefs you enforce is wrong.  your selectivly enforcing your beliefs because in the end you care about making a profit and not serving the gay community only cuts into their profits a tiny amount.  if they actually stood by their beliefs and did not serve all couple who live together pre-marriage then this would be a different story.  these people are not different than someone like nancy pelosi whi selectivly picks which part of her catholic faith to procalim and which ones she ok with ignoring.  either be consistant or serve everyone.  if you want to refuse service to someone because it goes against your beliefs, then fine, go for it but you should be required to refuse service to all who go against your beliefs.  don't serve the gay community, those who live together pre marriage, if your catholic refuse to serve those who have had divorces and are re-married, if your certain christian religions refuse to serve all other religions but yours.  if your going to envoke your beliefs then be consistant and don't pick and choose based off of profit.

i am so sick of the term liberal media.  i am in no way in support of liberalism but calling the media liberal media just because they don't post support ofr all of your beliefs is wrong.  all media leans one way or another.  conservative media, liberal media, catholic media.  every media has a slant someway because its run by human beings.  but to claim this great conspiracy by all media that is not far right is dumb.

 

so because musilms will resort to violence that makes them strong and because christians don't resort to violence then we are a doormat?  following that logic, Jesus was a doormat also.  i highly doubt your saying that.

 

its really simple, has anyone been refused service at a musilm store for being gay AND have they filed a lawsuit?  has the courts ruled in favor of the musilm businesses being allowed to discrimminate?  if these are no, then you have no leg to stand on.  if people choose to not sue the musilm bakery then that is their choice.  unless you have proof of actual court cases, your just making things up

On your "one last point": It doesn't matter.  It is not the place of the government to mandate any particular set of morals.  A business owner can be completely racist in his policies, as long as he's not going out and harming people.  And nobody has the right to force him to provide services for anyone else at gunpoint.  It doesn't matter if he's being hypocritical or not.  It's not the place of the government to force him to not be a hypocrite.

That being said, you really don't understand the REASON that a business owner would decide not to provide services to a particular customer.  The reason is not because they are sinning.  The reason is because they are trying to promote sin as something good.  I would, as a business owner, provide services to someone who is gay, someone who is living in sin (premarital sex, etc...), someone who is racist, someone who is communist, someone who is muslim, but I would not provide services to support a gay wedding.  Do you see the difference?  And the difference is crucial.

Your ignorance in this matter is absolutely astonishing.  You can be sick of the term "liberal media" all you want, that doesn't change the logic of the matter one bit.  

Again, it is not the business of the state or the federal government to mandate any particular set of morals.  It is only the business of the government to apply law to morals that affect the physical safety of groups or individuals from other people (because it is in the best interest of the government to protect citizens so that the country can continue to exist).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
18 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

On your "one last point": It doesn't matter.  It is not the place of the government to mandate any particular set of morals.  A business owner can be completely racist in his policies, as long as he's not going out and harming people.  And nobody has the right to force him to provide services for anyone else at gunpoint.  It doesn't matter if he's being hypocritical or not.  It's not the place of the government to force him to not be a hypocrite.

That being said, you really don't understand the REASON that a business owner would decide not to provide services to a particular customer.  The reason is not because they are sinning.  The reason is because they are trying to promote sin as something good.  I would, as a business owner, provide services to someone who is gay, someone who is living in sin (premarital sex, etc...), someone who is racist, someone who is communist, someone who is muslim, but I would not provide services to support a gay wedding.  Do you see the difference?  And the difference is crucial.

Your ignorance in this matter is absolutely astonishing.  You can be sick of the term "liberal media" all you want, that doesn't change the logic of the matter one bit.  

Again, it is not the business of the state or the federal government to mandate any particular set of morals.  It is only the business of the government to apply law to morals that affect the physical safety of groups or individuals from other people (because it is in the best interest of the government to protect citizens so that the country can continue to exist).  

they are refusing services to someone because they are trying to promote something sinful as something good(gay marriage)?  ok i don't disagree.  although if that's the case they how do you provide services to someone who is living together pre marriage which is sinful and trying to passs that off as good?  its the same thing.  both are trying to pass off their sinful behvaiors as something good.  both should then be refused services.  which means the vast majority of people seeking that business should be refused services.

 

so now i am ignorant because i am not far right and believe there is some hidden conspiracy against good conservatives by the evil media?  seriously?  so foxnews and brietbart are two of the most trustworthy news sources?  why, cause they slant right?  show me a news source who is not biased toward their beliefs.   the simple fact is both conservative and liberal media sources disrgard the negatives of their causes and rarely post positives from the other side.  perfect example is the Spicer keeping some media outlets out of the gaggle on friday.  doesn't matter if you agree with him or disagree with it, its still news and should be reported on.  well it was all over the cnn website.  it had a small single video about it on foxnews that was up for a little bit and then taken down.  foxnews did not different than cnn does about things that make their side look bad.  they make a small mention of it and then ignore it.  also this general claim of the media is left wing media doesn't make any sense.  lumping every single news orgianization together as one media outlet is unintelligent.  please exaplin to me who (what organizations, please include them all) the left wing media are.

 

you say its not the business of the government to mandate on morals and only get involved when someones physical saftey is threatened?  so in your mind its not the governments business if all the citizens of a city join together and refuse to serve any black person thus effectively running them out of the city.  i mean they didn't use physical force to get them to leave the city, they just made it impossible for them to buy a house, rent an apartment, buy food or gas or so on.  so that's ok?  only physical violence counts. i guess you would also be ok with a strictly private funded hospital refusing to care for a gunshot victim who came into their hospital just because he was black?   i mean they wouldn't be physically harming him in any way and its not the governments business to force their morality on people so they have to help someone who is dying.  just trying to figure out where this line is with you.  physical violence is the line and anything and everything up until that point is ok?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

@fides' Jack I'm pretty sure I do know what freedom is.

You are free to be in a business, or not.  If you choose to be in business, then you are obligated to treat everyone the same.  The US legal system has established certain characteristics as protected classes.  Race, gender, sexual orientation.  The same law that prevents you from charging a girl ten cents more for the icecream bar you sell to her brother (because she is a girl) is why you can't decide not to make a cake for a gay couple.   If you are uncomfortable with that, then don't be in the cake business.  You can have a limited supply of cake toppers to avoid same sex couples, or not choose to advertise in gay wedding magazines, or have a Jesus Loves You sign in your business.   You can't post signs that say no Jews, no Asians, no Arabs, or no Gays.

Get into another business.    The principle is to be nice and tolerate other people's faults.   It's having some weeds grow with the wheat, not mowing down the wheat field to rid the weeds or swallowing the camel to avoid a few gnats. 

Why not make laws to outlaw anything but Catholic Churches and require a letter from a Catholic Priest approving the upcoming nuptials before you accept an order for a wedding cake? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

they are refusing services to someone because they are trying to promote something sinful as something good(gay marriage)?  ok i don't disagree.  although if that's the case they how do you provide services to someone who is living together pre marriage which is sinful and trying to passs that off as good?  its the same thing.  both are trying to pass off their sinful behvaiors as something good.  both should then be refused services.  which means the vast majority of people seeking that business should be refused services.

 

so now i am ignorant because i am not far right and believe there is some hidden conspiracy against good conservatives by the evil media?  seriously?  so foxnews and brietbart are two of the most trustworthy news sources?  why, cause they slant right?  show me a news source who is not biased toward their beliefs.   the simple fact is both conservative and liberal media sources disrgard the negatives of their causes and rarely post positives from the other side.  perfect example is the Spicer keeping some media outlets out of the gaggle on friday.  doesn't matter if you agree with him or disagree with it, its still news and should be reported on.  well it was all over the cnn website.  it had a small single video about it on foxnews that was up for a little bit and then taken down.  foxnews did not different than cnn does about things that make their side look bad.  they make a small mention of it and then ignore it.  also this general claim of the media is left wing media doesn't make any sense.  lumping every single news orgianization together as one media outlet is unintelligent.  please exaplin to me who (what organizations, please include them all) the left wing media are.

 

you say its not the business of the government to mandate on morals and only get involved when someones physical saftey is threatened?  so in your mind its not the governments business if all the citizens of a city join together and refuse to serve any black person thus effectively running them out of the city.  i mean they didn't use physical force to get them to leave the city, they just made it impossible for them to buy a house, rent an apartment, buy food or gas or so on.  so that's ok?  only physical violence counts. i guess you would also be ok with a strictly private funded hospital refusing to care for a gunshot victim who came into their hospital just because he was black?   i mean they wouldn't be physically harming him in any way and its not the governments business to force their morality on people so they have to help someone who is dying.  just trying to figure out where this line is with you.  physical violence is the line and anything and everything up until that point is ok?  

First point - it is not the same thing.  It would be wrong to sell sex-related merchandise for the purpose of homosexual behavior (separate from the idea of it being wrong for heterosexual behavior).  It would be wrong to sell a cake for a homosexual wedding.  It would be wrong to sell a "pre-marital sex ring" (if such a thing existed) to people living in sin before getting married, since such a thing, in its very nature, supports sin.  It is not wrong to support a sinner - just the sin itself.  I don't know how much more clearly I can try to express this idea - but you need to understand the difference.

No, actually Polsk mentioned that he's a socialist.  I certainly wouldn't have thought that about him, given this debate thread (and I haven't really payed attention to his posts elsewhere).  That would, de facto, mean that he's not even remotely right-leaning, let alone "far right".  The fact of the matter is that this is an aspect of the workings of this country that he does understand.  You clearly don't.  

50 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

@fides' Jack I'm pretty sure I do know what freedom is.

You are free to be in a business, or not.  If you choose to be in business, then you are obligated to treat everyone the same.  The US legal system has established certain characteristics as protected classes.  Race, gender, sexual orientation.  The same law that prevents you from charging a girl ten cents more for the icecream bar you sell to her brother (because she is a girl) is why you can't decide not to make a cake for a gay couple.   If you are uncomfortable with that, then don't be in the cake business.  You can have a limited supply of cake toppers to avoid same sex couples, or not choose to advertise in gay wedding magazines, or have a Jesus Loves You sign in your business.   You can't post signs that say no Jews, no Asians, no Arabs, or no Gays.

Get into another business.    The principle is to be nice and tolerate other people's faults.   It's having some weeds grow with the wheat, not mowing down the wheat field to rid the weeds or swallowing the camel to avoid a few gnats. 

Why not make laws to outlaw anything but Catholic Churches and require a letter from a Catholic Priest approving the upcoming nuptials before you accept an order for a wedding cake? 

I am under no obligation to treat everyone the same, whether I have a business or not.  The fact that you don't understand this means that clearly you do not understand what freedom means in this country. 

Public institutions, under the law, MUST not discriminate based on certain factors (that you mentioned).  Private institutions, including my privately owned business, are not affected by that in the least (or, rather, should not be).  And the states that would disagree are just plain wrong.  They have bad legislators, bad judges, and bad citizens who, like you, don't understand what freedom in this country means.

The constitution was designed to allow capitalism to solve these problems naturally, but the moment you use the government's guns to force your own ideas of what is right and wrong down my business' throat is the moment we have a tyranny.

The truth is that there are laws used against businesses that do help protect against certain forms of discrimination, but those laws should not exist, and are only very recent laws created by those same ignorant lawmakers and ignorant (however well-intentioned) citizens.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
3 hours ago, havok579257 said:

you say its not the business of the government to mandate on morals and only get involved when someones physical saftey is threatened?  so in your mind its not the governments business if all the citizens of a city join together and refuse to serve any black person thus effectively running them out of the city.  i mean they didn't use physical force to get them to leave the city, they just made it impossible for them to buy a house, rent an apartment, buy food or gas or so on.  so that's ok?  only physical violence counts. i guess you would also be ok with a strictly private funded hospital refusing to care for a gunshot victim who came into their hospital just because he was black?   i mean they wouldn't be physically harming him in any way and its not the governments business to force their morality on people so they have to help someone who is dying.  just trying to figure out where this line is with you.  physical violence is the line and anything and everything up until that point is ok?  

I wanted to respond to this specifically.  In the eyes of government, then yes, that's what I'm saying.  Anything more than is past the government's purview. (I want to add here - I'm talking about businesses specifically, there are areas outside of violence that the government rightly can interfere in, but not in regards to private business)

Morally speaking, we probably view these things the same way.  Of course those things are wrong.  What's more wrong morally is denying the freedom of individuals and their businesses (means of living).  That is evil, period.

What's really ironic is that black slaves understood, perhaps better than anyone, what freedom really meant, and they were willing to suffer and die for it (indicated by the fact that many of them did).  And now we're here arguing because, in their name, you're trying to justify taking away that freedom.  It's absolute, utter nonsense.

Now, find me a single instance of that occurring in the 21st century (people banding together in a city and refusing services to black people).  It's a moot point.  That hypothetical case doesn't exist, and would only exist in a country left to run unimpeded by our current Democratic party, or the same conditions with a Nazi party.

Edited by fides' Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly
46 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

 

I am under no obligation to treat everyone the same, whether I have a business or not.  The fact that you don't understand this means that clearly you do not understand what freedom means in this country. 

Public institutions, under the law, MUST not discriminate based on certain factors (that you mentioned).  Private institutions, including my privately owned business, are not affected by that in the least (or, rather, should not be).  And the states that would disagree are just plain wrong.  They have bad legislators, bad judges, and bad citizens who, like you, don't understand what freedom in this country means.

The constitution was designed to allow capitalism to solve these problems naturally, but the moment you use the government's guns to force your own ideas of what is right and wrong down my business' throat is the moment we have a tyranny.

The truth is that there are laws used against businesses that do help protect against certain forms of discrimination, but those laws should not exist, and are only very recent laws created by those same ignorant lawmakers and ignorant (however well-intentioned) citizens.  

Obviously you have a higher estimate of your intellectual abilities then you are actually capable of demonstrating. 

The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the legal right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place....without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin ."

Look it up.  Those protected classes have been a bit expanded, but not unreasonably so.   It's all quite Constitutional and legal.   If you have a moral issue with equality, than argue that. Don't flaunt your idiocy with determined ignorance by repeating it isn't "constitutional" or violates the principle of freedom in America.  

Unless you're really not as dumb as your points are and are just trolling for grins...  haha 

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CatherineM

Businesses aren't free to do anything they want. They can't sell poison milkshakes. They can't dump toxic sludge into the streets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Morally speaking, we probably view these things the same way.  Of course those things are wrong.  What's more wrong morally is denying the freedom of individuals and their businesses (means of living).  That is evil, period.

You do not have a moral right to sin.

And you go even further and suggest that preventing someone from engaging  in sin is more morally wrong than the sin that is prohibited?

Thanks for the laugh.

 

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

What's really ironic is that black slaves understood, perhaps better than anyone, what freedom really meant, and they were willing to suffer and die for it (indicated by the fact that many of them did).  And now we're here arguing because, in their name, you're trying to justify taking away that freedom.  It's absolute, utter nonsense.

They may have understood freedom but you certainly do not.

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul
5 hours ago, havok579257 said:

so because musilms will resort to violence that makes them strong and because christians don't resort to violence then we are a doormat?  following that logic, Jesus was a doormat also.  i highly doubt your saying that.

 

its really simple, has anyone been refused service at a musilm store for being gay AND have they filed a lawsuit?  has the courts ruled in favor of the musilm businesses being allowed to discrimminate?  if these are no, then you have no leg to stand on.  if people choose to not sue the musilm bakery then that is their choice.  unless you have proof of actual court cases, your just making things up

That's my point, there are no court cases involving other religions, only Christianity.  Until I see other groups being persecuted by the Supreme Court, I'm not gonna believe this has anything to do with civil rights.  It's all about silencing Christianity's condemnation of homosexual marriage.  

Our Christian beliefs on marriage should not be condemned by our government as discriminatory.  And Christians who own businesses shouldn't have to compromise their beliefs in their own business practices.  This isn't like racism, this isn't like Jim Crow laws, this is our Christian belief.  Christians believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman.   Our government has boldly changed that definition and now tries to enforce it upon the populace.  (Well, at least it's forcing Christians to accept this new definition.)   Quit getting brainwashed by the world.  NOT supporting/favoring/loving/agreeing with/gay-pride- parading/participating/showcasing/celebrating homosexual marriage is not discriminatory and does not make us BIGOTS.      

    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

Sorry, but there is a huge difference between tolerance and celebration of an act. 

First and foremost you have to treat those you disagree with respectfully as you would want to be respected if they disagree with you.   It's when you over react that you then get an over reaction in response.   Even as an atheist I can understand the point of loving the sinner, not the sin.  It's idiot bigots like you guys that think making a cake as personally and significantly promoting something you disagree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

That's my point, there are no court cases involving other religions, only Christianity.  Until I see other groups being persecuted by the Supreme Court, I'm not gonna believe this has anything to do with civil rights.  It's all about silencing Christianity's condemnation of homosexual marriage.  

Our Christian beliefs on marriage should not be condemned by our government as discriminatory.  And Christians who own businesses shouldn't have to compromise their beliefs in their own business practices.  This isn't like racism, this isn't like Jim Crow laws, this is our Christian belief.  Christians believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman.   Our government has boldly changed that definition and now tries to enforce it upon the populace.  (Well, at least it's forcing Christians to accept this new definition.)   Quit getting brainwashed by the world.  NOT supporting/favoring/loving/agreeing with/gay-pride- parading/participating/showcasing/celebrating homosexual marriage is not discriminatory and does not make us BIGOTS.      

    

 

 

the supreme court can not go make up cases when no one has brought them to their attention.  you can't claim right now they are just persecuting christians since they have only ruled on christian cases because no one has brought other cases to their attention.  the supreme court can only rule on cases before them.  so until someone brings a musilm case before them, they cant do anything about it.  if you have any issue with someone, have an issue with the american people for not bringing a case to the supreme court.  as of right now you have no facts to claim only christians are being persecuted by this.  you have no leg to stand on.  now if in the future someone brings a case to the supreme court about a muslim baker and they side with his right to refuse service to anyone, then you have a legit claim about christian persecution.  although until we actually have something else to gauge it against, you can't claim only christians are being persecuted.  its just factually inaccurate.

  also for a case to get to the supreme court it has to have gone through numerous court cases first.  

 

christians who own a business shouldn't have to comprimise their beliefs in their own practices?  which beliefs are those?  would thta involve being morally opposed to making a wedding cake, being a flourist, being a wedding planner and have to serve a heterosexual couple who live together pre marriage and pass this off as good?  oh wait, those sins are ok to support because it would cut to much into their profits.  its ok to refuse homosexuals service because they are a tiny percent of the population.  these owners are hypocrits, plain and simple.  they have no problem serving those who are divorced and are remarrying or those who live together before marriage and pass it off as good.  if they really claimed they were standing up for their beliefs, then they would refuse to serve all who try to pass off sinfulness and goodness.  they don't do that because with society the way it is now, they would be turning away the vast majority of people in this country.  i don't have respect for someone who selectively uses their faith.  i don't respect nancy pelosi when she is ok pulling out a catholic social teaching here or there in defense of her policies but then has no problem with allowing abortion on demand.  

 

finally supporting the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone based off of religion, race or sex does not mean we support gay lifestyles.  i don't support the gay lifestyle but i understand they have a right to use a public/private business in the united states.  it was not to long ago thtat blacks were being denied the right to use any public/private business in the united states.  should that still be allowed?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×