Arizona Gov. Brewer says she has vetoed bill that allows businesses to discriminate against gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cloistered said:
Are Catholic bakers against baking cakes for Jewish BahMitzvahs? Doesn’t it go against their faith as Jews deny the divinity of Jesus?

A cake is for a reception, not a wedding. No one is asking their cake baker to be an “active participant” in their wedding, they just want them to combine flour, water, sugar, etc. and bake. It’s just a cake, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s not BahMitzvah it’s Bar Mitzvah ( for boys) and Bat Mitzvah ( for girls). Celebrating coming of age isn’t against Catholic teachings.
 
Music_Michael said:
Supposed someone employed by any major media or corporate entity said how proud they were of traditional marriage. Would the entity “celebrate the diversity” or would they pressure the individual to attend sensitivity training programs and embark on an apology tour?
Click to expand...
Yes like the outrage over Chick-Fil-A
 
Cider said:
It’s not BahMitzvah it’s Bar Mitzvah ( for boys) and Bat Mitzvah ( for girls). Celebrating coming of age isn’t against Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
Nor are they inherently destructive like sodomy is.
 
Well , first of all , don’t treat gay-people as first class people ,
'cause that’s absolutely not necessary !! They’re just like us !! No more , no less !!

Secondly , i really don’t care the owner of a shop/eatery/whatever is hetero or gay ,
as long they give good service , it’s quite allright !!
The same thing for:
I don’t care my neighbour , the prime minister are gay , even a gay president , etc …

Suppose an owner throws me out because i tell i have no problem with gays ;
fine , i simply go to another place !!

Suppose an owner throws me out because of my handicap ;
fine , i simply go to another place !!

Suppose an owner throws me out (bullying and/or physical) because of my handicap ;
fine , he will suffer the consequences by - i’ll legally sue him - !!
 
Birdpreacher said:
this post…you get mad at people for over exaggerating…then you compare them to nazis…
Click to expand...
Purposely.

At the point that people start making comparisons to Jim Crow, any attempts at real discussion are useless. It is obvious it is only a battle of inflammatory rhetoric from that point on.
If people do not want to be seen as the equivalent of propagandists like Goebbels, then perhaps they might want to choose a different method of debate.

As it stands, your criticism of inflammatory rhetoric is one-sided.
 
cloistered said:
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to express my religion in my daily life and/or am told that freedom or religion is actually limited to freedom to worship at a religious service.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am forced to acknowledge and participate in marriages that I know to be immoral based on my religious beliefs.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced provide and/or pay for the birth control of others
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray publicly
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse. ** no change needed here, most Christians are already in this situation in the US**]
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) **I am not allowed to limit the purchase, reading or possession of religious books or material for my children. **
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, in the same way other religious and anti-religious groups are.
B) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
    .
    A) My own religious group is not given status as a recognized faith in my country.
    B) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country
  2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community without additional restrictions and/or harassment that is not experienced by other faith communities or secular builders.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship that desecrate what my faith considers to be sacred.
  1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the stories of our faith any where except at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered “A” to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality – not your superiority.

If you answered “B” to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.
Click to expand...
I fixed the choices. Your scoring key is flawed because it does not account for the scenario, which most Christians are facing, where we would choose the “A” choice most of the time but have one or two “B” choices. Depending on where you live, the degree of religious liberty one is allowed varies. I don’t think anyone would tell you that religious liberty has been entirely stamped out, which would be the case if one could not select “B” at all. But most of use are living in a time where our religious freedoms are either under direct attach or being increasingly eroded.
 
JimG said:
Here’s a summary of some businesses that have been attacked by the gay lobby.
CarolNoel;11750391:
Great and sad article. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I agree !!
crisismagazine.com:
After six years and hundreds of celebratory confections, it wasn’t the economy, the stiff competition, financing, or any of the other usual road bumps of building a new business that caused Sweet Cakes by Melissa—a husband-and-wife bakery in Portland, Oregon area—to close its doors at the end of the summer.

Instead, it was the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage.

In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. Protests, boycotts, and a storm of media attention—much of it negative—ensued. The couple received death threats. Then, activists broadened the boycott: any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes would be targeted.

The final nail in the coffin came in August when the slighted lesbian couple filed an anti-discrimination suit with the state. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics,” Klein said. His wife added: “I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”
Click to expand...
1 Thing i find a bit weird:
a) Read the red colored sentence as first
b) Read the green colored sentence as last

I’m not saying the owner is the only one to blame ,
but his decision was a discriminating one !!
The revenge they received is also a discriminating one !!
 
Thank you for responding. I was about to respond myself along the same lines.
Corki said:
I fixed the choices. Your scoring key is flawed because it does not account for the scenario, which most Christians are facing, where we would choose the “A” choice most of the time but have one or two “B” choices.
Click to expand...
Further, these types of questionnaires, and the one posted here is a great example, are specifically crafted to reach a specific conclusion. The choices given are not exhaustive of the possibilities, or the choices completely misrepresent a position (such as “I am unable to force others to not use birth control.”, which nobody that I know of is pushing, at least insofar as the methods are not abortifacients) . And you did a great job pointing that out.
 
Laurent_LUG said:
I agree !!

1 Thing i find a bit weird:
a) Read the red colored sentence as first
b) Read the green colored sentence as last

I’m not saying the owner is the only one to blame ,
but his decision was a discriminating one !!
The revenge they received is also a discriminating one !!
Click to expand...
I think the owner is pointing out the hypocrisy of the opposition. The gay community, which sponsored the boycott, claims the moral high ground by professing tolerance. That is, a position of tolerance should cause the baker not to refuse service. Yet they do the opposite by refusing to tolerate the baker’s position.
 
poker10 said:
So you don’t have any qualms about all the Leviticus stuff involving killing people for eating shellfish, wearing the wrong clothing?
Click to expand...
You’re ignoring that Leviticus was not only contained moral law, but also ceremonial and judicial law. Ancient Israel was basically a theocracy so the religious texts proscribed punishments for breaking of the moral code as well.
 
Music_Michael said:
Notice how the media (as even the thread title demonstrates) frames the debate so as to give the illusion that this were about discrimination rather than protecting religious liberty.
Click to expand...
The media is all about money; whatever will sell the most papers or generate the most veiwers will dictate how stories are covered and even whether or not it gets coverage.
 
Music_Michael said:
Notice how the media (as even the thread title demonstrates) frames the debate so as to give the illusion that this were about discrimination rather than protecting religious liberty.
Click to expand...
This was never about religious liberty and it should be known that such turn away the gay bills come with a stern warning for legislators considering them. Passage of any of these bills will yield nothing but legal and economic woe for their State. Of that they can be certain.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
This was never about religious liberty and it should be known that such turn away the gay bills come with a stern warning for legislators considering them. Passage of any of these bills will yield nothing but legal and economic woe for their State. Of that they can be certain.
Click to expand...
Can you please point how how the following statement is “anti-gay”:
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Click to expand...
 
Monkey1976 said:
Would you say that a government which had such language in its laws was inherently “anti-gay”?
Click to expand...
I would say that when the sponsors and supporters of such bills publicly state that their purpose is to deny service to gay people then it is anti-gay legislation and the intent is to discriminate against gay people.
 
Suudy said:
I think the owner is pointing out the hypocrisy of the opposition. The gay community, which sponsored the boycott, claims the moral high ground by professing tolerance. That is, a position of tolerance should cause the baker not to refuse service. Yet they do the opposite by refusing to tolerate the baker’s position.
Click to expand...
True !! In fact , both are hypocrite !!
Also , this baker puts his teaching above his business !!
Ok , that’s up to him to decide , but he had to pay the price of losing his store !!
If you believe in your religion , fine , feel free , go for it ,
but in the western society of today , also money is important !!
No money , no living , unfortunely today , that’s a hard fact !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top