One fewer Christian-owned bakery after religious freedom fight

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AbideWithMe said:
There is a huge difference between refusing to sell a generic baked good to a person because of their sexual orientation, and declining a commission for a custom cake (or other artwork such as a poem, painting, music, etc.) specifically in celebration of a ceremony that is against one’s religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
In this case, the couple was turned away before any decorating was discussed. If they are anything like most couples, they were probably looking at a catalogue of stock cake designs. I have been to many weddings, and I have yet to see a wedding cake with words or pictures on it.
 
lmachine said:
By running a business you are volunteering to follow the laws that regulate businesses. Businesses are held to stricter standards than individuals. It is not an attack on religious freedom to not allow discrimination against LGBT people because no one forced you to run a business in the first place, you chose to do so and follow those antidiscrimination laws.
Click to expand...
This.

And before anybody gets started, I would feel the same exact way if the baker were Muslim, Jewish, or whatever. If you offer a service to the the public, then you prepare to accept the customers you may not particularly care for along with the ones you do.

And before anybody says it, no, this is nothing like a Jewish deli that won’t serve you a ham sandwich. In that instance, you are talking about a product they don’t offer at all to anybody.
 
I feel sorry for the bakers. They didn’t bargain for this back when they invested in a bakery and worked in it. A court suddenly decides homosexual “marriage” is equivalent to actual marriage as it has been for the memory of man, and suddenly one has to participate in something he/she feels is morally wrong.

But sooner or later, everyone will accept it.

Reminds one of the English reformation. It took awhile for Englishmen to accept it that the king of England was the head of the Church. Some who didn’t accept it right away were confiscated, punished or even killed. But eventually, the rest went along.

Hillary Clinton informs us we must “change our religion” to accommodate abortion. The only real remaining question is the methodology she intends to use to make us do it.
 
1964 Civil rights Act: the little act that eat the constitution!
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hillary Clinton has already told us we need to “change our religion” to accommodate abortion. The only remaining questions are what else she wants us to change our religion for and what she intends to do to make us change.
Click to expand...
Yep, I shudder to think of what she’d like to do to ‘change religion’. Frightening.
 
When I am allowed to attend a ‘women only’ fitness gym, I will defend the right of gay people to force businesses to cater to any/every sexual preference.

If I walk up to the security ‘bouncers’ at a hip nightclub where patrons are all 20 to 30 years younger than me there’s no way I’m getting in the door - let alone going in and expecting the DJ to play some music for my generation. Just like the bakery, the are going to say I’m sorry sir, we don’t offer the type of product or service you want to buy.

If a gay person/couple asks a priest/pastor to perform their ‘marriage’ ceremony a priest can rightly say, I’m sorry, we don’t offer that type of ceremony.
 
lmachine said:
By running a business you are volunteering to follow the laws that regulate businesses.
Click to expand...
By being born in the US, are we volunteering to follow the laws that regulate US citizens?

The law is not a volunteer system. One does not jettison one’s personal beliefs when one opens a business.

And for the record, I agree with Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, shoe size, and amount of facial hair.
lmachine said:
Businesses are held to stricter standards than individuals. It is not an attack on religious freedom to not allow discrimination against LGBT people because no one forced you to run a business in the first place, you chose to do so and follow those antidiscrimination laws.
Click to expand...
Nobody forced me to be born, but apparently I am “volunteered” into following US laws.

Let’s not pretend for an instant that these laws are voluntary. Especially when the laws change after you’ve created your business.
 
Suudy said:
By being born in the US, are we volunteering to follow the laws that regulate US citizens?

The law is not a volunteer system. One does not jettison one’s personal beliefs when one opens a business.

And for the record, I agree with Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, shoe size, and amount of facial hair.

Nobody forced me to be born, but apparently I am “volunteered” into following US laws.

Let’s not pretend for an instant that these laws are voluntary. Especially when the laws change after you’ve created your business.
Click to expand...
Nobody forced you to be born??? hunh? You had a choice? In that case when you chose to be born, you volunteered to follow the laws of the country you chose to be born in.

Since you have decided to stay, you have continued to volunteer to follow the laws.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hillary Clinton has already told us we need to “change our religion” to accommodate abortion. The only remaining questions are what else she wants us to change our religion for and what she intends to do to make us change.
Click to expand...
Hillary said this once in passing but you keep repeating it as if she is serious about changing religion. I doubt she means it. How would she put such a change into effect constitutionally? And there are certainly many more items on the plate of the next President to be much concerned about changing anyone’s religion.
 
sallybutler said:
Nobody forced you to be born??? hunh? You had a choice? In that case when you chose to be born, you volunteered to follow the laws of the country you chose to be born in.
Click to expand...
The point is that I didn’t choose to follow the laws. I never had a choice at all. The laws are what the laws are. There wasn’t a registration form.
sallybutler said:
Since you have decided to stay, you have continued to volunteer to follow the laws.
Click to expand...
I have accepted the laws as they are. But at no point did I ever volunteer to follow the laws. There is a difference.

This whole idea that following laws is somehow voluntary is bunk. And it takes that kind of flawed thinking to try and justify government coercion of behavior. The idea that the government forcing businesses to be discriminatory is wrong but it is ok to force businesses to be non-discriminatory requires acceptance of a flawed conception of individual freedom. Being forced to perform certain actions is completely contrary to freedom and should be opposed.
 
sallybutler said:
Nobody forced you to be born??? hunh? You had a choice? In that case when you chose to be born, you volunteered to follow the laws of the country you chose to be born in.

Since you have decided to stay, you have continued to volunteer to follow the laws.
Click to expand...
Really? Does this apply to sanctuary cities?
 
jediliz said:
all because they wanted to freely refuse to promote gay marriage.

we can say goodbye to more freedoms if Hilary gets into the white house.
Click to expand...
We can’t even begin to know just what freedoms will be lost once Hillary is in office.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hillary Clinton has already told us we need to “change our religion” to accommodate abortion. The only remaining questions are what else she wants us to change our religion for and what she intends to do to make us change.
Click to expand...
The religion of totalitarian rule. You must kneel before your leaders.
 
meltzerboy said:
Hillary said this once in passing but you keep repeating it as if she is serious about changing religion. I doubt she means it. How would she put such a change into effect constitutionally? And there are certainly many more items on the plate of the next President to be much concerned about changing anyone’s religion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps by telling people that they cannot follow their religion if they are a baker or a photographer.
 
meltzerboy said:
Hillary said this once in passing but you keep repeating it as if she is serious about changing religion. I doubt she means it. How would she put such a change into effect constitutionally? And there are certainly many more items on the plate of the next President to be much concerned about changing anyone’s religion.
Click to expand...
I don’t purport to know the ways she’ll undertake it. But we can take a lesson from Obama’s suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, his disqualifying Catholic charities from receiving funds for aid to the poor because they won’t refer for abortions. We can look at the fact that everybody in the U.S. is being required to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives, under pain of prosecution under federal law.

It’s not too difficult to imagine new ways in which she could attempt it. If Obama harassed and persecuted conservative political organizations, why not religious-based charities? Why not simply declare them “political” for opposing a “constitutional right” to abortion and homosexual marriage and deny them tax-exempt status, retroactively to some date she dreams up?

Why not do the same to Catholic (or Jewish) schools for the same reason? What will be their choices then? Comply or shut down, just like Catholic orphanages have been forced to do because they would not place children with homosexual “couples”.

Remember the “Hosanna Tabor” case? Obama asserted that the government, not the Lutheran Church, determines who is a Lutheran minister and who is not. Fortunately he lost that one. But is there any really persuasive reason to think that game is finished? I think just about everybody acknowledges the truth of Trump’s statement that she is “determined”.

Other than enriching herself, there is not a cause to which Hillary has more seriously dedicated her life than to abortion on demand.

And is there some reason to think she cares about the Constitution? Remember, the only Clinton appointee so far thinks the Constitution is outmoded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top