When does personal belief get to be practiced and when not?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Bible says we are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.  In this situation, I would make certain that every single wedding cake my bakery produced, without exception, contained the verses, "At the beginning He made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There would be no exceptions. If you ordered a wedding cake from my bakery, you get the verse. You can customize anything but the verses from the Bible. If you still want the cake from us to celebrate the marriage of Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

$2.50 will take care of that nonsense.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:20:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The problem comes with the considerable confusion on the left between rights, and demands.  There's no right to a cake- for any purpose. As I've said, any business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason- or no reason at all.  There's no right to demand a cake. There's no legitimate government use of violence- the threat of confiscation of property, and/or arrest and incarceration for refusing to bake a cake.  Period. This is one of those black and white issues. Those that disagree with me are simply wrong.

if you have immense power and privilege, the only demand you have is to preserve it.  but it is always good PR to call it a "right". 

This is a foundation issue.  Unless the difference between natural rights and an arbitrary (and growing) list of demands is, then individual liberty vanishes, and the United States as founded ceases to exist.

I wish more people understood the importance of respect for other people's opinions and beliefs.

It's sad how few people recognize the danger of reliance on "the law" or some twisted interpretation of it by the current political victors to get their way is. Some day, it won't be Obama. It'll be Donald Trump (the religious part of me actually consciously wonders if Trump is not judgment- or karma, or cosmic justice if you prefer) for so many who fail to see how Obama's lawless behavior is destroying justice and liberty) and then what will your consistent, rational, moral argument be?

If your baker tells you that she cannot bake you a wedding cake for your same sex wedding, you are to respect her decision, and go in search of another cake. I can't believe how few people understand how patently absurd it is to argue that government FORCE someone to bake someone a cake.  This level of ignorance is a clear and present danger to the future of the country.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 5, 2016 0:28:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Bible says we are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.  In this situation, I would make certain that every single wedding cake my bakery produced, without exception, contained the verses, "At the beginning He made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There would be no exceptions. If you ordered a wedding cake from my bakery, you get the verse. You can customize anything but the verses from the Bible. If you still want the cake from us to celebrate the marriage of Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

and i would fight to the death the right for you to make that cake.

have at it.

edit: there is nothing in that passage that says anything against gay marriage.  it is a stretch to have it cover lesbians, however. 

That's an interesting opinion.  I realize we're not to have the theological debate here- but perhaps I could start a thread in religious discussion on what is meant by the context which flows from "In the beginning he made them male and female" and a discussion of the original Hebrew and/or Aramaic word for "wife" and what that may imply?

[dondub]

Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

Excellent transition of your homophobia to include bestiality. Well done!

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2016 0:20:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 2, 2016 18:52:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No one is letting the "free exercise" clause go... they are just making sure one group doesn't hinder the "free exercise" of others.

If the religion of "Person A" says "you must adorn one wall of every dwelling you take shelter in, no matter how long or short your time there, with a permanent sigil of our faith"... do you get to put permanent decorations on the walls of places you visit? No. You don't. Your rights don't supersede the rights of others. 

The problem comes with the considerable confusion on the left between rights, and demands.  There's no right to a cake- for any purpose. As I've said, any business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason- or no reason at all.  There's no right to demand a cake. There's no legitimate government use of violence- the threat of confiscation of property, and/or arrest and incarceration for refusing to bake a cake.  Period. This is one of those black and white issues. Those that disagree with me are simply wrong.

You are right and wrong.

I agree there's no right to a cake. If no one sells them you have no right to demand them from the government or any private entity.

BUT... if there's a bakery that SELLS cakes... there's a right to be treated equally, as any other citizen would be treated, by them... and for them to sell you the cake that they freely publicly offer to bake/make/decorate.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Bible says we are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.  In this situation, I would make certain that every single wedding cake my bakery produced, without exception, contained the verses, "At the beginning He made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There would be no exceptions. If you ordered a wedding cake from my bakery, you get the verse. You can customize anything but the verses from the Bible. If you still want the cake from us to celebrate the marriage of Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

So, if a morbidly obese person walks into your bakery, will the cake contain the verses about how a glutton should put a knife to his throat?

If a woman in pants comes in, the cake will contain verses about how it's an abomination?

Or will you hold true to form, and just shame, harass and annoy the gays, like all the other good Christians who need someone to pick on?

Just bake the bloody cake. It's your job.

[Shooby]

Is it necessary to bash Christians with every post? Or they are not entitled to their beliefs even when you disagree?

[Shooby]

Then Muslim servers should serve pork and alcohol and not be exempt if they choose to work in a place that does.

[Opti]

Jan 5, 2016 8:08:07 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Is it necessary to bash Christians with every post? Or they are not entitled to their beliefs even when you disagree?

I don't see it as complaining about all Christians. Only those who feel they need to treat gay people badly. At least in my area, that should be a minority of the Christian population.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2016 0:38:53 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:28:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and i would fight to the death the right for you to make that cake.

have at it.

edit: there is nothing in that passage that says anything against gay marriage.  it is a stretch to have it cover lesbians, however. 

That's an interesting opinion.  I realize we're not to have the theological debate here- but perhaps I could start a thread in religious discussion on what is meant by the context which flows from "In the beginning he made them male and female" and a discussion of the original Hebrew and/or Aramaic word for "wife" and what that may imply?

Starting a thread on the Religious Discussions board is an excellent idea, Paul. You're quoting scripture here and you know that's not acceptable. I've left the posts in but we're closing in on deletions, I'm afraid. The back-and-forth arguments have already begun.

No more quoting of scripture. No more arguing over Christians vs anybody else. That's it. Those who aren't Christian spit venom and those who are. Those who are Christian spit an equal amount of venom at those who aren't. Enough. Take it to Religious Discussions or posts will be removed and this thread will be locked - or, I can move this thread to Religious Discussions.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[mmhmm]

I've considered. I'm going to move this thread to Religious Discussions. Just remember, there are special rules there. Don't shove your beliefs down the throats of others, and no name-calling - at all! I'm doing this rather than start deleting posts, guys. The matter under discussion boils down to religious beliefs and/or lack of same. It's not a matter of politics, really. By moving the thread, you can continue your discussion with a little more freedom of expression than you have here.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 5, 2016 8:08:07 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Is it necessary to bash Christians with every post? Or they are not entitled to their beliefs even when you disagree?

It's a valid question, and one every Christian should be able to answer.

Why take a principled stand against this sin but not this sin? How do we judge between sins and conduct ourselves without hypocrisy? What is the purpose of conscientious objection? Where is the line between countenancing (or participating in) sin and being "harmless as doves"?

The answers come straight out of scripture, hence not for this thread. But if you can give a worldly rationale for why a Christian might refuse to serve homosexuals in particular, you can make that case in this thread.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 5, 2016 0:36:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you have immense power and privilege, the only demand you have is to preserve it.  but it is always good PR to call it a "right". 

This is a foundation issue.  Unless the difference between natural rights and an arbitrary (and growing) list of demands is, then individual liberty vanishes, and the United States as founded ceases to exist.

I wish more people understood the importance of respect for other people's opinions and beliefs.

It's sad how few people recognize the danger of reliance on "the law" or some twisted interpretation of it by the current political victors to get their way is. Some day, it won't be Obama. It'll be Donald Trump (the religious part of me actually consciously wonders if Trump is not judgment- or karma, or cosmic justice if you prefer) for so many who fail to see how Obama's lawless behavior is destroying justice and liberty) and then what will your consistent, rational, moral argument be?

If your baker tells you that she cannot bake you a wedding cake for your same sex wedding, you are to respect her decision, and go in search of another cake. I can't believe how few people understand how patently absurd it is to argue that government FORCE someone to bake someone a cake.  This level of ignorance is a clear and present danger to the future of the country.

Paul...I'm with you on a lot of things...but not this one.  The government isn't forcing anybody to bake a cake.  If they visited you and told you that you must bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception - that would be the government forcing someone to bake a cake.

The government is saying that IF you bake cakes for the public, you must serve the public.  That's an entirely different thing.  I don't think you, as an avid protector of freedom want to go down this road.  What if tomorrow, a bakery decides not to serve Christians...Republicans...white males?  Sure.  You can say that they can go down the road to another bakery, but what if NO bakery wants to serve  them and they are allowed not to?  I just don't think you want to start a trip down a road where people decide who they can discriminate against. 

[Gardening Grandma]

Jan 5, 2016 0:28:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Bible says we are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.  In this situation, I would make certain that every single wedding cake my bakery produced, without exception, contained the verses, "At the beginning He made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There would be no exceptions. If you ordered a wedding cake from my bakery, you get the verse. You can customize anything but the verses from the Bible. If you still want the cake from us to celebrate the marriage of Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

and i would fight to the death the right for you to make that cake.

have at it.

edit: there is nothing in that passage that says anything against gay marriage.  it is a stretch to have it cover lesbians, however. 

That's a lot of verbage to put on a cake

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2016 10:37:29 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:28:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and i would fight to the death the right for you to make that cake.

have at it.

edit: there is nothing in that passage that says anything against gay marriage.  it is a stretch to have it cover lesbians, however. 

That's a lot of verbage to put on a cake

Biiiiiig cake! Reealy biiiiig cake! 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Chapter and verse would work. I'm all for people doing a bit of research for themselves.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 5, 2016 8:08:07 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Is it necessary to bash Christians with every post? Or they are not entitled to their beliefs even when you disagree?

Right. I should just sit back and watch Paul the Christian bash gays, accuse them of bestiality, and not say anything.

 I'm such a b!tch.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2016 11:03:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 5, 2016 8:08:07 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Is it necessary to bash Christians with every post? Or they are not entitled to their beliefs even when you disagree?

Right. I should just sit back and watch Paul the Christian bash gays, accuse them of bestiality, and not say anything.

 I'm such a b!tch.

This was, indeed, the crux of the problem. If Welts' post was insulting to Christians, Paul's post was equally insulting to gays. One is no more right than the other. Avoid insults and the problem won't exist, eh? Thanks.

mmhmm, Administrator

[Gardening Grandma]

Jan 5, 2016 11:03:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 5, 2016 8:08:07 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Is it necessary to bash Christians with every post? Or they are not entitled to their beliefs even when you disagree?

Right. I should just sit back and watch Paul the Christian bash gays, accuse them of bestiality, and not say anything.

 I'm such a b!tch.

Weltschmerz,
You don't understand the rules.
Christians get to bash anyone and everyone that doesn't comply with their standards; it's part of their "religious liberty"
You don't get to call them on it though because that would infringe on their "religious liberty"
Got it?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Why can't you address a particular person rather than a group of people?  Are there despicable people who claim to be Christians? Sure there are. Are there despicable people who claim not to be? Of course. Are there bad Black people? Are there bad Caucasians? Are there bad homosexuals...bad heterosexuals? Of course their are. But these groups of people aren't ALL anything. If you have a problem with a particular Christian, a particular homosexual, a particular Caucasian person...say so. 

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2016 12:35:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Jan 5, 2016 11:03:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Right. I should just sit back and watch Paul the Christian bash gays, accuse them of bestiality, and not say anything.

 I'm such a b!tch.

Weltschmerz,
You don't understand the rules.
Christians get to bash anyone and everyone that doesn't comply with their standards; it's part of their "religious liberty"
You don't get to call them on it though because that would infringe on their "religious liberty"
Got it?

Again, painting with too broad a brush, I'm afraid. All Christians don't do this. Some Christians do. Green Eyed Lady has an excellent point. It's not necessary to address all to make a point with one, or a few. If that can be avoided, these discussions will be much more fruitful.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 5, 2016 1:10:30 GMT -5 dondub said:

Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

Excellent transition of your homophobia to include bestiality. Well done!

You really need to learn the definition of phobia.

I have no problem with gay people living their lives like everyone else- with the same civil rights, and legal protections afforded anyone else.  Everyone should be equal before the law.

They're just not entitled to a cake and a photographer, because no one is entitled to another person's labor.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 5, 2016 10:35:48 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 5, 2016 0:36:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

This is a foundation issue.  Unless the difference between natural rights and an arbitrary (and growing) list of demands is, then individual liberty vanishes, and the United States as founded ceases to exist.

I wish more people understood the importance of respect for other people's opinions and beliefs.

It's sad how few people recognize the danger of reliance on "the law" or some twisted interpretation of it by the current political victors to get their way is. Some day, it won't be Obama. It'll be Donald Trump (the religious part of me actually consciously wonders if Trump is not judgment- or karma, or cosmic justice if you prefer) for so many who fail to see how Obama's lawless behavior is destroying justice and liberty) and then what will your consistent, rational, moral argument be?

If your baker tells you that she cannot bake you a wedding cake for your same sex wedding, you are to respect her decision, and go in search of another cake. I can't believe how few people understand how patently absurd it is to argue that government FORCE someone to bake someone a cake.  This level of ignorance is a clear and present danger to the future of the country.

Paul...I'm with you on a lot of things...but not this one.  The government isn't forcing anybody to bake a cake.  If they visited you and told you that you must bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception - that would be the government forcing someone to bake a cake.

The government is saying that IF you bake cakes for the public, you must serve the public.  That's an entirely different thing.  I don't think you, as an avid protector of freedom want to go down this road.  What if tomorrow, a bakery decides not to serve Christians...Republicans...white males?  Sure.  You can say that they can go down the road to another bakery, but what if NO bakery wants to serve  them and they are allowed not to?  I just don't think you want to start a trip down a road where people decide who they can discriminate against. 

You're kidding, right?  The government has no authority derived from the Constitution to determine who the customers are for a private business.  The government has no legitimate authority to co opt your business and make it a "public accommodation"-- there's no such animal. 

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another. 

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2016 14:17:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 10:35:48 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Paul...I'm with you on a lot of things...but not this one.  The government isn't forcing anybody to bake a cake.  If they visited you and told you that you must bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception - that would be the government forcing someone to bake a cake.

The government is saying that IF you bake cakes for the public, you must serve the public.  That's an entirely different thing.  I don't think you, as an avid protector of freedom want to go down this road.  What if tomorrow, a bakery decides not to serve Christians...Republicans...white males?  Sure.  You can say that they can go down the road to another bakery, but what if NO bakery wants to serve  them and they are allowed not to?  I just don't think you want to start a trip down a road where people decide who they can discriminate against. 

You're kidding, right?  The government has no authority derived from the Constitution to determine who the customers are for a private business.  The government has no legitimate authority to co opt your business and make it a "public accommodation"-- there's no such animal. 

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another. 

You have a lot of "saying" to do. For some of us, your "saying" doesn't make a truth and we see things differently than you do. That, too, will continue.

[billisonboard]

Jan 5, 2016 14:17:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...
You're kidding, right?  The government has no authority derived from the Constitution to determine who the customers are for a private business.  The government has no legitimate authority to co opt your business and make it a "public accommodation"-- there's no such animal. 

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another. 

Generally agree. But a business has no right under the Constitution to have corporate status. That is why I support a quid pro quo arrangement. Society, through our government, should tell business owners that we are willing to grant them corporate status if they agree to certain things like no discrimination against classes of people we wish to not have them discriminate. This would leave them free to make the decision. And would actually be a return to conditions more similar to the way things were during the time of our founding as a nation. General laws of incorporation did not exist then. Legislatures granted specific charters to specific groups and those charters had conditions.

[Shooby]

Jan 5, 2016 14:12:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 1:10:30 GMT -5 dondub said:

Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

Excellent transition of your homophobia to include bestiality. Well done!

You really need to learn the definition of phobia.

I have no problem with gay people living their lives like everyone else- with the same civil rights, and legal protections afforded anyone else.  Everyone should be equal before the law.

They're just not entitled to a cake and a photographer, because no one is entitled to another person's labor.

Well, if the Progressives have their way, they will OWN your labor Paul.  That is really the end goal.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 5, 2016 16:28:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 5, 2016 14:17:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...
You're kidding, right?  The government has no authority derived from the Constitution to determine who the customers are for a private business.  The government has no legitimate authority to co opt your business and make it a "public accommodation"-- there's no such animal. 

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another. 

Generally agree. But a business has no right under the Constitution to have corporate status. That is why I support a quid pro quo arrangement. Society, through our government, should tell business owners that we are willing to grant them corporate status if they agree to certain things like no discrimination against classes of people we wish to not have them discriminate. This would leave them free to make the decision. And would actually be a return to conditions more similar to the way things were during the time of our founding as a nation. General laws of incorporation did not exist then. Legislatures granted specific charters to specific groups and those charters had conditions.

An individual should not lose the asset protection features of a corporate entity or agree to government strings attached. You don't hand in your Constitutional rights with your corporate filings.  I repeat: a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.

[billisonboard]

Jan 5, 2016 19:01:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 16:28:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Generally agree. But a business has no right under the Constitution to have corporate status. That is why I support a quid pro quo arrangement. Society, through our government, should tell business owners that we are willing to grant them corporate status if they agree to certain things like no discrimination against classes of people we wish to not have them discriminate. This would leave them free to make the decision. And would actually be a return to conditions more similar to the way things were during the time of our founding as a nation. General laws of incorporation did not exist then. Legislatures granted specific charters to specific groups and those charters had conditions.

An individual should not lose the asset protection features of a corporate entity or agree to government strings attached. You don't hand in your Constitutional rights with your corporate filings.  I repeat: a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.

You do realize that "asset protection" is a result of governmental violence don't you?

[zibazinski]

Jan 5, 2016 14:12:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 1:10:30 GMT -5 dondub said:

Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

Excellent transition of your homophobia to include bestiality. Well done!

You really need to learn the definition of phobia.

I have no problem with gay people living their lives like everyone else- with the same civil rights, and legal protections afforded anyone else.  Everyone should be equal before the law.

They're just not entitled to a cake and a photographer, because no one is entitled to another person's labor.

Hah! 

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2016 8:11:28 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Then Muslim servers should serve pork and alcohol and not be exempt if they choose to work in a place that does.

If they choose to work in a place that does, I agree they absolutely SHOULD be required to.