e2493dt

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

180 posts in this topic

This entire debate has only strengthened my belief..

 

To elope :lol:  After the wedding, I'll cook some steaks or maybe my awesome paella and we'll just eat it together. No interfering caterers,  no photographers (i'll take the damn photos), no family, no friends and NO DRAMA!!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bill doesn't say anything about singling out gays when it comes to businesses refusing service. It just simply reaffirms that the state or local government cannot substantially burden an individual or business's right to exercise their religion. But that didn't stop some gay rights activists from throwing a hissy fit over this bill as if they were the exclusive target. They, like so many other groups out there, seem to still believe that we have this imaginary right to be free from being discriminated against. That may be true when it comes to the government (even though they still do in practice), but that's not what this bill is about. 

 

In fact, narrowing this issue down to religion is also shortsighted because it's so much more than that. It's about private property rights. If you own a property, you have the right to run the establishment as you see fit and refuse service to whomever you want. It's no different than deciding who you allow into your own home. Nobody else has a right to your property or services any more than you have a right to theirs.

 

In America, our core values are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Refusing service to someone doesn't deny them any of these rights. As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to pursue a slice of pizza, a wedding cake or any other privately owned service. But by no means are you entitled to those things inherently.

 

Forcing a business to serve you not only make them a slave to their own property, it is also counter-intuitive on principle. A business is run by bigots in your eyes and yet you want to force them to take your money so they can stay in business? Wouldn't it make more sense to boycott them and drive business away from them?

 

Another example-- a store that focuses on products for women may prefer to hire women, for obvious reasons. Would people cry out that men are being discriminated against here?

 

I'm guessing that the people who "throw a hissy fit" may worry that if one business refuses service to certain people, then ALL businesses around them will follow suit and gleefully use the bill as license to discriminate. Which isn't the case.

Overall though, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this bill. I'm still sorting it out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to comment on if I like the bill or not, but people are confusing so many issues and I want to clarify some points.

 

First, no it is not the same as slavery. If you're a slave, you are literally someone else's property. Also, you don't get paid. You don't get to choose what kind of work you do. Someone else gets to tell you what you do with every hour of your life. You can agree with the bill and say people shouldn't have to provide their service for a same-sex wedding, but don't say its the same as slavery. That's honestly pretty offensive to people who were slaves (and those who still are other places in the world). Yes, not allowing someone to discriminate is a limit on that one particular person's freedom, but limits on one individual's freedom do not equate to slavery for that individual.

 

Secondly, we do have to differentiate between refusing to serve gays and refusing to provide a service for a gay wedding. Refusing to serve gays would violate federal law (agree or not, this is legally the case) and a state would not be allowed to implement a law that says you can refuse service to a gay person (Marbury v. Madison dictates a state law cannot contradict a federal law). If a gay person walks into a bakey and you overhear him telling his friend next to him, "Hey, I'm gay" or you see him kissing his boyfriend or husband (it's clear he's gay) and he walks up and asks to buy a cupcake, you legally have to sell it to him. Legally, it is the exact same as refuing to sell a cupcake to a black man who walks in.

 

Now, making a cake for a gay wedding is a bit different. You are not refusing to serve a gay person because they are gay per se, but because you don't agree with gay weddings. But, I'm not sure if legally it's the same or not since it's hard to draw an exact comparison. For instance, there used to be (and still are, but not as many) people who had a religious moral objection to interracial weddings. I'm not sure if legally one can refuse to provide a service for an interracial wedding. You couldn't refuse to serve a wedding between two black people because you couldn't reasonably argue that you have a moral opposition to it since it's not interracial and it would be obvious you just didn't want to serve black people, but I'm not sure if you can refuse to serve an interracial wedding on religious moral grounds. If you can refuse, then logically it seems it would also be legal to refuse to serve at a gay wedding. If you can't refuse, then logically you legally couldn't refuse to serve at a gay wedding, either.

 

I can see how the distinction could go either way, honestly. Looking at gay people as a class of people, the legal view could be that as a class their weddings inevitably involve two people of the same sex. So, by refusing to serve at their wedding you are discriminating against them because inevitably that is what this class of peoples' weddings would be. But, I don't know exactly how it would pan out. I don't know if this view would win over or the one I described in the paragraph above (where refusing to take part in the wedding you religiously morally oppose is different than refusing to sell a gay man a cupcake).

 

Now, let's make sure everyone keeps their positions clear. If you want to be ideologically consistent:

 

1.) You can take the libertarian view: A business owner can be as racist, homophobic, sexist, ect.... in its business practices as it wants. It can refuse to serve all blacks, all gays, all women, all men, ect.....That one individual's freedom is more important than any attempt at real or perceived societal good.

 

2.) You can say that a business owner shouldn't have to serve a gay wedding, but keep in mind that this also means you would agree that a business owner could also refuse an interracial marriage or an interfaith marriage, for that matter. In this view, the business owener shouldn't have to take part in a service he or she has religious moral objections to.

 

3.) You can say a business owner has to serve a gay wedding since you believe it translates into class (gays as a class of people) discrimination if they do not.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to comment on if I like the bill or not, but people are confusing so many issues and I want to clarify some points.

 

First, no it is not the same as slavery. If you're a slave, you are literally someone else's property. Also, you don't get paid. You don't get to choose what kind of work you do. Someone else gets to tell you what you do with every hour of your life. You can agree with the bill and say people shouldn't have to provide their service for a same-sex wedding, but don't say its the same as slavery. That's honestly pretty offensive to people who were slaves (and those who still are other places in the world). Yes, not allowing someone to discriminate is a limit on that one particular person's freedom, but limits on one individual's freedom do not equate to slavery for that individual.

 

Secondly, we do have to differentiate between refusing to serve gays and refusing to provide a service for a gay wedding. Refusing to serve gays would violate federal law (agree or not, this is legally the case) and a state would not be allowed to implement a law that says you can refuse service to a gay person (Marbury v. Madison dictates a state law cannot contradict a federal law). If a gay person walks into a bakey and you overhear him telling his friend next to him, "Hey, I'm gay" or you see him kissing his boyfriend or husband (it's clear he's gay) and he walks up and asks to buy a cupcake, you legally have to sell it to him. Legally, it is the exact same as refuing to sell a cupcake to a black man who walks in.

 

Now, making a cake for a gay wedding is a bit different. You are not refusing to serve a gay person because they are gay per se, but because you don't agree with gay weddings. But, I'm not sure if legally it's the same or not since it's hard to draw an exact comparison. For instance, there used to be (and still are, but not as many) people who had a religious moral objection to interracial weddings. I'm not sure if legally one can refuse to provide a service for an interracial wedding. You couldn't refuse to serve a wedding between two black people because you couldn't reasonably argue that you have a moral opposition to it since it's not interracial and it would be obvious you just didn't want to serve black people, but I'm not sure if you can refuse to serve an interracial wedding on religious moral grounds. If you can refuse, then logically it seems it would also be legal to refuse to serve at a gay wedding. If you can't refuse, then logically you legally couldn't refuse to serve at a gay wedding, either.

 

I can see how the distinction could go either way, honestly. Looking at gay people as a class of people, the legal view could be that as a class their weddings inevitably involve two people of the same sex. So, by refusing to serve at their wedding you are discriminating against them because inevitably that is what this class of peoples' weddings would be. But, I don't know exactly how it would pan out. I don't know if this view would win over or the one I described in the paragraph above (where refusing to take part in the wedding you religiously morally oppose is different than refusing to sell a gay man a cupcake).

 

Now, let's make sure everyone keeps their positions clear. If you want to be ideologically consistent:

 

1.) You can take the libertarian view: A business owner can be as racist, homophobic, sexist, ect.... in its business practices as it wants. It can refuse to serve all blacks, all gays, all women, all men, ect.....That one individual's freedom is more important than any attempt at real or perceived societal good.

 

2.) You can say that a business owner shouldn't have to serve a gay wedding, but keep in mind that this also means you would agree that a business owner could also refuse an interracial marriage or an interfaith marriage, for that matter. In this view, the business owener shouldn't have to take part in a service he or she has religious moral objections to.

 

3.) You can say a business owner has to serve a gay wedding since you believe it translates into class (gays as a class of people) discrimination if they do not.

 

I think you're probably right. If someone has a genuine religious belief about interracial marriage, I'm not sure the law could force them to take part in one. It's not nice, but I think it's logically consistent. If someone has a right to religious freedom, then they have a right to hold beliefs that you think are wrong or even repugnant.

 

I guess you could argue that there's a difference between interracial marriage and same-sex or interfaith marriage, since there's a qualitative difference between a man and a woman, and between a Catholic and a Protestant, but there's not a clear distinction between race because skin colour isn't a binary thing. Where would you logically draw the line? If you're against interracial marriage because it's two people with different skin colours, why would you be against me marrying a Nigerian, but not, say, an Italian? (I'm not just white, I'm practically translucent, because Scotland doesn't own a sun) Do you have some sort of colour chart to tell me, "You may marry anywhere between Mediterranean and albino", and if so, what logical reason do you have to draw the line there and not somewhere else? If you argue that it's about country, why are some countries fine but not others? Why would you be fine with me marrying a white South African but not a black South African? If it's about number of generations e.g. "Originally, you're from Europe, but originally, he's from Africa", why are you ignoring the fact that everyone traces their origins back to Africa originally? I'm not sure it's as logical a position to hold.

 

But all that aside, if someone has a genuine religious objection to interracial marriage, I'm not entirely sure you can force them to violate that. As I said, you might find their beliefs disgusting and illogical, but if they really do believe it's morally wrong, I still don't want to force them to violate their conscience. They really believe that if they took part in an interracial marriage, they'd be committing a sin against God. Again, it's not a life or death scenario - it's a wedding cake. I'm still not sure that it's the place of the government to force people to disobey their beliefs, even if they're wrong. If you can prove that it's not just a refusal to serve a particular race, but that they don't want to take part in interracial marriage (regardless of what races are involved), and if you've good reason to think that the refusal is grounded in a real belief, then I think you'll just have to let it go.

 

Maybe what will happen is a lot of people won't go to your bakery any more, because they don't want anything to do with you and your beliefs. If you really believe you're doing the right thing, then you won't complain too much, because you're just happy to be doing what you think God wants you to do. On the other hand, people might be tolerant of your beliefs and still go to your bakery, even if they think you're wrong. Maybe they'll just say, "Well, I disagree with your religious beliefs, but I know you're a good person just trying to do what's right, and I respect that." You might not need the government to get involved because the market will just sort itself out - if you have very offensive views about marriage, people won't buy from you, and if you don't, they will. What would be the point, anyway - "This is a victory against those who hold outdated views of race and marriage - we have forced them to make cakes against their will" ?

 

I think that's the case with most Christian bakers and same-sex marriage - they'll likely get a lot of customers who are gay, just because the customers like them as persons and respect their right to disagree (and think they make good cake). The bakers I mentioned who are fine with same-sex wedding cakes, I know are fine with it because it's a gay couple who own the store and made their own wedding cake. I'll still buy a cake from them, because their cakes are good. If they told me, "You know, we don't want to make a cake for a Catholic wedding - we make them for Episcopal weddings, because they're fine with same-sex marriage, but we'd feel bad about taking part in a Catholic wedding (or for that matter, Catholic baptisms, communions, ordinations etc.)" then fine, I'll disagree with them, but they have a right to their beliefs.

 

xxx

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wny I'm not really worried bout offending anyone to be honest. My use of the term slavery most certainly meets the Merian-Webster definition of the word.  You even own up to that fact in your subsequent paragraphs. If I can't wake up in a pissy mood and deny service to black people, as in your example, then I've met the definition of slavery by being submissive to a dominate influence. The example you provided is even better as if I ever denied someone based on their race my business would be destroyed not only by government tax agents but, also the mob ruled media itself. It would probably even lead to imprisonment of myself for a civil rights violation. I don't see how being thrown in jail and having my business destroyed wouldn't count as slavery.

 

We're dangerously close to that with the militant homosexual mentality that's become mainstream. A Colorado baker was recently fined 150k for refusing to serve a lesbian couple. That's an effective death sentence for any business and it's completely ridiculous.  

 

Bottom line, a business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason. There is no reason to hide behind religious grounds. Being able to say "I don't feel like serving you because I don't want to" should be reason enough in a truly free society. One should have the freedom to do as they want without the oppressive mob mentality of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with you, wny.

After reading around online about this and looking at the arguments I think I have to figure out where I stand on the larger issue several people have brought up, which is whether businesses should be able to discriminate freely. Regardless, I don't think religion should come into it. Either businesses can choose not to provide their products and services freely for almost any reason, or we keep the anti-discrimination laws and don't give special license to people to discriminate based on religious beliefs. I still don't get what religious justification people have for refusing to provide products or services for a gay wedding, but that's ultimately beside the point.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wny I'm not really worried bout offending anyone to be honest. My use of the term slavery most certainly meets the Merian-Webster definition of the word.  You even own up to that fact in your subsequent paragraphs. If I can't wake up in a pissy mood and deny service to black people, as in your example, then I've met the definition of slavery by being submissive to a dominate influence. The example you provided is even better as if I ever denied someone based on their race my business would be destroyed not only by government tax agents but, also the mob ruled media itself. It would probably even lead to imprisonment of myself for a civil rights violation. I don't see how being thrown in jail and having my business destroyed wouldn't count as slavery.

 

I don't own up to that at all. You completely missed the point if you think that.

 

First of all, you wouldn't be thrown in jail. I highly doubt there is a single example of that happening. You are right though that you would be face a civil rights violation and probably be given a stiff fine. I'm not sure if the government would go as far as shutting the business down.

 

If you read my post clearly, you would understand that I do think it is a limit on an individual's freedom. That's simply not the same as slavery, though. A slave has absolutely no freedom at all. Even if you had to shut your business down because the fines were too heavy, you could still find another job. No one would be forcing you to live on their plantation. No one would prohibit you from dating or marrying. No one would control every second of your day. Historically, this is what slavery entails. You're using the term "slavery" because you have a strong emotional response to this issue.

 

As far as you not caring about offending people, that's fine. Some people are fine with carelessly offending others because they have a strong, emptional response to an issue. It's a shame, but it happens.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with it in any way, shape, or form. It is against the Civil Rights act of 1964, title II, which states you cannot discriminate through religion, as well as race/gender. I believe that this "law" has opened up new windows for attempts at segregation, once again.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with it in any way, shape, or form. It is against the Civil Rights act of 1964, title II, which states you cannot discriminate through religion, as well as race/gender. I believe that this "law" has opened up new windows for attempts at segregation, once again.

 

I could not agree more. It sets a dangerous precedent.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is extremism. This whole Bush mentality of "either you're with us or against us" is what's causing a cold civil war. If you say white men can't jump it's ok. If I say black QBs are not good, I'm a racist. If you a pro-gay you are a hero, if you don't believe in gay marriage than you are a biggot. Why can't there be a gray area?

This whole thing reminds me of leaders who preach equality and want to take down a king or a tyrant and once they succeed, they become what they fought so hard against. I think is happening with gays. Now that they are winning the war on gay marriage, they want to come after everyone who opposes their lifestyle.

This freedom act has its advantages and disadvantages. The good part is it will protect people of their religious believes of being sued from politely refusing a service. The disadvantage is that there will always be people who take advantage of this act and have an excuse of being biggots. The sad part is that innocent people will always pay the price of the wrongdoers and most likely they will strike down this act.

The pizza case and bakery case are about catering a wedding, not refusing to sell in the store a product to a homosexual and that's where the line is drawn and homosexuals need to understand. The owner didn't refuse to sell you a pizza or a baked good, he/she just didn't want to cater and witness a gay wedding. Gays need to respect that. They preach equality and freedom but is not equality nor freedom when your taking away someone else's believes.

Do gays deserve to have the financial breaks that heterosexuals do? I think they do. To me anyways, a real marriage is only through the Church because it's the only marriage that's not breakable (in Catholisim anyways) It's funny when non religious people get married and say it's "forever" and so "permanent" ha! Well... It is not, a judge can make and break a marriage as many times as you want (just ask JLo).

To me, it is God who sends messages of what's right or wrong. If you don't believe in God, than, Mother Nature has ways of warning you whats right and wrong. Promiscuous people tend to say sex is natural and good for you. I think it is but only with one person. If it is so natural to be promiscuous, than why do we have to use "protection" if is so natural protection from what? Of course, STDs, why are they there? Because you're not supposed to be screwing around with multiple partners. The same for gays, can you reproduce? No! That means you are not supposed to be together. You can't and will never be an authentic family as nature intended to be. I can go on and on with examples, but I guess I made myself clear.

So to recap, it's the extremist who give a bad name to any given identity. Are muslims extreme? Not the majority of them. Are all Catholic priest pedophiles? The great majority of them are not. Are Jewish responsible for all the wars of the worlds? Of course they are not. Unfortunately, it is the minority wrongdoers who make the more noise in the media.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, businesses can refuse service to whoever they want.

 

For example, a lot of clubs don't allow people wearing gang colors. Bar owners will ban people who frequently start fights.

 

I wouldn't agree with a pizza place refusing to sell a pizza based on prejudice.

 

If a bakery that sells cakes refuses to sell for a gay wedding, it is their choice to not support a ceremony they don't agree with. I would say the same thing if they refused to make a cake for a Hell's Angels meeting, or a political party meeting, or any other potentially controversial occasion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me anyways, a real marriage is only through the Church because it's the only marriage that's not breakable (in Catholisim anyways) It's funny when non religious people get married and say it's "forever" and so "permanent" ha! Well... It is not, a judge can make and break a marriage as many times as you want (just ask JLo).

 

Yeah, Catholic marriages always last forever! Wait...

 

To me, it is God who sends messages of what's right or wrong. If you don't believe in God, than, Mother Nature has ways of warning you whats right and wrong. Promiscuous people tend to say sex is natural and good for you. I think it is but only with one person. If it is so natural to be promiscuous, than why do we have to use "protection" if is so natural protection from what? Of course, STDs, why are they there? Because you're not supposed to be screwing around with multiple partners. 

 

That's not how godless morality works. You can't look at natural vs unnatural and derive right vs wrong. You'd also need to define what unnatural means.

 

And you're saying that STIs only exist to warn people not to sleep around? Does this apply to other harmful consequences and other actions, or just these ones? There is a huge variety of STIs. Does the type one gets vary depending on controlled factors, like how many partners you've been with in a given time period, how much you like the person you're having sex with, etc? That would make sense to me. Give the person a little chlamydia after their third partner in a year to let 'em know they need to rein it in. Save the nasty stuff for the really slutty people that just aren't getting the hint. Also, if I were Nature and wanted people to not sleep around I'd make it so that people couldn't protect against it.

 

 

The same for gays, can you reproduce? No! That means you are not supposed to be together. You can't and will never be an authentic family as nature intended to be.

 

Citation(s) needed.

 

What is the logical argument from "gays can't reproduce" to "gays should not have sex with each other"?

What is an "authentic family"?

What is nature's intention? From where did nature derive this intent? Why should anyone care?

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with the RFRA...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Catholisism, marriage is forever. Meaning you can't get re-married through the Church unless one partner has died.

Regarding STDs there is a reason why they are there and lots of them. The animal kingdom can have multiple partners like lions for example and don't need protection. In humans is highly risky to have one night stands without a condom. And if you ask any sexual active man, they will tell you sex is much more enjoyable without a condom which they can't freely do.

An authentic family is when a woman and a man conceive a child. A natural father and a natural mother. That's nature. That's authentic. My point is that if nature elected for human beings of the same sex not being able to reproduce or to have natural sex (the anus was not designed to be penetrated) is because they aren't intended to be together. The key word is intended, doesn't mean they can't. It means it is not the intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, businesses can refuse service to whoever they want.

For example, a lot of clubs don't allow people wearing gang colors. Bar owners will ban people who frequently start fights.

I wouldn't agree with a pizza place refusing to sell a pizza based on prejudice.

I think that's more for a safety precaution and is different than refusing to serve someone because it's against your religion. People wearing gang colours can start fights with an opposing gang, which could hurt not only them but others in the space. Same for people starting bar fights. Also they could lose business if they are known as an unsafe bar/club. Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I'm personally on the fence with this issue. But I shall leave now and continue to read everyone's responses.

*leaps away*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An authentic family is when a woman and a man conceive a child. A natural father and a natural mother.

 

I'm sure my boyfriend would be interested in knowing that his family isn't 'authentic' because his parents adopted him (and later, his brother) because they weren't able to conceive 'natural' children. Was that just nature's way of telling his mom she shouldn't be allowed to parent?

 

(OT I know but this is an issue that gets to me personally for obvious reasons.)

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure my boyfriend would be interested in knowing that his family isn't 'authentic' because his parents adopted him (and later, his brother) because they weren't able to conceive 'natural' children. Was that just nature's way of telling his mom she shouldn't be allowed to parent?

 

(OT I know but this is an issue that gets to me personally for obvious reasons.)

Your taking my coments out of context. When did I say that if a woman can't conceive a child is a way of nature telling her she shouldn't be a mother? You are taking my coment of homosexuality and promiscuity and applying it for parenting? Wow!

Authentic also means genuine which of course I shouldn't have used. I meant to say biological. Better? You can't compare a family that adpoted children to a "family" that has two fathers or two mothers. That was my point on authenticity. Better?

You see what I mean by extremists? Taking coments out of context and applying it to something else irrelevant to the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your taking my coments out of context. When did I say that if a woman can't conceive a child is a way of nature telling her she shouldn't be a mother? You are taking my coment of homosexuality and promiscuity and applying it for parenting? Wow!

Authentic also means genuine which of course I shouldn't have used. I meant to say biological. Better? You can't compare a family that adpoted children to a "family" that has two fathers or two mothers. That was my point on authenticity. Better?

You see what I mean by extremists? Taking coments out of context and applying it to something else irrelevant to the subject.

 

How is it irrelevant or out of context? You said an authentic family consists only of biological parents + their offspring, and that two people being unable to conceive is a sign that they are not meant to be a family. I only provided an example from my real life that illustrates how hurtful statements like that can be to those who deviate from that societal norm. And why the scare quotes around families with two moms or two dads?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's more for a safety precaution and is different than refusing to serve someone because it's against your religion. People wearing gang colours can start fights with an opposing gang, which could hurt not only them but others in the space. Same for people starting bar fights. Also they could lose business if they are known as an unsafe bar/club. Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I'm personally on the fence with this issue. But I shall leave now and continue to read everyone's responses.

*leaps away*

 

You are correct that it is a safety precaution. The point that I was getting at was that business owners have the right to decline service to people for their own reasons. If a business owner is arbitrariarly refusing service based on prejudice, I would expect the word to get out and hurt their business. If a business refuses to cater to a gay wedding, there will be protestors, and it will be up to the other potential customers to decide if they want to use that business.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it irrelevant or out of context? You said an authentic family consists only of biological parents + their offspring, and that two people being unable to conceive is a sign that they are not meant to be a family. I only provided an example from my real life that illustrates how hurtful statements like that can be to those who deviate from that societal norm. And why the scare quotes around families with two moms or two dads?

Because my point was never for adopted children. I do apologize if I offended you. It was not my intention. And I quoted family in homosexuality because I don't approve of gays adopting children. If they want to get married that's fine but not adopt children unless that child is related to the adopting parent in someway and the child doesn't have another choice, BUT that's a subject for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, businesses can refuse service to whoever they want.

For example, a lot of clubs don't allow people wearing gang colors. Bar owners will ban people who frequently start fights.

I wouldn't agree with a pizza place refusing to sell a pizza based on prejudice.

If a bakery that sells cakes refuses to sell for a gay wedding, it is their choice to not support a ceremony they don't agree with. I would say the same thing if they refused to make a cake for a Hell's Angels meeting, or a political party meeting, or any other potentially controversial occasion.

Those are safety concerns. Previous comments have stated it is completely okay to refuse service based on color, gender, sexual orientation, which is not okay. It is purely bigotry, and discrimination. It has nothing to do with "rights".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When opening a business, it is for the public, even if it's on private property, don't like it? Shouldn't have opened a business then. You can't pick and choose based on race or religion. If you could pick and choose, segregation through business would never have ended.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When opening a business, it is for the public, even if it's on private property, don't like it? Shouldn't have opened a business then. You can't pick and choose based on race or religion. If you could pick and choose, segregation through business would never have ended.

 

What about those who work, for example, in a family bakery that's been going for generations? When they started up, their policy on wedding cakes was in line with the law as it stood at the time. Does the recent change in law mean that they have to change their policy or close down? Would they have to agree to take part in any redefinition of marriage that came in the future (e.g. polygamy)? If so, how could you possibly blame them for opening a business years before there was even such a thing as same-sex marriage? They had no idea they could be forced to take part in such a thing.

 

xxx

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding STDs there is a reason why they are there and lots of them. The animal kingdom can have multiple partners like lions for example and don't need protection. In humans is highly risky to have one night stands without a condom. And if you ask any sexual active man, they will tell you sex is much more enjoyable without a condom which they can't freely do.

 

"Regarding STDs there is a reason why they are there and lots of them." Which is...? 

 

And are you saying that animals don't get STDs? Because they do.

Sexually transmitted diseases in animals

Those poor, poor koalas :(

Possible chlamydia in mountain lions

https://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/sextalk/2009/sextalk%2010.19.09.pdf

In fact, certain STDs probably came to us from animals, like HIV from chimps.

History of HIV/AIDS

 

An authentic family is when a woman and a man conceive a child. A natural father and a natural mother. That's nature. That's authentic. My point is that if nature elected for human beings of the same sex not being able to reproduce or to have natural sex (the anus was not designed to be penetrated) is because they aren't intended to be together. The key word is intended, doesn't mean they can't. It means it is not the intention.

 

That didn't answer any of my questions, except what your definition of "authentic family" is. I know the key word is "intended". That's why I singled it out and asked you those questions about it. What do you mean "nature elected for human beings..."? How does nature have intention?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When opening a business, it is for the public, even if it's on private property, don't like it? Shouldn't have opened a business then. You can't pick and choose based on race or religion. If you could pick and choose, segregation through business would never have ended.

 

You got it backwards. If a person doesn't like how a business is run, they can take their money elsewhere. Don't even try to argue that this will lead to a bunch of businesses discriminating against minorities and gays. Many businesses today are affirmative action oriented. Also the gay rights movement is gaining widespread support from businesses all the time including big businesses like Starbucks, Pepsi, Amazon, Yelp, Smallbox, Apple, Microsoft just to name a few.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html

 

We're living in a society that is becoming more progressive and pluralistic.So the idea of it leading to mass segregation is just ridiculous.

 

The point is that it's their property, their rules. The day you get to dictate how someone runs their property is the day they can do the same with your cars, house, assets etc.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knwo animals can have STDs but the rate of contracting them is much lower than that of humans. Why? Because they only have sex when they want to reproduce which is not the case with humans.

Like I said, to me is God, but for agnostic is Mother Nature, how can it have an intention? Because we exist. If we were created by Mother Earth, is because it wanted us to reproduce. It all started with one man and one woman at some point in time right? We weren't created in a litter right? Of course sounds strange from a Godless point of view.

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