@bigdoggproblem saidOf course they should. It is their private business so they should be allowed to do business or not do business with people as they choose. It is call private ownership of business and freedom two things that today's quasi communist state will not allow.
What if the cake was for an African-American groom and Caucasian bride? Should the cake makers have a right to refuse service because they hold the belief that mixed-race weddings are morally wrong?
This case is very different though. You are requiring people to participate in what they believe to be a religious ceremony which goes against their religious beliefs.
@caesar-salad saidLol ok let it be known you believe Christians should not be allowed to hold a job.
Why should Christians want to make money? Does not God provide for the birds in the sky?
@galveston75 saidYou are not being asked to change your views. The question: what types of discrimination against homosexuals by society and/or by the government would you support?
So why should ones who do not agree with homosexuality need to change their views?
@caesar-salad saidI agree about marriage tax breaks. I think married or single the government should treat people equally.
Also, if Christians and Lesbians do agree that making money is good, if the Lesbians get a nice tax break by getting married, shouldn't the Christian be happy to bake a cake for them in celebration of that?
@galveston75 saidWhat forms of discrimination against gay people do you agree with?
What if it goes against my religious belief and conscience and lets say as a business owner of a bakery, they asked me to bake a wedding cake for them. Do I have too or do I now need to worry about intolerance from them and the back lash that society may give me and possibly be sued for what they say is discrimination?
2 edits
@eladar saidI take it you think the US Civil Rights movement was misguided, then?
Of course they should. It is their private business so they should be allowed to do business or not do business with people as they choose. It is call private ownership of business and freedom two things that today's quasi communist state will not allow.
This case is very different though. You are requiring people to participate in what they believe to be a religious ceremony which goes against their religious beliefs.
[And, BTW, the cake bakers don't necessarily have to participate in the ceremony. They could always drop the cake off beforehand.]
[And, BTW, you have not shown any difference between a mixed-race cake and the gay cake. People justified racist beliefs on religious grounds in the past.]
1 edit
@bigdoggproblem saidOf course I do. The road to hell is paved by good intentions. I believe in private property, right to privacy and personal freedom.
I take it you think the US Civil Rights movement was misguided, then?
[And, BTW, the cake bakers don't necessarily have to participate in the ceremony. They could always drop the cake off beforehand.]
Segregation of public institutions like schools and public drinking fountains is immoral and is just as wrong as forcing people to take part in a relgious ceremony that spits on their beliefs.
Btw, they should not be forced to play any part in the ceremony.
@galveston75 saidSo, businesses should be able to refuse to serve or enter into transactions with homosexuals. That's your first answer to the OP?
Well this actually happened in Portland OR a few years ago. We lived there so it's still fresh. The owners of this bakery had a couple, gay women, that wanted to order a wedding cake.
The owners were very polite and explained they could not do this because of their conscience.
Loooong story short the couple sued them for $135,000 and the shop owners lost their busine ...[text shortened]... gon-court-upholds-135-000-fine-portion-ruling-against-bakery-owners-gay-wedding-cake-case/985096001/
@eladar saidPlease see also, my 2nd edit.
Of course I do. The road to hell is paved by good intentions. I believe in private property, right to privacy and personal freedom.
Segregation of public institutions like schools and public drinking fountains is immoral and is just as wrong as forcing people to take part in a relgious ceremony that spits on their beliefs.
@eladar saidTolerate:
tol·er·ance
/ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: tolerance; plural noun: tolerances
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. [wiki]
@bigdoggproblem saidThe 2nd edit is fine. They should be allowed to live by their beliefs as they live their lives. Others should have no right to their privately owned business.
Please see also, my 2nd edit.
@eladar saidIt might surprise you to know that sometimes it looks that way to me as well.
@galveston75
We all know tolerance used by the left does not mean tolerance ot means acceptance of their point of view is required.
One could say that turnabout is fair play, but also:
Maybe this has been and will be a perennial human struggle, with different groups trying to impose their version of correct-think on all the others.
Just wait until Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head come with algorithmic meme-emitters. 😉
@eladar saidMy 2nd edit claims that you have shown no significant difference between the case of the mixed-race cake, and the gay cake. You had claimed that the cases were "very" different.
The 2nd edit is fine. They should be allowed to live by their beliefs as they live their lives. Others should have no right to their privately owned business.
Would you like to withdraw that claim?
@bigdoggproblem saidThey are greatly different. One is simply a right to privacy the other is the right to religious freedom.
My 2nd edit claims that you have shown no significant difference between the case of the mixed-race cake, and the gay cake. You had claimed that the cases were "very" different.
Would you like to withdraw that claim?
The trampling of religious freedom is egregious.