# New business model?



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Discriminate and make money. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7009156. This on top of the Indianapolis pizzaria getting $800,000+ for saying they wouldn't do something they'd never been asked to do. Maybe I've got to rethink my business model.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Good for them. They did nothing to anyone and a reporter asked them a question. They answered honestly and the (derogatory term) came down on them (so to speak).


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

They so love the homosexuals that rather than profit in the sin they voluntarily not going to participate in enabling them. 

No, different than taking the keys from a drunk.

Or

Refusing to lend your vacation home to a friend so he,she can cheat on his, her spouse. Even if the friendship is on the line.

Celebrate the first amendment.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Good for them! Reminds me of the support Chick-fil-a got when the LBGT bunch wanted a boycott. Some friends went to a Chick-fil-a in Branson last week, and mentioned how they were full, while the Burger Kings next door was nearly empty. Given the demographics of the people to visit Branson (old), I guess they haven't forgotten.

Makes me want to open a bakery.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> They so love the homosexuals that rather than profit in the sin they voluntarily not going to participate in enabling them.
> 
> No, different than taking the keys from a drunk.
> 
> ...


To be fair the florists did profit every time they sold the gay couple, who were described as long time customers, flowers for every other occasion that celebrated their relationship.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, lead us not into temptation....has meaning to some

That is a tenant of my faith and I stand firm

I doubt you want and in-depth understanding of my faith so unless you want it ii will avoid evangelism or what might be viewed as such.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> To be fair the florists did profit every time they sold the gay couple, who were described as long time customers, flowers for every other occasion that celebrated their relationship.


Thus the only event was marriage.

Well, homosexuality is a sin.....caring, loving someone is not sin.

It seems that the homosexuals fails to respect the florist by asking for something that could not be met with out the florist jeopardizing a personal relationship with God.

Some people fail to understand the reason for the first amendment.

To allow each person to practice what ever faith they have.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> To be fair the florists did profit every time they sold the gay couple, who were described as long time customers, flowers for every other occasion that celebrated their relationship.


At least you admit she was not discriminating against gays at all, she drew her personal line at gay marriage. Good for her. No one should be required to do anything that violates their religious beliefs. It boils down to what you consider "rights" versus "wants" and why someone's rights should be violated to satisfy someone else's wants.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I think it is great, before all said and done they may get a million dollars how sweet it is to stand up for what a person believes in and what the church believes in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Thus the only event was marriage.
> 
> Well, homosexuality is a sin.....caring, loving someone is not sin.
> 
> ...


So it's ok to profit from caring loving homosexuals as long as they don't ask to have that caring loving relationship legally recognized? I'm not sure how selling them flowers for an anniversary, birth day or date night is all that different than providing the same flowers for a wedding. It may be if she had ended up on food stamps, living in an rv and unable to find work as a florist we could discuss how actions and words have consequences.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> At least you admit she was not discriminating against gays at all, she drew her personal line at gay marriage. Good for her. No one should be required to do anything that violates their religious beliefs. It boils down to what you consider "rights" versus "wants" and why someone's rights should be violated to satisfy someone else's wants.


No, she did discriminate. She just didn't go it consistently.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

poppy said:


> At least you admit she was not discriminating against gays at all, she drew her personal line at gay marriage. Good for her. No one should be required to do anything that violates their religious beliefs. It boils down to what you consider "rights" versus "wants" and why someone's rights should be violated to satisfy someone else's wants.


There is a huge difference between a "want" and a "law." 

I find it odd that a florist can take a gay person's money for flowers for every other occasion in a couple's relationship but simply can't for religious reasons because of their lawful marriage. Just smacks of hypocrisy to me. 

Seems like after a couple of birthday/anniversary/just because flower cards that read, "To John, You are the love of my life and I'm so grateful that we are together. Love Always, Tom" they'd draw the conclusion that this was a same sex couple?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So it's ok to profit from caring loving homosexuals as long as they don't ask to have that caring loving relationship legally recognized? I'm not sure how selling them flowers for an anniversary, birth day or date night is all that different than providing the same flowers for a wedding. It may be if she had ended up on food stamps, living in an rv and unable to find work as a florist we could discuss how actions and words have consequences.


A bully is a bully, no matter in which direction she shoves her victim.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> So it's ok to profit from caring loving homosexuals as long as they don't ask to have that caring loving relationship legally recognized? I'm not sure how selling them flowers for an anniversary, birth day or date night is all that different than providing the same flowers for a wedding. It may be if she had ended up on food stamps, living in an rv and unable to find work as a florist we could discuss how actions and words have consequences.


^^This sums up everything perfectly.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> So it's ok to profit from caring loving homosexuals as long as they don't ask to have that caring loving relationship legally recognized? I'm not sure how selling them flowers for an anniversary, birth day or date night is all that different than providing the same flowers for a wedding. It may be if she had ended up on food stamps, living in an rv and unable to find work as a florist we could discuss how actions and words have consequences.




See, as many faiths believe hate the sin and not the sinner.

Now to refuse because someone is tall, a monk, heterosexual etc
Is discriminating.

Now to refuse because it is against your faith is a first amendment issue.

Now, many faith have sacraments. In my faith marriage is a sacrament...it is a big deal. Also my faith warns us NOT TO TEMPT SOMEONE OR AID THEM IN SIN

It is clear to me what I am to do.

I am not to flog, gays....but to prey for them
I am ACCEPT them as fellow sinners fallING short of the standards set by Jesus.
JESUS hung out with all walks.....and he bold face told them to stop the sin.

If it helps think of it as if Christian in certain sect are allergic to homosexual wedding and any personal participation with a homosexual wedding will cause them to be dead to GOD.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> See, as many faiths believe hate the sin and not the sinner.
> 
> Now to refuse because someone is tall, a monk, heterosexual etc
> Is discriminating.
> ...


I'm just asking why selling them flowers to help their relationship isn't tempting them or aiding in their sin but selling flowers for a ceremony to codify that same relationship is? So if my faith says heterosexuality is a sin I can refuse you without being discriminatory.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So it's ok to profit from caring loving homosexuals as long as they don't ask to have that caring loving relationship legally recognized? I'm not sure how selling them flowers for an anniversary, birth day or date night is all that different than providing the same flowers for a wedding. It may be if she had ended up on food stamps, living in an rv and unable to find work as a florist we could discuss how actions and words have consequences.


It absolutely is ok. Is it ok for a restaurant to profit from a steady customer but refuse him service when he wants to do something they disagree with in their restaurant? Yes. No one knows what any customer might demand in the future. These examples are nothing but homothug bullying. For heaven's sake, just go to another florist if one doesn't fulfill your request. It's time for them to man/woman/tranny/whatever up and realize the world does not revolve around them any more than it revolves around anyone else.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just asking why selling them flowers to help their relationship isn't tempting them or aiding in their sin but selling flowers for a ceremony to codify that same relationship is? So if my faith says heterosexuality is a sin I can refuse you without being discriminatory.




YES,THAT'S WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ABOUT AND WHY IT IS FIRST AND SO IMPORTANT.

A person's faith...belief system is often so entwined with them that it is a live or die issue.

my rights end where your rights stop.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just asking why selling them flowers to help their relationship isn't tempting them or aiding in their sin but selling flowers for a ceremony to codify that same relationship is? So if my faith says heterosexuality is a sin I can refuse you without being discriminatory.


To most Christians, their faith comes first and they have that right. Yes, the Bible teaches in the NT that aiding or encouraging sinful behavior is wrong. In fact, it says just wishing them "God speed" (good luck) makes you a partaker of their evil deeds. Now, to a Christian, should they ignore God's Word or follow their conscience?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I wonder if that Pizzaria has asked every customer they sell something to, what it will be used for. If not, then they are grandstanding instead of living according to their religious beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Marriage is a sacrament..

I gave and received flowers from my same sex roommate and to this day I love her dearly. Caring and loving is not the sin

All these issues and lawsuits have a commonality....Marriage..that is the reason.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

***Just not worth it. 

My tongue hurts, and I want to go back to work.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Wlover said:


> I wonder if that Pizzaria has asked every customer they sell something to, what it will be used for. If not, then they are grandstanding instead of living according to their religious beliefs.


The business Owner didn't ask this hypothetical customer. The reporter volunteered the information in the question to a known Christian business owner hoping to get the answer that she did. BAITED for the gain of the reporter. Looks like it backfired!!!!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> I wonder if that Pizzaria has asked every customer they sell something to, what it will be used for. If not, then they are grandstanding instead of living according to their religious beliefs.



You are trying to win at all cost. Sins from omissions say someone wish to cause a stir and ordered pizza and the pick up the pizzas....photos the pizzas at a homosexual wedding and published those photos.

Can anyone see that happening?

That would be a sin of omission not thru intent.

To deliberately go against God is a true slap in his face.

God knows are hearts. And he is not tricked.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> You are trying to win at all cost. Sins from omissions say someone wish to cause a stir and ordered pizza and the pick up the pizzas....photos the pizzas at a homosexual wedding and published those photos.
> 
> Can anyone see that happening?
> 
> ...


Sin of saying one thing and living something else. God knows when you grandstand as well. Picking and choosing the sins to grandstand about and he will know.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes, he does. As do I.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The business Owner didn't ask this hypothetical customer. The reporter volunteered the information in the question to a known Christian business owner hoping to get the answer that she did. BAITED for the gain of the reporter. Looks like it backfired!!!!


The business owner did not need to answer. Now they have made their beliefs public and therefore will come under scrutiny to see if their live by their beliefs or are grandstanding when it suits them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't believe that unrestrained and arbitrary discrimination in a public business is a good thing. But definition a public business is inviting peopke into their business. To then say 'but not you' is to open the door just to slam in in the face.
But there are a few things more important that creating bad feeling by such ugly behavior. And one of those things is that people who truly run their own lives by their religion should not be forced to choose between earning a living in commonly held ways such as public service should be forced to chose between their religion, which they can not ignore, and the law, which they can not ignore.
There would be very few cases where this conflict needs adjudication by the courts, but if it does, then a person's religion can not be discounted simply because it is not shared. And the point of contention is not disliking sinning but not being forced into it personally by the law. A very limited situation.
I suspect that such considerations might rarely effect effect everyone- for instance where the opposite sex (or these days dubious sex) is restricted for religious reasons- but the number of people who screen almost all their decisions on the basis of their religion's tenets are pretty few and easily worked around. 
I suppose if some has a religion based on racism or sexism, rather than just using parts of religion as justification, that might prove an issue depending on their aggression. But I only know of a couple of such religions and they are small.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The pizza owners are Christian pizza owners....
Not saints and other Christians understand the hard walk it is and will be with so many haters seeking for them to fail.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> The business owner did not need to answer. Now they have made their beliefs public and therefore will come under scrutiny to see if their live by their beliefs or are grandstanding when it suits them.


Probably why they decided to commit publically to their values. If only everyone was willing to operate under that standard- public testing of their own beliefs rather than forming mobs to attack other's beliefs- the world woukd be a lot more tolerant.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

I don't like a business discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation, but freedom comes first, even if you don't like how others exercise their rights. 

WOuld you all argue just as much to force a black man with a BBQ pit to cater a KKK rally? Yes, the black man has to serve KKK members (assuming they are not making a disturbance of some kind) if they come in his restaurant because of public accommodation laws, but should the black man have to go to the Klan rally and listen to the Klan hate and all the while serve up his BBQ with a smile? 

Should a Jewish deli be forced to cater a Nazi rally? 

Should an atheist be forced to cater a Southern Baptist convention? 

Remember all these laws involved gov't force. If I don't cater your event because it violates my belief system, what ever it may be, without RFRA that gov't thru criminal or civil law can financially penalize me and if I don't pay the penalty, the gov't can imprison me. 

Isn't it better to just let people make their own choices, for right or wrong? Who amongst us is going to give business to a catering company that is known to discriminate against blacks? Or Christians? Or pick your fave category? I know their are still plenty of people who still get their nose out of joint about gays, but times are changing and a restaurant with a no gays sign out front is not going to last long in most of the US.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Probably why they decided to commit publically to their values. If only everyone was willing to operate under that standard- public testing of their own beliefs rather than forming mobs to attack other's beliefs- the world woukd be a lot more tolerant.


I am very bothered by people that only commit part time their religion. Chasing only the big sensational sins.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> I am very bothered by people that only commit part time their religion. Chasing only the big sensational sins.


And I haven't the ability as you must, to see and know all. Including the heart.

I do not carry that burden...


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Wlover said:


> The business owner did not need to answer. Now they have made their beliefs public and therefore will come under scrutiny to see if their live by their beliefs or are grandstanding when it suits them.


Their beliefs were already public. Why else do you think the reporter picked their pizzaria? They have a drop box in the store with a sign that reads " Everyday before we open the store, we gather and pray together. If there is something you would like us to pray for, just write it down and drop it in the box."

Most Christians that are comfortable in their faith don't shy away from answering questions honestly. They usually believe strongly enough that The Lord will provide even if others target them for their beliefs. And LOOK, they have been provided at least $849,000.00! Ain't it wonderful!!!!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> I am very bothered by people that only commit part time their religion. Chasing only the big sensational sins.


lots of religious views don't sit right with me, but it isn't my business to figure out what book is the basis of someone's belief system and how well they are following it to the letter. 

If you are talking about Christian hypocrisy, so what, they acknowledge it and embrace it. Every Christian says they will fail/sin at some time. As to getting more worked up about some sins more than others, well, we all make our choices. For me, as long as people aren't hurting others, I'm happy to let God sort it out later. But not everyone has to agree with my take as long as they don't use force, violence, or gov't to further their opinions. 

Ain't freedom grand?!?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> lots of religious views don't sit right with me, but it isn't my business to figure out what book is the basis of someone's belief system and how well they are following it to the letter.
> 
> If you are talking about Christian hypocrisy, so what, they acknowledge it and embrace it. Every Christian says they will fail/sin at some time. As to getting more worked up about some sins more than others, well, we all make our choices. For me, as long as people aren't hurting others, I'm happy to let God sort it out later. But not everyone has to agree with my take as long as they don't use force, violence, or gov't to further their opinions.
> 
> Ain't freedom grand?!?


If someone is going to take you to court then you are going to have to prove it is religious stand. Our courts system and laws allow that. They lose when they can't prove they are consistent.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

I firmly believe that they can serve or work for whomever they choose. Just as I firmly believe that the people that find offense to that can explore every avenue of recourse to them (sue, boycott, etc). 

In that case, everyone gets to make their own choices and will have to live with the outcome of those choices. Win/Win for both parties.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It seems to me that the business made their beliefs quite clear and consumers spoke clearly too.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> If someone is going to take you to court then you are going to have to prove it is religious stand. Our courts system and laws allow that. They lose when they can't prove they are consistent.


consistent with what? Is this your opinion or do you have some sort of case law to back it up? IMO, it would have to be a really big inconsistency for the courts to get involved in deciding if your religious views are sufficiently Christian, or whatever, enough to matter.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> consistent with what? Is this your opinion or do you have some sort of case law to back it up? IMO, it would have to be a really big inconsistency for the courts to get involved in deciding if your religious views are sufficiently Christian, or whatever, enough to matter.


My opinion. Though I think that the Colorado cake case was lost because they baked a wedding cake for dogs showing that baking wedding cakes was not all about their beliefs for them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> My opinion. Though I think that the Colorado cake case was lost because they baked a wedding cake for dogs showing that baking wedding cakes was not all about their beliefs for them.


I haven't read too much on that case so I"m...??? But unless the dogs were gay, I don't see how that applies at all. There is no Christian stand, that I am aware of, on canine matrimony. :shrug:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And whats wrong with baking something for a dog. Many churches will have you bring your pets in including dogs and Bless Them.
I even thought once of bringing my mini horse but didn't. And besides the dogs were not gay were they? LOL


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

St. Francis animals are blessed...
Guess lack of knowledge of one's faith
And a lack of a sense of whimsy to boot.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Wlover said:


> My opinion. Though I think that the Colorado cake case was lost because they baked a wedding cake for dogs showing that baking wedding cakes was not all about their beliefs for them.


Here's the decision: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'd be offended too if someone was clearly willing to make a wedding cake for a "dog marriage ceremony" and said, âjust as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.â

Just how does someone respect the "sanctimony" of marriage by being willing to make a dog wedding cake? Isn't that the epitome of mocking marriage?

I'm not even to there with respect to the pedophile reference...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You can argue the wedding cake for dogs any which way you want. The courts found it evidence enough that the cake bakers did not find baking a cake for weddings as going against their religious beliefs.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> You can argue the wedding cake for dogs any which way you want. The courts found it evidence enough that the cake bakers did not find baking a cake for weddings as going against their religious beliefs.


And you are fine with having the court rule, and use gov't force to make people comply with things to which they have a religious objection? I'm not entering into the debate from the basis of what a Christian should or should not do, what is moral in terms of gay weddings, it is strictly from the basis of freedom and tolerance of a minority moral position. I'll point you back to my previous Qs. 

Are you willing to force a black man to cater a Klan rally?

Are you willing to force a Jewish deli to cater a Nazi rally?

Are you willing to force an atheist to cater a Southern Baptist convention? 

Or think of it another way. There are companies that distribute literature for a fee. Are you willing to force a pro-abortion group to distribute anti-abortion pamphlets? Or have the NAACP be forced to distribute Klan recruitment flyers? Or force an Arab immigrant to distribute pro-Israeli literature? 

Do you really enjoy using that much force to make people bend to your will? 

I'm a big fan of boycotts and buycotts. Why are you not willing to trust the American people to collectively drive the racists, bigots, jerks, anti-Semites, and other assorted bad guys out of business while they support the businesses of good guys? 

When will you stand up to protect a minority who holds a position that is not in sync with your beliefs? Ever?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> Here's the decision: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
> 
> I'd be offended too if someone was clearly willing to make a wedding cake for a "dog marriage ceremony" and said, âjust as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.â
> 
> ...


You have a right to be offended. Does that mean you want gov't force to remedy the situation?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> And you are fine with having the court rule, and use gov't force to make people comply with things to which they have a religious objection?


Yes, I am fine with it going through the courts. Anyone could use their religion as a basis to do any number of things that are against our constitution and laws justs by saying it is because of their religion. I don't think anyone should get a free pass because of their religion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

You have a right to be offended.
You do not have the right to define the tenants of my faith.
You seem to be anti Christianity. You have that right
You have the right most likely to legally marry whom you choose.
You do not have any right to force me to accept your beliefs nor I to force you to mine.

Years ago people pretty much stayed out of each other's personal life.

Now, some want to have a say in private matters.

No one but God (if you believe) gets to determine A persons sincerity of faith. 

Learning to accept rejection allows you not have to control those who choose not to be enamored by you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> Yes, I am fine with it going through the courts. Anyone could use their religion as a basis to do any number of things that are against our constitution and laws justs by saying it is because of their religion. I don't think anyone should get a free pass because of their religion.


And well the should use a God given right acknowledge by every person to have taken an oath to up hold the constitution.

Many persons do not use. Religion the practice it.. note practice as it they know the are not perfect.

Eagle feather have been returned.
A tsa personal was allowed to carry a dagger(not needed to be sharp) type at work it just looked like a weapon.
It is not just Christians that enjoy the first amendment.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

We are a nation of laws. You get to fight for your beliefs in court. I get to fight for mine. 

You want to use you religion to ignore the laws then you have to prove that you have that right and that you don't just follow the tenets of your religion when it is convenient.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> You do not have any right to force me to accept your beliefs nor I to force you to mine.
> 
> Years ago people pretty much stayed out of each other's personal life.
> 
> Now, some want to have a say in private matters..


I agree that the people should be able to serve or work for whomever they want, but the part above got me wondering.

Is it not forcing someone to adhere to a certain religion if you ask that persons "Local, State or Federal' gov't to restrict marriage based upon said religion?

I am just trying to see how that the 'Marriage is between a man and woman' issue is not forcing others to live within a religious viewpoint that they may not agree with.

You said it, years ago people didn't push themselves into others lives. So wonder why everyone, on both sides of the fence just back out of others lives. If you are a straight religious person, what harm does it do you to have two gay people married. If you are a gay person seeking a wedding cake, pizza flowers or whatever, and one place objects, can you not find another place?

But, in my opinion, forcing the State or Fed gov't to only recognize marriage as between a man and woman is forcing your own religious/values unto others. Now, I'd be fine with that if the people that are actually 'marriage is one man and one woman' read their religious texts and saw that there is more than one defintion of marriage in the,. Then they could actually be fighting for their religion's definitionS...note the plural there?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Amen

But it is also a darn shame that some are so sue----happy.

When it come to the first amendment....some are so filled with hate and lack acceptance that we are all different and just because someone doesn't support your view does not mean you need to smit them down.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> I agree that the people should be able to serve or work for whomever they want, but the part above got me wondering.
> 
> Is it not forcing someone to adhere to a certain religion if you ask that persons "Local, State or Federal' gov't to restrict marriage based upon said religion?
> 
> ...



Or is cultural based on historical factors.

Personally I do not believe in government being involved with any personal relationship.

Government has only recently in history been involved with marriage. 
I can't grasps why anyone need a license to marry that is the Government grants permission.....what.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Those who are homosexuals....sorry to be blunt but answering a question from my personal background of faith

What any one else does does not impact me till they...make it an issue.

I can prey for them and they will never know.it but so far when I have been personally asked to attend I have had no issues stating 
Thank you but I will not be attending.. if pushed I tell why..
It's not that I have hidden my faith or my views.. 

I will not celebrate the sin.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> .
> JESUS hung out with all walks.....and he bold face told them to stop the sin.


Which would no doubt get him on the losing end of a lawsuit today.

We've been warned that people would call good-bad and bad-good


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Yes, I am fine with it going through the courts. Anyone could use their religion as a basis to do any number of things that are against our constitution and laws justs by saying it is because of their religion. I don't think anyone should get a free pass because of their religion.


What is this free pass you speak of? So someone denies service based on a prejudice? They lose money. There is no real harm done to the gay wedding party or the Klansmen or the Nazis. Our constitution says freedom of religion. Not freedom of religion as defined by popular sentiment. Our constitution does not say you have a right not to be offended by even unreasonable beliefs held by others. 

Your position is anti-freedom and pro-big-gov't control of the people when you think your position has the advantage. I hope you never have a minority, unpopular belief. Who will stand up for you then? I will and others who defend freedom and constitutional rights will stand up for you; let's hope there are enough of us left. 

And you still didn't answer my Qs? But I guess, indirectly you did. You believe that a Black should be forced to provide service to a bunch of Klansmen and a Jew should be forced to provide service to Nazis. Actually, I doubt you believe in those positions but you are finding it difficult to deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding opposing positions.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> We are a nation of laws. You get to fight for your beliefs in court. I get to fight for mine.
> 
> You want to use you religion to ignore the laws then you have to prove that you have that right and that you don't just follow the tenets of your religion when it is convenient.


Yes, we are a nation of laws and the supreme law of the land is freedom of religion as each person defines their own religion. 1A = "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." What you are arguing for is counter to your stated beliefs and counter to the USCONS. 

If my religion says I get to sin in New Orleans just before lent (Mardi Gras has never made sense to me but I'm not Catholic) then it is not up to you or the courts to interpret or measure my faith. Catholics and all the other Christians sin on occasion or follow some tenet of their faith with less purity than others. That does not mean they lose their right to religious freedom.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> And you are fine with having the court rule, and use gov't force to make people comply with things to which they have a religious objection? I'm not entering into the debate from the basis of what a Christian should or should not do, what is moral in terms of gay weddings, it is strictly from the basis of freedom and tolerance of a minority moral position. I'll point you back to my previous Qs.
> 
> Are you willing to force a black man to cater a Klan rally?
> 
> ...


There are laws to cover protected classes of people, many were legislated in the 60s under separate civil right acts. Here's a link (I know it's Wiki, inelegant but it works) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

From the link:

Race â Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color â Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion â Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin â Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) â Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex â Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy â Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship â Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status â Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status â Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status â Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information â Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

And http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/

Where do your examples fit? They don't. In order to be discriminated against a person has to be a part of a protected class. 

The atheist/Southern Baptist, I just don't know. Atheists just became a protected class in Madison, Wisconsin so that's up in the air. 

It's a moot point I'm not forcing the government to do anything. It was done because discrimination is ugly and shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

rejection hurt if you let it.....it is a personal choice.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> What is this free pass you speak of? So someone denies service based on a prejudice? They lose money. There is no real harm done to the gay wedding party or the Klansmen or the Nazis. Our constitution says freedom of religion. Not freedom of religion as defined by popular sentiment. Our constitution does not say you have a right not to be offended by even unreasonable beliefs held by others.
> 
> Your position is anti-freedom and pro-big-gov't control of the people when you think your position has the advantage. I hope you never have a minority, unpopular belief. Who will stand up for you then? I will and others who defend freedom and constitutional rights will stand up for you; let's hope there are enough of us left.
> 
> And you still didn't answer my Qs? But I guess, indirectly you did. You believe that a Black should be forced to provide service to a bunch of Klansmen and a Jew should be forced to provide service to Nazis. Actually, I doubt you believe in those positions but you are finding it difficult to deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding opposing positions.


No one is forced to open a business. No one is forced to bake that cake or sell that pizza. They are free to not do it. They however must abide by the laws or fight to have them changed. I am fighting for the right of each and every gay couple to be treated the same as the next couple that wants to buy something. That is their right and it is my right under the laws of this nation.

I have had minority unpopular beliefs my entire life. I have been discriminated against because of my sex and my race. I stand up every day to fight for my rights and the rights of those that are discriminated against.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, we are a nation of laws and the supreme law of the land is freedom of religion as each person defines their own religion. 1A = "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." What you are arguing for is counter to your stated beliefs and counter to the USCONS.
> 
> If my religion says I get to sin in New Orleans just before lent (Mardi Gras has never made sense to me but I'm not Catholic) then it is not up to you or the courts to interpret or measure my faith. Catholics and all the other Christians sin on occasion or follow some tenet of their faith with less purity than others. That does not mean they lose their right to religious freedom.


Religious freedom is not absolute.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> There are laws to cover protected classes of people, many were legislated in the 60s under separate civil right acts. Here's a link (I know it's Wiki, inelegant but it works) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
> 
> From the link:
> 
> ...



well done. You made me think just a bit. But blacks not serving Klan whites and Jews not serving Nazi whites are both race based discrimination. You might also consider that an employer should not be able to force a black employee to attend a Klan rally, which could be a title 7 violation just as an employer could not force a bodacious blond to serve a bunch of overtly sexist men grabbing her butt. So do you want to force the employer to either get sued by the offended customers or sued by the employees? 

And you dodged the intent of the questions. Do you really want to use gov't force to put someone in a position that imposes upon their religious, political, or moral values?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> I stand up every day to fight for my rights and the rights of those that are discriminated against.


Except Christians when you do not agree with their belief system.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, we are a nation of laws and the supreme law of the land is freedom of religion as each person defines their own religion. 1A = "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." What you are arguing for is counter to your stated beliefs and counter to the USCONS.
> 
> If my religion says I get to sin in New Orleans just before lent (Mardi Gras has never made sense to me but I'm not Catholic) then it is not up to you or the courts to interpret or measure my faith. Catholics and all the other Christians sin on occasion or follow some tenet of their faith with less purity than others. That does not mean they lose their right to religious freedom.


So true those that believe in having no leave let them. But those that believe and it is wrong according to THEIR believe should NOT be forced by any government, or government agency. Freedom OF Religion is outmost important in this country. And that is the way it is and was and will be into the future.
And for many years Mass was even held for Congressman This country is a Christ Like no matter how many want to change that meaning into something else. The so few that want to change this country into something it was never meant to be that should not be,.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Quite a number of the donations came from homosexuals who are against bullying....their words.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> well done. You made me think just a bit. But blacks not serving Klan whites and Jews not serving Nazi whites are both race based discrimination. You might also consider that an employer should not be able to force a black employee to attend a Klan rally, which could be a title 7 violation just as an employer could not force a bodacious blond to serve a bunch of overtly sexist men grabbing her butt. So do you want to force the employer to either get sued by the offended customers or sued by the employees?
> 
> And you dodged the intent of the questions. Do you really want to use gov't force to put someone in a position that imposes upon their religious, political, or moral values?


I'm not a lawyer of any type. I just know that you cannot force a member of a protected class to do any of the things you gave as examples. 

And I'll say it again. I didn't force the government to do anything. Groups of people fought for those rights for years. Discrimination against a person for the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is illegal. Period.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Is having protected classes in itself discrimination.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Except Christians when you do not agree with their belief system.


They don't have a right to disciminate and I don't believe they should. I don't believe that any religion has that right.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Religious freedom is not absolute.


If, as you believe, a person can be forced to do something in violation of his religion in order to be allowed to open and run a business, then not only is freedom of religion not absolute, it is non-existent. 

When SCOTUS allowed the assembly and speak of the Skokie, IL Nazis, SCOTUS was not defending their words and beliefs, it was defending their right of assembly and speech. We have these freedoms not because we need them for popular ideals, but for the unpopular, the objectionable, the offensive gatherings and speech. 

Years ago the majority passed laws that violated the rights of gays, blacks, indians, and lots of other folk. Do you really want to return to that sort of time when the majority gets to trample on unpopular minorities? ANd yes, that so called Christian belief in not serving at a gay wedding is a minority opinion. 

I find it amusing when people retreat to "we are a nation of laws" when a law they like is in direct violation of the USCONS.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Discernment might seem as discrimination.
My faith wants us to discern things.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> I'm not a lawyer of any type. I just know that you cannot force a member of a protected class to do any of the things you gave as examples.
> 
> And I'll say it again. I didn't force the government to do anything. Groups of people fought for those rights for years. Discrimination against a person for the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is illegal. Period.


OK, I'll take you at your word. You can not force a member of a protected class (religion) to do anything against their beliefs. So if a pizza shop says no gay weddings, you are OK with that. Good. we are in agreement. 

BTW - I disagree with it as policy, but at least last time I looked, gender orientation was not a protected class in most states.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> They don't have a right to disciminate and I don't believe they should. I don't believe that any religion has that right.


Sure they do. SCOTUS has ruled that religions may discriminate. Otherwise, I could be pope, or WillowG could take over as head of the Moral Majority. 

Without the right to discriminate, the organization loses the right to exist for its stated purpose. People and orgs and businesses also have the right to discriminate on the basis of non-title 7 issues. I can refuse to hire someone because I think they are stupid, tattooed, lazy, nuts, and lots of other reasons. HT can discriminate against foul mouthed trolls. Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing and is often a good thing. The word has gotten a bad rap since the 60s.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Doggonedog said:


> Atheists just became a protected class in Madison, Wisconsin so that's up in the air.


Protection from what? Show us where that mean old christian person did wrong. 
It is about forcing those with deeply-rooted religious beliefs to go against their faith, mainly Christians whose faith teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Any law that punishes for instance a Christian bakery who refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage or a Christian wedding photographer for not wanting to take pictures at a same-sex wedding, is unconstitutional. Along the same line, Atheism is already protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,* so Madison's Common Council ruling is pretty much redundant.*
Why do we need all these new laws regarding religion? We already have that right and it's already illegal for employers to discriminate regarding faith, sex, sexual orientation or race. This stuff is getting WAT out of hand.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> OK, I'll take you at your word. You can not force a member of a protected class (religion) to do anything against their beliefs. So if a pizza shop says no gay weddings, you are OK with that. Good. we are in agreement.
> 
> BTW - I disagree with it as policy, but at least last time I looked, gender orientation was not a protected class in most states.


Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace is illegal in all states. Hate crimes against gays are punishable by federal law. Twenty two states (plus DC and Puerto Rico) outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. More will be added. 

That pizza shop had every right to say they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. As far as I know they were never approached to cater a gay wedding so they didn't discriminate against anyone. If they did deny service, the people that were denied have the right to have the situation reviewed in court. The court decides, and I'm fine with that.

The debacle over the CO bakery that would violate the sanctimony of his religion with a "dog wedding cake" but wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same sex couple? The court decided he broke the law.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> *Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace is illegal in all states.* Hate crimes against gays are punishable by federal law. *Twenty two states (plus DC and Puerto Rico) outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. *More will be added.
> 
> That pizza shop had every right to say they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. As far as I know they were never approached to cater a gay wedding so they didn't discriminate against anyone. If they did deny service, the people that were denied have the right to have the situation reviewed in court. The court decides, and I'm fine with that.
> 
> The debacle over the CO bakery that would violate the sanctimony of his religion with a "dog wedding cake" but wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same sex couple? The court decided he broke the law.


I wish your first bolded statement were true but note you argue with yourself in the second bolded line. I think 22 is correct or close to it and that is up significantly since I worked in HR. There is still no fed law against sex orientation discrimination. 

Yes, the CO case was decided by a court. I assume it will get appealed. Lots of cases get over turned based on Constitutional grounds, we'll see. Maybe someone with more law experience will explain to us why lower courts at least seem to ignore the Constitution more often.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> I wish your first bolded statement were true but note you argue with yourself in the second bolded line. I think 22 is correct or close to it and that is up significantly since I worked in HR. There is still no fed law against sex orientation discrimination.
> 
> Yes, the CO case was decided by a court. I assume it will get appealed. Lots of cases get over turned based on Constitutional grounds, we'll see. Maybe someone with more law experience will explain to us why lower courts at least seem to ignore the Constitution more often.


Two different issues, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2011/12 that job discrimination against sexual orientation is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's illegal everywhere to discriminate against gays in an employment setting. Here's a link: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm

Twenty two states plus DC and Puerto Rico have laws on the books against sexual orientation discrimination- not limited to employment.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> Two different issues, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2011/12 that job discrimination against sexual orientation is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's illegal everywhere to discriminate against gays in an employment setting. Here's a link: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
> 
> Twenty two states plus DC and Puerto Rico have laws on the books against sexual orientation discrimination- not limited to employment.


Yep, more recent than my experience running an HR dept. And it puts me in a small conundrum. I'm glad the protections exist but disagree with executive branch law writing. It should be a real law, not some back door, made up bureaucratic ruling because bureaucrats could just as easily undo that ruling.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Protection from what? Show us where that mean old christian person did wrong.
> It is about forcing those with deeply-rooted religious beliefs to go against their faith, mainly Christians whose faith teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Any law that punishes for instance a Christian bakery who refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage or a Christian wedding photographer for not wanting to take pictures at a same-sex wedding, is unconstitutional. Along the same line, Atheism is already protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,* so Madison's Common Council ruling is pretty much redundant.*
> Why do we need all these new laws regarding religion? We already have that right and it's already illegal for employers to discriminate regarding faith, sex, sexual orientation or race. This stuff is getting WAT out of hand.


because people are using their "beliefs" as a smoke screen to treat people poorly. You are protected against "the state" establishing a religion, you re not protected from your neighbor treating you differently. Atheists are discriminated against when business owners tell them they wont serve them because they dont believe in God, the example given was ordering flowers for a young girl that won a court case, taking religion out of her school. but they also used the example of businesses that refused to print pamphlets and t-shirts.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If a belief system is what faith is based on.
And atheist have a personal belief would not
Atheism be a faith.

Thus haven't they been cover by the constitution.amendment no. 1.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Mama...
I have a right to practise each and every tenants of my faith....I just can't make you participate.

If my faith mean following a practice of not touching any unrelated male I can refuse to shake your husband's hand. Even if the whole world found it rude.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mrsgcpete said:


> because people are using their "beliefs" as a smoke screen to treat people poorly.


Let's take that as a fact. It is undoubtedly true because given a large enough population, you'll have every sort of bad actor represented. So what? In your system, you are still faced with gov't forcing someone to do something they have declared violates their belief system.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh how america has fallen~

Easter in NYC - circa 1956


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> To most Christians, their faith comes first and they have that right. Yes, the Bible teaches in the NT that aiding or encouraging sinful behavior is wrong. In fact, it says just wishing them "God speed" (good luck) makes you a partaker of their evil deeds. Now, to a Christian, should they ignore God's Word or follow their conscience?


It would seem that the florist chose to ignore "god's" word and profit from this relationship for long enough that she characterized these gentlemen as some of her favorite customers. I'll accept she had some epiphany and she was acting on true religous beliefs. But even those don't give a person the right to break a law. Especially a law that protects others rights. 

The good news for the religous is that there seems to be a new reward system emerging to compensate those who "follow their conscience". At $1000 per violation this florist can now pay her fine and deny service to 80 more people she disagrees with without suffering financial harm. Her conscience can remain clear and her balance sheet healthy. I'd prefer that she and the pizza makers pool their windfalls and gather others to challenge the laws they disagree with. I find it interesting that no group has done so yet or any lawyers stepped up. Perhaps they already know the law isn't on their side.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Let's take that as a fact. It is undoubtedly true because given a large enough population, you'll have every sort of bad actor represented. So what? In your system, you are still faced with gov't forcing someone to do something they have declared violates their belief system.


The government cannot force you to act against your belief system. It can exact a price from you for doing so but the choice of how strongly you value those beliefs and how you act on them is up to you.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The government cannot force you to act against your belief system. It can exact a price from you for doing so but the choice of how strongly you value those beliefs and how you act on them is up to you.


That can be said for every value. So where is the virtue is supporting the most trivial values of the favored group while dismissing the most closely held values of the unfavored?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> That can be said for every value. So where is the virtue is supporting the most trivial values of the favored group while dismissing the most closely held values of the unfavored?


Your trivial value may be my important value. So I can ask the same question of you. In the case of the florist my value is that all who walk through the door of a business are treated equally. It doesn't matter to me if the couple getting married is gay, straight, Catholic, Methodist, Muslim, Baptist, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, animist or any other. The florist sells wedding flowers- the couple wishes to buy flowers for their wedding. They're not asking that the ceremony be held in the shop or that the florist officiate or participate in the ceremony or bless their union. They want to purchase flowers from a florist whose work they know and trust to be delivered and set up at a time and place. A transaction this florist likely does every weekend. The florist can feel virtue by saying no for whatever reason they wish. If, however , that reason conflicts with the law that virtuous feeling may come with a price. In this case it did but it also came with a reward. I hope she spends this reward virtuously.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

W
The work of those preparing items for the event do so participate.

In fact it is their participation that you demand as a low master to a slave of a government.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Your trivial value may be my important value. So I can ask the same question of you. In the case of the florist my value is that all who walk through the door of a business are treated equally. It doesn't matter to me if the couple getting married is gay, straight, Catholic, Methodist, Muslim, Baptist, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, animist or any other. The florist sells wedding flowers- the couple wishes to buy flowers for their wedding. They're not asking that the ceremony be held in the shop or that the florist officiate or participate in the ceremony or bless their union. They want to purchase flowers from a florist whose work they know and trust to be delivered and set up at a time and place. A transaction this florist likely does every weekend. The florist can feel virtue by saying no for whatever reason they wish. If, however , that reason conflicts with the law that virtuous feeling may come with a price. In this case it did but it also came with a reward. I hope she spends this reward virtuously.


Yes- and that is the most serious point- dismissing the value that you don't have as trivial. In all directions. Such as treating the value of accepting all comers without discrimination versus the value of refusing participation in a sinful act. 
My present value tends to avoid forcing a choice between earning a livelihood or following a truly held, fairly common religious principle by tolerating a level of discrimination in non essential personal services. I feel distress over a person feeling rejected, but not to the level that it would cause to deprive someone of a livelihood. You feel the opposite but can only feel that way by dismissing the intensity of belief that you don't share. You demand that the few who so believe "get over it" when they won't. While I believe that so very few are in that catagory, that someone subject to that discrimination can easily avoud it, however badly they are offended. You feel that such miniscule level of insult is intolerable while I feel the world of rigid control over others is a very ugly place.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yes- and that is the most serious point- dismissing the value that you don't have as trivial. In all directions. Such as treating the value of accepting all comers without discrimination versus the value of refusing participation in a sinful act.
> My present value tends to avoid forcing a choice between earning a livelihood or following a truly held, fairly common religious principle by tolerating a level of discrimination in non essential personal services. I feel distress over a person feeling rejected, but not to the level that it would cause to deprive someone of a livelihood. You feel the opposite but can only feel that way by dismissing the intensity of belief that you don't share. You demand that the few who so believe "get over it" when they won't. While I believe that so very few are in that catagory, that someone subject to that discrimination can easily avoud it, however badly they are offended. You feel that such miniscule level of insult is intolerable while I feel the world of rigid control over others is a very ugly place.


You've obviously mischaractized my posts again. Whether on purpose or not I can only speculate. I've trivialized no ones belief or suggested they "get over it". I have said people are free to believe what they wish I will take their beliefs at face value. I have said that standing up for ones beliefs might have consequences, bad and good. Sometimes the test of the strength of those beliefs is how much one is willing to sacrifice to stand up for those beliefs. I have respect for the florist even if I disagree with her stance. I have respect for the couple wishing to get the flowers they wanted. They could have gone down the block to another flower shop, but that choice should have been theirs and theirs alone. It shouldn't have been forced on them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> W
> The work of those preparing items for the event do so participate.
> 
> In fact it is their participation that you demand as a low master to a slave of a government.


Then I'll ask again. Why was the florist not participating I this sinful relationship every time she sold the couple flowers?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You've obviously mischaractized my posts again. Whether on purpose or not I can only speculate. I've trivialized no ones belief or suggested they "get over it". I have said people are free to believe what they wish I will take their beliefs at face value. I have said that standing up for ones beliefs might have consequences, bad and good. Sometimes the test of the strength of those beliefs is how much one is willing to sacrifice to stand up for those beliefs. I have respect for the florist even if I disagree with her stance. I have respect for the couple wishing to get the flowers they wanted. They could have gone down the block to another flower shop, but that choice should have been theirs and theirs alone. It shouldn't have been forced on them.


I'll let that statement with its internal conflicts stand on its own. Every time such an internal conflict is pointed out, you come back that it is a "mischaracterization." I am not characterizing anything, although I suppose I could. 
Obviously the couple is valid in your eyes in not wanting consequences but the religious objector is wrong for the same.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As stated multiple times wedding equals marriage...loving and caring not sin.
If marriage was nothing.....why did they do it. Because it holds a meaning ...it is more than spending time, it is a vow. 

Once married their is no way to not come to the conclusion that the couple is actively seeking and participating in a sin ....for which I am barred by faith not to encourage, or support.... It is an act that moves to an open fact. Not assumption as to the nature of the relationship.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It would seem that the florist chose to ignore "god's" word and profit from this relationship for long enough that she characterized these gentlemen as some of her favorite customers. I'll accept she had some epiphany and she was acting on true religous beliefs. But even those don't give a person the right to break a law. Especially a law that protects others rights.
> 
> The good news for the religous is that there seems to be a new reward system emerging to compensate those who "follow their conscience". At $1000 per violation this florist can now pay her fine and deny service to 80 more people she disagrees with without suffering financial harm. Her conscience can remain clear and her balance sheet healthy. I'd prefer that she and the pizza makers pool their windfalls and gather others to challenge the laws they disagree with. I find it interesting that no group has done so yet or any lawyers stepped up. Perhaps they already know the law isn't on their side.


Is your position that the florist has to be mean to all gays all the time, which is not in keeping with her faith at all, in order to preserve her religious rights not to participate in a gay wedding? Your understanding of Christianity is very different than most every Christian I've ever heard of except for the evil anti-Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church. Congrats, you are in fine company. 

And where did our country go so wrong when people so casually interpret freedom of religion, which is protected by the USCONS, to include fines and jail time if you don't follow a law which violates your faith? How about if we interpret freedom of speech in a manner that you can say anything you want but the gov't gets to jail you if it doesn't like the speech? Do you think speech is still free? 

The law, the supreme law, is on the side of the Christians in this case. Laws that violate the constitution have no merit, even if a bunch of liberal justices ignore the plain language of the constitution.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Then I'll ask again. Why was the florist not participating I this sinful relationship every time she sold the couple flowers?


Because some religions consider marriage a sacrament. It is God's rules that determine that, according to the religion' tenets. 
Dealing with people who are sinners mean dealing with everyone as everyone manages to sin. Only saints are supposedly perfect and that is only a goal for the rest of humanity. And some religions actually require dealing with sinners as a duty.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The government cannot force you to act against your belief system. It can exact a price from you for doing so but the choice of how strongly you value those beliefs and how you act on them is up to you.


That is such a fundamentally, complete misunderstanding of rights that I can't describe it in HT allowable language.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> As stated multiple times wedding equals marriage...loving and caring not sin.
> If marriage was nothing.....why did they do it. Because it holds a meaning ...it is more than spending time, it is a vow.
> 
> Once married their is no way to not come to the conclusion that the couple is actively seeking and participating in a sin ....for which I am barred by faith not to encourage, or support.... It is an act that moves to an open fact. Not assumption as to the nature of the relationship.


What is the sin? Sex or loving someone of the same sex?

How does marriage mean sex more than any other committed relationship or dating or one night stands?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'll accept she had some epiphany and she was acting on true religous beliefs. But even those don't give a person the right to break a law. Especially a law that protects others rights.


What right is violated in this unconstitutional law that violates the religious rights of one citizen in favor of what rights of the shopper? Is there a constitutional right to shop? Is there a constitutional right to eat cake? Buy Flowers? NO! There is a right to freedom of religion. 

The constitution prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from violating people's rights. It does not prohibit individuals from violating the rights of others. HT violates our rights to free speech all the time. We can't cuss or use hate speech in HT. Why has there been no criminal case against HT? Because they are well within their rights. 

Engaging in commerce does not mean you lose your rights. Hobby Lobby proved that.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sex....no I clearly wrote the word

RELATIONSHIP

A Relationship status is clarified at a marriage ceremony. It is a public statement.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I guess slavery was right...no...
man screws up.... and what is being done now is destructive as if slavery was justified to have been right all along thus we change regs and laws to return to slavery.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> What is the sin? Sex or loving someone of the same sex?
> 
> How does marriage mean sex more than any other committed relationship or dating or one night stands?


Your question is irrelevant in the context of law which compels someone to violate their faith. You and I don't get to define the religion or lack thereof, of anyone but ourselves. Other people can believe all sorts of weird, irrational, goofy, and unexplainable things. That's what freedom of religion means. 

If you want your question to be in the context of changing the beliefs of the anti-gay, for lack of a better term, then I'm right there with you except that I think gov't should not be in the business of certifying anyone's relationships.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Sex....no I clearly wrote the word
> 
> RELATIONSHIP
> 
> A Relationship status is clarified at a marriage ceremony. It is a public statement.



So that would mean that any same sex couple that is having sex is a sin. That would lead me to believe that providing a cake or flowers to any same sex couple that is having sex for any celebration of that loving couple is a sin.

Therefore the cake baker or flower provider would need to make sure that they are not ever providing anything to the same sex couple for any celebration or they are participating in the sin.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Is your position that the florist has to be mean to all gays all the time, which is not in keeping with her faith at all, in order to preserve her religious rights not to participate in a gay wedding? Your understanding of Christianity is very different than most every Christian I've ever heard of except for the evil anti-Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church. Congrats, you are in fine company.
> 
> And where did our country go so wrong when people so casually interpret freedom of religion, which is protected by the USCONS, to include fines and jail time if you don't follow a law which violates your faith? How about if we interpret freedom of speech in a manner that you can say anything you want but the gov't gets to jail you if it doesn't like the speech? Do you think speech is still free?
> 
> The law, the supreme law, is on the side of the Christians in this case. Laws that violate the constitution have no merit, even if a bunch of liberal justices ignore the plain language of the constitution.


I really shouldn't have to point out to you that there are restrictions on what one can say and publish and that there are civil and criminal penalties for violating those restrictions.

Meanness has nothing to do with how I feel. From what I've read the florist wasn't mean spirited but I consider her actions inconsistent. But the law doesn't require her to consistently follow all the beliefs of her faith. It does require her to treat all of customers consistently.

And you may be right about the supreme law. It does seem that The Lord has worked in a mysterious way in rewarding her discriminatory act


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Which would no doubt get him on the losing end of a lawsuit today.
> 
> We've been warned that people would call good-bad and bad-good





Wlover said:


> So that would mean that any same sex couple that is having sex is a sin. That would lead me to believe that providing a cake or flowers to any same sex couple that is having sex for any celebration of that loving couple is a sin.
> 
> Therefore the cake baker or flower provider would need to make sure that they are not ever providing anything to the same sex couple for any celebration or they are participating in the sin.


Marriage is the event that bonds persons as a couple.....that is the function of marriage thus there is no assuming which may be false as to the relationship.

Now, you may opt to be obstinate in pretend that you do not grasps the immpatual results of marriage as a public declaration of a bonding but if the impact was not the desire why is it demanded.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I really shouldn't have to point out to you that there are restrictions on what one can say and publish and that there are civil and criminal penalties for violating those restrictions.
> 
> Meanness has nothing to do with how I feel. From what I've read the florist wasn't mean spirited but I consider her actions inconsistent. But the law doesn't require her to consistently follow all the beliefs of her faith. It does require her to treat all of customers consistently.
> 
> And you may be right about the supreme law. It does seem that The Lord has worked in a mysterious way in rewarding her discriminatory act


I shouldn't have to point out to you how flimsy is your argument. Give me a few of the limitations on free speech and let's see how applicable they are. 

And the law does not require anyone to treat customers equally. The business can reject every third customer out of spite if they want. Only title 7 protected classes can't be discriminated against.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> So that would mean that any same sex couple that is having sex is a sin. That would lead me to believe that providing a cake or flowers to any same sex couple that is having sex for any celebration of that loving couple is a sin.
> 
> Therefore the cake baker or flower provider would need to make sure that they are not ever providing anything to the same sex couple for any celebration or they are participating in the sin.


Certainly a self serving assumption made solely for the purpose of argument. For all of human history, marriage was a contract to protect the participants from abandonment or abuse while defining the duties that also applied. It was a public ceremony so that everyone knew they were exclusive and had made that contract.
In fact it makes no sense to promise to love someone in a ceremony if the basis for the ceremony was that you already loved someone. Many marriages, if not most, were not free marriages where the vows are for the couple only- they were literal contracts where the families defined the material exchange and the expected rights maybe for two people who never saw each other before the ceremony.
It was probably the most meaningful contract in most people's lives. And no wonder it's rules were mostly solemnized by religion where it became a promise to God too.
You may want it to mean something else now- certainly the Victorians changed its meanings with a large dose of romantic silliness but that does not effect the religious person's view of it. However you may object to it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Certainly a self serving assumption made solely for the purpose of argument. For all of human history, marriage was a contract to protect the participants from abandonment or abuse while defining the duties that Also applied. It was a public ceremony so that everyone knew they were exclusive.
> In fact it makes no sense to promise to love someone in a ceremony if the basis for the ceremony was that you already loved someone. Many marriages, if not most, were not free marriages where the vows are for the couple only- they were literal contracts where the families defined the material exchange and the expected rights maybe for two people who never saw each other before t h email ceremony.
> It was probably the most meaningful contract in people's lives. And no wonder it's rules were mostly solemnity by religion where it became a promise to God too.
> You may want it to mean something else now- certainly the Victorians changed its meanings with a large dose of romantic silliness but that does not effect the religious person's view of it. However you may object to it.


I agree. Marriage is either a legal or religious relationship. It has actually nothing to do with any sex act that may or may not be taking place. Therefore as the supposed sin is the actual sex act, the supplier of the goods should be checking to see if anything they are selling is going to be used to celebrate a sinful sex act.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

you guys shouldn't take the bait of getting bogged down in what is/should be marriage. This law has nothing to do with that. It is about religious freedom and some here, in a desire to do something good, to be nice and ensure fairness, are willing to trample the constitution. 

Many thought it would be good to shut up the Skokie Nazis. But fortunately the USCONS prevailed and freedom won out. If you doubt that was the better outcome, look to Europe where saying the wrong thing can get you jailed. Do we really want to fine and jail people because they act on their religious beliefs that may offend, but do no great harm to anyone else?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> I shouldn't have to point out to you how flimsy is your argument. Give me a few of the limitations on free speech and let's see how applicable they are.
> 
> And the law does not require anyone to treat customers equally. The business can reject every third customer out of spite if they want. Only title 7 protected classes can't be discriminated against.


There's a person in jail in Wisconsin for making threats on twitter and face book against Gov. Walker's son. There is no requirement in the law used to jail him that threats be credible only that they are made. Freedom of speech or not. John Adams way back in 1798 got the first Aliens and Sedition act passed. It included provisions that made speech critical of his government illegal. Other such acts have been passed and enforced throughout our history. During WWI it was against the law to speak out against the draft. There are laws dealing with obscenity. So yes, to answer your original question, the government can punish you for using language or speech they don't like.

And if the policy were to reject every seventh customer and it was done consistently even a member of the protected classes couldn't rightfully claim discrimination if they were number 7 through the door.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I'll let that statement with its internal conflicts stand on its own. Every time such an internal conflict is pointed out, you come back that it is a "mischaracterization." I am not characterizing anything, although I suppose I could.
> Obviously the couple is valid in your eyes in not wanting consequences but the religious objector is wrong for the same.


Posting that I told people to "get over it" (quotes yours) doesn't point out an internal conflict in the logic of my post. It does use a quote to imply I stated something I didn't. That would be a gross mischaracterization of my feelings. I have no problem defending my posts or my logic. I do have an issue with continually having to argue against things I am only purported to have said. I do have an issue with continually having to burn down the field of straw men that you repeatedly erect around me. 

The couple did suffer consequence from the decision of the florist. They didn't get the flowers for their wedding from the florist of their choice. Someone who's work they had purchased before and which they obviously admired and trusted to be done to their satisfaction. They suffered the consequence of having to seek out another provider and having this be part of the lore of their special day. They suffer the consequence of being criticized by people for not just tucking their tails between their legs and seeking other accomodations. But those are trivial concerns.

The florist was not forced to compromise her religous values. She wasn't firced to provide flowers for this wedding. She is required to pay a monetary price for her decision. A price that's turned into an 80 fold return on her investment. Perhaps her god has spoken in her support.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> There's a person in jail in Wisconsin for making threats on twitter and face book against Gov. Walker's son. There is no requirement in the law used to jail him that threats be credible only that they are made. Freedom of speech or not. John Adams way back in 1798 got the first Aliens and Sedition act passed. It included provisions that made speech critical of his government illegal. Other such acts have been passed and enforced throughout our history. During WWI it was against the law to speak out against the draft. There are laws dealing with obscenity. So yes, to answer your original question, the government can punish you for using language or speech they don't like.
> 
> And if the policy were to reject every seventh customer and it was done consistently even a member of the protected classes couldn't rightfully claim discrimination if they were number 7 through the door.


Please, study the constitution a bit. Read about the meaning of the individual amendments. Understand that our gov't has done a great many wrongs, lots of which have been later reversed. Alien and Sedition was not over turned because it happened before SCOTUS even knew it could overturn laws passed by Congress. The Marshall court overturned the first law in 1803 and Alien and Sedition had expired in 1800. No legal scholar I've ever heard of believes it would pass SCOUTS scrutiny today and SCOTUS has even implied in 1964 that it would overturn A&S.

During WW1, it may have been illegal to speak against the draft (I have not heard of that previously thanks for an interesting tidbit) but at least since Vietnam, that has changed. 

Obscenity laws remain a conundrum for SCOTUS that they can't explain so neither can I. It as if they acknowledge obscenity laws violate free speech but they dislike porn so much that they let the laws stand. But the internet has changed that. The gov't has lost much of its power to enforce anti porn law. 

As to a threat, a threat violates the rights of others. You don't get to violate the rights of others except in certain ways, like HT can violate my free speech rights by not providing a platform for that speech, but they can't tie me up and gag me. 

Without much effort, all your ideas are shot down but I don't even remember why that became a part of the debate. You still haven't explained why you think fines and prison for the exercise of freedom of religion does not destroy freedom of religion. The bill of rights was designed to protect us from people who share your belief. 

And thank you for reversing your position and now agreeing with me that businesses do not have to treat all customers equally.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> And thank you for reversing your position and now agreeing with me that businesses do not have to treat all customers equally.


No one has even remotely indicated that businesses are forced to treat all customers equally. If they chose to discriminate there will be consequences for their actions. No force, all choice.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Posting that I told people to "get over it" (quotes yours) doesn't point out an internal conflict in the logic of my post. It does use a quote to imply I stated something I didn't. That would be a gross mischaracterization of my feelings. I have no problem defending my posts or my logic. I do have an issue with continually having to argue against things I am only purported to have said. I do have an issue with continually having to burn down the field of straw men that you repeatedly erect around me.
> 
> The couple did suffer consequence from the decision of the florist. They didn't get the flowers for their wedding from the florist of their choice. Someone who's work they had purchased before and which they obviously admired and trusted to be done to their satisfaction. They suffered the consequence of having to seek out another provider and having this be part of the lore of their special day. They suffer the consequence of being criticized by people for not just tucking their tails between their legs and seeking other accomodations. But those are trivial concerns.
> 
> The florist was not forced to compromise her religous values. She wasn't firced to provide flowers for this wedding. She is required to pay a monetary price for her decision. A price that's turned into an 80 fold return on her investment. Perhaps her god has spoken in her support.


How can you say she didn't have to compromise her values when she was willing to fight for her values to such an extent? And you still haven't told us what right she violated of the gay wedding crew. And your description of their suffering shows the florist was not fair, mean, maybe even foolish. But that is her right. No rights of the customers were violated. You previously said they were but still haven't told us which rights.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> How can you say she didn't have to compromise her values when she was willing to fight for her values to such an extent? And you still haven't told us what right she violated of the gay wedding crew. And your description of their suffering shows the florist was not fair, mean, maybe even foolish. But that is her right. No rights of the customers were violated. You previously said they were but still haven't told us which rights.


The answer to your second question is that everyone has the the right to equal protection under the law as codified in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One right doesn't override another right. They must coexist in some balance. In this case the balance is that religion cannot be used as an excuse to discriminate against a protected class. The saddest part, to me , is that protected classes gave to exist at all.

The florist compromised nothing. She wasn't required to do anything that violated her religion unless she now wants to claim that paying a fine for breaking a law somehow conflicts with her religous views. I might try that on my next speeding ticket.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Please, study the constitution a bit. Read about the meaning of the individual amendments. Understand that our gov't has done a great many wrongs, lots of which have been later reversed. Alien and Sedition was not over turned because it happened before SCOTUS even knew it could overturn laws passed by Congress. The Marshall court overturned the first law in 1803 and Alien and Sedition had expired in 1800. No legal scholar I've ever heard of believes it would pass SCOUTS scrutiny today and SCOTUS has even implied in 1964 that it would overturn A&S.
> 
> During WW1, it may have been illegal to speak against the draft (I have not heard of that previously thanks for an interesting tidbit) but at least since Vietnam, that has changed.
> 
> ...


It's good that we're all capable of still learning new things. The same law that jailed the young man for threats has a clause that can be used against obscenity. I'll point out again that the threats made were never found credible, they just existed. I could also bring up laws pertaining to slander and libel. Both of which can result in government sanctioned penalties. Then we can move to the restrictions placed on where, when and how one can exercise the right to speak freely. So my answer to your original question about laws restricting free speech stands. The government has, continues to do, and will in the future restrict free speech.

I prefer to think of it as a clarification of my stance (to use current political jargon) rather than a reversal. I'll be firing an intern soon.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> I agree. Marriage is either a legal or religious relationship. It has actually nothing to do with any sex act that may or may not be taking place. Therefore as the supposed sin is the actual sex act, the supplier of the goods should be checking to see if anything they are selling is going to be used to celebrate a sinful sex act.


Your right that the sexual act is not specified for a marriage to exist- it was an assumption on of a heterosexual contract as the person's who needed protection were the children of the marriage and their parents relation. 
Therefore a 'loving relationship' as a basis for solemnized as a marriage is self indulgent nonsense created out a rationalization.
No one is obligated to monitor the sinfulness of another party except as specified under law. So there is no basis for claiming a lack of monitoring as showing a lack of religious basis for not participating in gay marriage. 
Hitching two unrelated ideas together does not make them the same. The religious person sees a difference based on the tenets of their religion. And that is all that is required of them to meet the laws covering protection of religion. Without an overriding need of the government to force this small group into compliance, they are protected.
There is no rule that everyone must be made happy- just that they have as much freedom to define their own happiness as possible.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The answer to your second question is that everyone has the the right to equal protection under the law as codified in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One right doesn't override another right. They must coexist in some balance. In this case the balance is that religion cannot be used as an excuse to discriminate against a protected class. The saddest part, to me , is that protected classes gave to exist at all.
> 
> The florist compromised nothing. She wasn't required to do anything that violated her religion unless she now wants to claim that paying a fine for breaking a law somehow conflicts with her religous views. I might try that on my next speeding ticket.


Please, please read the constitution. It only take a few minutes. Every citizen should have an understanding of it. 

Here is the text of the equal protection clause: 

_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

I can see where it applies to gov'ts. Explain to me where it applies to bakers and florists. In most cases, the USCONS limits gov't, not individual citizens. 

And for you to keep saying you get to define her religion and when it is violated means she doesn't have freedom of religion, it means you have control of her religion. I'll say again, your thinking is just the reason we needed a bill of rights, so that politicians with your thought process do not infringe, deny, and crush the rights of citizens. 

The gay wedding couple did not have any rights denied. Though your argument rests upon them having rights denied, you can't explain how or what rights.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Please, please read the constitution. It only take a few minutes. Every citizen should have an understanding of it.
> 
> Here is the text of the equal protection clause:
> 
> ...


Pay particular attention to that last line. The law in DC makes it unlawfully to deny service based on sexual orientation. To deny them service breaks this law. To ignore that breakage denies them the right of equal protection under that law.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I believe that her right for following her faith specifically spelled out in the first amendment of the BILL of Rights.

I believe this as many also believed that Jim crow laws were wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Pay particular attention to that last line. The law in DC makes it unlawfully to deny service based on sexual orientation. To deny them service breaks this law. To ignore that breakage denies them the right of equal protection under that law.


So, the flower person needs to work the case up to the supreme court to sue the pants or dresses off because she now has standings in as much as she has been harmed and thus impacted. 

Sue like the homosexuals did.

Perhaps a go fund me to raise funds for such a legal battle should be formed.
I'm


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> So, the flower person needs to work the case up to the supreme court to sue the pants or dresses off because she now has standings in as much as she has been harmed and thus impacted.
> 
> Sue like the homosexuals did.
> 
> ...


I suggested it earlier. She's already got a start.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I want the florist to win cause I love freedom.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It's good that we're all capable of still learning new things. The same law that jailed the young man for threats has a clause that can be used against obscenity. I'll point out again that the threats made were never found credible, they just existed. I could also bring up laws pertaining to slander and libel. Both of which can result in government sanctioned penalties. Then we can move to the restrictions placed on where, when and how one can exercise the right to speak freely. So my answer to your original question about laws restricting free speech stands. The government has, continues to do, and will in the future restrict free speech.
> 
> I prefer to think of it as a clarification of my stance (to use current political jargon) rather than a reversal. I'll be firing an intern soon.


I don't want to be in the position of defending every gov't action because I so often disagree with gov't and as we have seen so often, SCOTUS has to frequently slap down the Pres and Congress for violating the USCONS. So citing a case where the gov't did something, when all facts are not know and I have no interest in delving into that case, is not exactly bolstering your argument any more so than if I were to cite SCOTUS decisions allowing slavery would make it right for me to buy and sell a man. 

I have no doubt gov't will continue to restrict free speech. That's what power mad people do. Hopefully SCOTUS will keep slapping those, like Universities, which create illegal and unconstitutional restrictions on time and place. You could just as easily say the fact that a man robbed a bank means it is legal. Just because it happens does not make it right. 

Laws pertaining to slander and libel have effect when the injured person can show a loss due to the actions. Where is the loss to the gay party?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Pay particular attention to that last line. The law in DC makes it unlawfully to deny service based on sexual orientation. To deny them service breaks this law. To ignore that breakage denies them the right of equal protection under that law.


You are still not getting it. Equal protection applies to the *gov't*; I even quoted the relevant passage you tried to invoke. *The gov't* must give equal protection to the citizens. The 14th Amendment does not require me to treat you equal to Kasil. The fact that there is a law which infringes upon constitutional rights does not make it constitutional. See the anti-gun laws which were interacted largely because racists wanted to ensure (negative word for black people) did not carry guns. It was unconstitutional because of equal protection and it was unconstitutional based on 2A violations. Those laws stood for 100 years or more and almost all of them have been overturned. The point, merely citing that a law exists does not prove the law valid. 

The religious rights of the bakers and florists were violated, but no rights were violated by cake and flower buyers. I'm still waiting on you to tell me why the rights of some can be violated merely because you value the desires of others more.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MMOTEC - you are concerned with equal protection under the law. Here's a story that proves there is none. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2015/04/08/colorado-double-standard-bakers-should-not-be-forced-to-make-antigay-cakes-n1982369


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> MMOTEC - you are concerned with equal protection under the law. Here's a story that proves there is none.
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2015/04/08/colorado-double-standard-bakers-should-not-be-forced-to-make-antigay-cakes-n1982369


Has this baker made and sold cakes with these messages before? If not there no requirement for him to do so in the future. The complainants in the original case didn't ask for anything the bakery hadn't done and sold before. They were denied the opportunity to buy a cake even before discussion of what that cake would look like occurred.


I'll refer you to Reynold v. US, the 1879 decision that upheld the ban on polygamy. Here's a quote from the decision that says government "is deprived all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to rule on actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." I'd say that allowing people to use their religous beliefs to discriminate is subversive to good order and could only lead to more problems. You're free to disagree and violate this or any law you wish. You're also free to pay the penalty for doing so.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> You are still not getting it. Equal protection applies to the *gov't*; I even quoted the relevant passage you tried to invoke. *The gov't* must give equal protection to the citizens. The 14th Amendment does not require me to treat you equal to Kasil. The fact that there is a law which infringes upon constitutional rights does not make it constitutional. See the anti-gun laws which were interacted largely because racists wanted to ensure (negative word for black people) did not carry guns. It was unconstitutional because of equal protection and it was unconstitutional based on 2A violations. Those laws stood for 100 years or more and almost all of them have been overturned. The point, merely citing that a law exists does not prove the law valid.
> 
> The religious rights of the bakers and florists were violated, but no rights were violated by cake and flower buyers. I'm still waiting on you to tell me why the rights of some can be violated merely because you value the desires of others more.


There are no Constitutional scholars here, Deke. Unless you're claiming to be? If so, a peek at your CV? Please? 

At this time, the courts have found against the baker and florist is question, correct? They have been charged with violating the rights of two gay couples, correct? Therefore, at this time the law the businesses violated is not unconstitutional, correct? 

What you fail to realize it took years to change the oppression laws, and they are still evolving. Are they unconstitutional? I don't know, and neither do you. For the sake of this country I hope they are never found to be. 

A polite suggestion, please stop badgering.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Doggonedog said:


> There are no Constitutional scholars here, Deke. Unless you're claiming to be? If so, a peek at your CV? Please?
> 
> At this time, the courts have found against the baker and florist is question, correct? They have been charged with violating the rights of two gay couples, correct? Therefore, at this time the law the businesses violated is not unconstitutional, correct?
> 
> ...


No, let him ask and offer counter opinion all he wishes. It motivates me to delve deeper and research more. It might even prove me wrong and get me to rethink my views. Doubtful but it's happened. I've enjoyed this discussion. He hasn't been out of bounds in his tactics just fervent in his beliefs, both of wish I appreciate and respect. Carry on.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> No, let him ask and offer counter opinion all he wishes. It motivates me to delve deeper and research more. It might even prove me wrong and get me to rethink my views. Doubtful but it's happened. I've enjoyed this discussion. He hasn't been out of bounds in his tactics just fervent in his beliefs, both of wish I appreciate and respect. Carry on.


As long as you're having fun. "Lay on, MacDuff."


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> There are no Constitutional scholars here, Deke. Unless you're claiming to be? If so, a peek at your CV? Please?
> 
> At this time, the courts have found against the baker and florist is question, correct? They have been charged with violating the rights of two gay couples, correct? Therefore, at this time the law the businesses violated is not unconstitutional, correct?
> 
> ...


I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I do enjoy logic and reading scholarly work, which is why I have enjoyed this thread.

Your thought process in parag 2 is flawed. The law in question has yet to be ruled unconstitutional but that does not make it constitutional. Every law that was ruled unconstitutional was unconstitutional before the SCOTUS ruled it so; the SCOTUS decision merely made it clear to all and gave powers to the various gov'ts to act to invalidate actions, reverse court cases, etc

Why do you assume I do not realize it took years to reverse oppression laws? Isn't that what we are talking about in the greater context, oppression by the gov't of religious freedom. I've mentioned anti-gun laws and the 100+ years it has taken to reverse those unconstitutional laws which were always unconstitutional, but were used to oppress freedom until several SCOTUS decisions over the last 20 years. 

And why do you say I'm badgering? Because I'm expressing an opinion with which you disagree? 

I applaud MMOTEC for his response. I've learned a lot this week because of this discussion with him. I've read info about SCOTUS decisions I've never seen before and I think I even applauded you for making me thing about some new info. 

If you want this discussion to end, simply don't reply and I'll get bored and move on. 

Lastly, some times in the heat of battle, I am less than polite and politic in my responses. I apologize for my indiscretions.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> No, let him ask and offer counter opinion all he wishes. It motivates me to delve deeper and research more. It might even prove me wrong and get me to rethink my views. Doubtful but it's happened. I've enjoyed this discussion. He hasn't been out of bounds in his tactics just fervent in his beliefs, both of wish I appreciate and respect. Carry on.


Your view point is appreciated.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Has this baker made and sold cakes with these messages before? If not there no requirement for him to do so in the future.
> 
> *You want to think about that again? I can't refuse service to blacks because I have never served blacks before and I can refuse service to those without shirts and shoes even though I might have done it before. *
> 
> ...


I don't think I understand the quote and invite you to expand on the thought if you like. However, many universities in the last decade or so have set up free speech zones to control the content, time, and place of speech. They say it is necessary to maintain good order on campus...to protect people from objectionable speech. In the cases I have seen, the courts have consistently ruled against the Universities because of 1A violations. Our concept of good order has evolved in the last 100 years as we have learned more about excessive gov't. Several laws you have cited, Alien and Sedition, WW1 anti-draft speech, were also a good order laws, but we now know they can not pass SCOTUS examination. 

Am I correct in assuming you have abandoned the equal protection argument?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> No one has even remotely indicated that businesses are forced to treat all customers equally. If they chose to discriminate there will be consequences for their actions. No force, all choice.


MMOTEC has explicitly stated that gays must be served because of equal protection. 

You and MMOTEC keep saying that no force is involved, only choice. If I hold a gun to your head and say have sex with me or die, are you saying that is a free choice? Coercion and duress are legally valid claims of a lack of free choice. I would be guilty of rape if you chose to have sex rather than die. 

Likewise, if the gov't says, you have the choice to make that cake or pay a fine and if you don;'t pay the fine we will confiscate your bakery and send you to jail, that is not free choice, that is coercion, duress, and oppression in violation of 1A.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I do enjoy logic and reading scholarly work, which is why I have enjoyed this thread.
> 
> Your thought process in parag 2 is flawed. The law in question has yet to be ruled unconstitutional but that does not make it constitutional. Every law that was ruled unconstitutional was unconstitutional before the SCOTUS ruled it so; the SCOTUS decision merely made it clear to all and gave powers to the various gov'ts to act to invalidate actions, reverse court cases, etc
> 
> ...


I don't think my thought process is flawed in this situation, just as it wasn't when I desiccated your original dissertation of the situation. We can agree to disagree though. 

I have learned that badgering is suggestive, so I will acquiesce to those who enjoy it.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> I don't think my thought process is flawed in this situation, just as it wasn't when I desiccated your original dissertation of the situation. We can agree to disagree though.
> 
> I have learned that badgering is suggestive, so I will acquiesce to those who enjoy it.


You may not want to believe your thought process is flawed, but I just laid out logically why it is. If you wish to merely counter with a "no, you didn't" then I will refer you to Monty Python's classic Argument Clinic sketch, the part at 1:50 seconds is particularly relevant. 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/ame]

You did not desiccate (means dehydrate) my original dissertation. So I don't understand that point. Please clarify...or not if you don't want to discuss this further. And badgering may be subjective, but I'm not chasing anyone down and forcing them to listen to my thoughts. We all come here freely to discuss this matter. Don't participate if you don't enjoy the discussion.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

desiccate
verb desÂ·icÂ·cate \&#712;de-si-&#716;k&#257;t\
desÂ·icÂ·catÂ·eddesÂ·icÂ·catÂ·ing
Definition of DESICCATE

transitive verb
1
: to dry up
2
: to preserve (a food) by drying : dehydrate
3
: *to drain of emotional or intellectual vitality*

Have the day you deserve.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> desiccate
> verb desÂ·icÂ·cate \&#712;de-si-&#716;k&#257;t\
> desÂ·icÂ·catÂ·eddesÂ·icÂ·catÂ·ing
> Definition of DESICCATE
> ...


Yes, I know. It was not a well chosen word. I assumed it was an auto correct error just as I assumed your word choice of "suggestive" was an error and tried to ignore it. I was not trying to evoke sexual feelings in you nor was I trying to make you think of other topics except as they are analogous to our 1A discussion. I believe you meant "subjective". 

I try not to correct grammar and spelling errors because I make far to many of my own. But I did think it was fair to ask for clarification when your words were unclear.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just asking why selling them flowers to help their relationship isn't tempting them or aiding in their sin but selling flowers for a ceremony to codify that same relationship is? So if my faith says heterosexuality is a sin I can refuse you without being discriminatory.


You, and others, have been answered a bazillion times. That you won't accept that answer is just a demonstration of intolerance. Just as you cry intolerance when a person refuses to acknowledge marriage can exist in other than in a heterosexual relationship because they will not accept the gay person's value at face value, not accepting that a religious has a relationship to his God that demands certain actions is also intolerant. Just because you don't have that value, you won't accept it as real. No matter how limited , its existence at all is an offense you will not tolerate.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Since it is critical to the topic at hand: The first amendment of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The bolding is mine. Some have stated we must follow the law. Do you agree Congress must follow the law, the USCONS, which limits its powers? Here's what TJ says of the matter: 

&#8220;Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.&#8221; (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Since it is critical to the topic at hand: The first amendment of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> The bolding is mine. Some have stated we must follow the law. Do you agree Congress must follow the law, the USCONS, which limits its powers? Here's what TJ says of the matter:
> 
> âEvery law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.â (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)


The constitution and all of its amendements exist and operate in a balance. The First Amendment doesn't operate in supremacy of the others but in conjunction with them. Let's take your adherence of the free practice of religion. Can I stone an adulter? Why not? Many here fear Sharia law. What is it but the free practice of a religion?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The constitution and all of its amendements exist and operate in a balance. The First Amendment doesn't operate in supremacy of the others but in conjunction with them. Let's take your adherence of the free practice of religion. Can I stone an adulter? Why not? Many here fear Sharia law. What is it but the free practice of a religion?


The Consitution is about limiting the government from certain actions, not you. Unless the government, in all its levels, has an overriding interest in achieving a goal and has no other less intrusive way of achieving that goal, it can not limit the rights of others. And one of those rights is religious non interference. 
So, the government can't tell you that you can not practice sharia law in your private life. Where that freedom ends is when you insist that others follow it. And if you try to establish a parallel justice system to compete with the government's, it becomes an overriding interest to limit it.
You keep confusing a religious principle with your own social value. So you suggest that a person of religious values would stone an adulterer because you vaguely remember that from the bible, neverminding the story that ended with Jesus saying "go and sin no more." But the point for a religious person would be to consider an adulterer as sinner and even might exclude them from their church if they persist in that behavior but that is as far as most Christian sects would go. I have heard of Islamic states stoning people but they do not differentiate between religious and state law.
Since we do have such a thing there is both a limit to what actions a person can take based on religion and what the government is allowed to take based on their laws. The government's limit is to make sure it has no other way of accomplishing a goal, which must be clearly defined and have limits, and that goal is of overriding need. It is not simply whether you or a majority think the religion is wrong but whether the government and religion can coexist without limiting the practice of relgion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> The Consitution is about limiting the government from certain actions, not you. Unless the government, in all its levels, has an overriding interest in achieving a goal and has no other less intrusive way of achieving that goal, it can not limit the rights of others. And one of those rights is religious non interference.
> So, the government can't tell you that you can not practice sharia law in your private life. Where that freedom ends is when you insist that others follow it. And if you try to establish a parallel justice system to compete with the government's, it becomes an overriding interest to limit it.
> You keep confusing a religious principle with your own social value. So you suggest that a person of religious values would stone an adulterer because you vaguely remember that from the bible, neverminding the story that ended with Jesus saying "go and sin no more." But the point for a religious person would be to consider an adulterer as sinner and even might exclude them from their church if they persist in that behavior but that is as far as most Christian sects would go. I have heard of Islamic states stoning people but they do not differentiate between religious and state law.
> Since we do have such a thing there is both a limit to what actions a person can take based on religion and what the government is allowed to take based on their laws. The government's limit is to make sure it has no other way of accomplishing a goal, which must be clearly defined and have limits, and that goal is of overriding need. It is not simply whether you or a majority think the religion is wrong but whether the government and religion can coexist without limiting the practice of relgion.


Thanks for finally agreeing with me that the government can place restrictions on religous behavior that affects others.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

where I want to said:


> The Consitution is about limiting the government from certain actions, not you. Unless the government, in all its levels, has an overriding interest in achieving a goal and has no other less intrusive way of achieving that goal, it can not limit the rights of others. And one of those rights is religious non interference.
> So, the government can't tell you that you can not practice sharia law in your private life. Where that freedom ends is when you insist that others follow it. And if you try to establish a parallel justice system to compete with the government's, it becomes an overriding interest to limit it.
> You keep confusing a religious principle with your own social value. So you suggest that a person of religious values would stone an adulterer because you vaguely remember that from the bible, neverminding the story that ended with Jesus saying "go and sin no more." But the point for a religious person would be to consider an adulterer as sinner and even might exclude them from their church if they persist in that behavior but that is as far as most Christian sects would go. I have heard of Islamic states stoning people but they do not differentiate between religious and state law.
> Since we do have such a thing there is both a limit to what actions a person can take based on religion and what the government is allowed to take based on their laws. The government's limit is to make sure it has no other way of accomplishing a goal, which must be clearly defined and have limits, and that goal is of overriding need. It is not simply whether you or a majority think the religion is wrong but whether the government and religion can coexist without limiting the practice of relgion.


well said.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for finally agreeing with me that the government can place restrictions on religous behavior that affects others.


Of that there is no doubt and it has been at least inferred previously in this thread. The old saw about my rights to swing my arms stop at your nose is apropos. My religious rights do not trump your religious rights so the gov't can prohibit my desire to throw virgins in a volcano when the virgins would prefer to be out picking grapes. And that brings us back to the issue of what right has the baker/florist infringed upon the gay wedding couple? None. The gays still have their religious, speech, assembly, etc, rights intact. 

Remember of course, that just because you have a right does not give you the right to demand your right be accommodated by the gov't or other citizens. I have a right to attend (or not) the church of my choice. But I do not have a right to force anyone to build that church for me.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The constitution and all of its amendements exist and operate in a balance. The First Amendment doesn't operate in supremacy of the others but in conjunction with them. Let's take your adherence of the free practice of religion. Can I stone an adulter? Why not? Many here fear Sharia law. What is it but the free practice of a religion?


Sharia law is about imposing one person's religious values on someone else. You can believe all you want that Sharia law is the correct way for everyone to lead their lives. The balance you correctly advocate means your right to your belief does not trump my right to my belief. 

So the baker/florist can not use their religion to legally justify force to prevent the gay couple form creating a union in a state where it is legal, but the baker/florist can believe and denounce that the union is the devil's work. Once again, let me point out that I'm advocating for both the gay union and the free exercise of religion. Both can exist at the same time which is the proper balance. The baker not baking a cake does not stop the gay wedding from taking place.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Sharia law is about imposing one person's religious values on someone else. You can believe all you want that Sharia law is the correct way for everyone to lead their lives. The balance you correctly advocate means your right to your belief does not trump my right to my belief.
> 
> So the baker/florist can not use their religion to legally justify force to prevent the gay couple form creating a union in a state where it is legal, but the baker/florist can believe and denounce that the union is the devil's work. Once again, let me point out that I'm advocating for both the gay union and the free exercise of religion. Both can exist at the same time which is the proper balance. The baker not baking a cake does not stop the gay wedding from taking place.


Sharia law supports are akin to militant fractions of any society that wish to control and hold power by force. Maybe I have a few friends who are homosexuals because I have my limits and do not force them to theconfessional at church. I accept that my rights are just as important as others but that we both have to know that enforcement of a right ends right where another's right begins. My love lifestyle choices need only impact me but for what others take as an example that others freely appreciate.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Sharia law is about imposing one person's religious values on someone else. You can believe all you want that Sharia law is the correct way for everyone to lead their lives. The balance you correctly advocate means your right to your belief does not trump my right to my belief.
> 
> So the baker/florist can not use their religion to legally justify force to prevent the gay couple form creating a union in a state where it is legal, but the baker/florist can believe and denounce that the union is the devil's work. Once again, let me point out that I'm advocating for both the gay union and the free exercise of religion. Both can exist at the same time which is the proper balance. The baker not baking a cake does not stop the gay wedding from taking place.


Sharia law supports are akin to militant fractions of any society that wish to control and hold power by force. Maybe I have a few friends who are homosexuals because I have my limits and do not force them to theconfessional at church. I accept that my rights are just as important as others but that we both have to know that enforcement of a right ends right where another's right begins. My lifestyle choices need only impact me but for what others take as an example that others freely appreciate.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Sharia law is about imposing one person's religious values on someone else. You can believe all you want that Sharia law is the correct way for everyone to lead their lives. The balance you correctly advocate means your right to your belief does not trump my right to my belief.
> 
> So the baker/florist can not use their religion to legally justify force to prevent the gay couple form creating a union in a state where it is legal, but the baker/florist can believe and denounce that the union is the devil's work. Once again, let me point out that I'm advocating for both the gay union and the free exercise of religion. Both can exist at the same time which is the proper balance. The baker not baking a cake does not stop the gay wedding from taking place.


Nor does selling a cake change the bakers opinion of such a union. Wishing to impose Sharia law on nonbelelievers is no different than Christians wishing to impose their law on nonbelelievers by defining marriage only by their tenants. But what of Sharia law or any other religous law practiced only among believers. Punishable or not?

But back to the subject at hand. I've pointed out repeatedly that the right to equal protection under the laws is what is being removed. The couple has the right to be accommodated. It's a right as important as the right to religous freedom. It's the right that answers the question above. We can continue to argue our way in circles or agree to disagree.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So it's ok to profit from caring loving homosexuals as long as they don't ask to have that caring loving relationship legally recognized? I'm not sure how selling them flowers for an anniversary, birth day or date night is all that different than providing the same flowers for a wedding. It may be if she had ended up on food stamps, living in an rv and unable to find work as a florist we could discuss how actions and words have consequences.


Do you really have to ask that? Do you think Christians are that pigheaded? What if I bought flowers for my neighbors' b.day. The same as if I did for a wedding? C'mon, man. 
How 'bout I buy you a gun when you say you'll kill yourself w/it. The same as if I buy you one that you say you'll hunt with?
Gads.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, I know. It was not a well chosen word. I assumed it was an auto correct error just as I assumed your word choice of "suggestive" was an error and tried to ignore it. I was not trying to evoke sexual feelings in you nor was I trying to make you think of other topics except as they are analogous to our 1A discussion. I believe you meant "subjective".
> 
> I try not to correct grammar and spelling errors because I make far to many of my own. But I did think it was fair to ask for clarification when your words were unclear.


It was the perfect word for the situation, in my opinion. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. 

Yes, I made an error, I'm not a bot. You knew that I meant subjective (obviously) yet you decided to call me out on it. Hmm. 

Have the day you deserve.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> There is a huge difference between a "want" and a "law."
> 
> I find it odd that a florist can take a gay person's money for flowers for every other occasion in a couple's relationship but simply can't for religious reasons because of their lawful marriage. Just smacks of hypocrisy to me.
> 
> Seems like after a couple of birthday/anniversary/just because flower cards that read, "To John, You are the love of my life and I'm so grateful that we are together. Love Always, Tom" they'd draw the conclusion that this was a same sex couple?


So now some are privvy to the cards? 
Why cannot some see that participating in something against your religion cannot be condoned. Why?
Are you libs ready to force the muslim flower shop /restaurant/photographer to participate in gay marriage? Are you ready to force the muslim caterer to provide pork? To cater the gay wedding? Gads, they won't wait on gays for any reason! They kill gays in their home country!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just asking why selling them flowers to help their relationship isn't tempting them or aiding in their sin but selling flowers for a ceremony to codify that same relationship is? So if my faith says heterosexuality is a sin I can refuse you without being discriminatory.


No one knows what goes on in their home, To pretend to is ludicrous. Many folks live in the same home. Nothing strange, nothing should be construed there. None of anyone's biz. Brothers live together. Sisters live together. Many live together & love one another. 
Some of you non-conserves pick the strangest fights. Trying to see hate b/c you are projecting? I really want to understand here. B/c no one is making sense to say flowers shouldn't be sold to same sex people.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> So now some are privvy to the cards?
> Why cannot some see that participating in something agaisnt your religion cannot be condoned. Why?
> Are you libs ready to force the muslim flower shop /restaurant/photographer to participate in gay marriage? Are you ready to force the muslim caterer to provide pork? To cater the gay wedding? Gads, they won't wait on gays for any reason! They kill gays in their home country!


When you order flowers don't you have the arrangement sent with a small card? I do. You tell the florist what you'd like printed on the card. 

Why can't some see that the religious business owner has a choice? They don't have to have a business relationship with anyone, but if they deny service that is discriminatory they could be sanctioned. It's really not that hard to understand.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> No one knows what goes on in their home, To pretend to is ludicrous. Many folks live in the same home. Nothing strange, nothing should be construed there. None of anyone's biz. Brothers live together. Sisters live together. Many live together & love one another.
> Some of you non-conserves pick the strangest fights. Trying to see hate b/c you are projecting? I really want to understand here. B/c no one is making sense to say flowers shouldn't be sold to same sex people.


No one said that flowers should not be sold to gay people. Where on earth did you come up with that? 

The post in question was about a florist that had done arrangements for a gay couple for years, but suddenly couldn't do the flowers for their wedding because it was against her religion. I don't know how to explain it more simply.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> I am very bothered by people that only commit part time their religion. Chasing only the big sensational sins.


So you judge others frequently? Why is this such a bother to you? Why not allow them to just live their lives? why meddle like that? Why is it you think OTHERS should be PERFECT? do you not know that no human is perfect?
Which sins do you want them to ignore? Why is your list the one to go by?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> My opinion. Though I think that the Colorado cake case was lost because they baked a wedding cake for dogs showing that baking wedding cakes was not all about their beliefs for them.


I remember you using this analogy b/4. Hilarious!
Has NOTHING to do w/anything except perhaps to show how loving the bakery is.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> I remember you using this analogy b/4. Hilarious!
> Has NOTHING to do w/anything except perhaps to show how loving the bakery is.


The baker said he was so pious that making a cake for a gay wedding was against his religion. However he was perfectly willing to mock the sanctimony of marriage by baking a cake for a dog wedding. 

Do you understand now?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you really have to ask that? Do you think Christians are that pigheaded? What if I bought flowers for my neighbors' b.cay. The same as if I did for a wedding? C'mon, man.
> How 'bout I buy you a gun when you say you'll kill yourself w/it. The same as if I buy you one that you say you'll hunt with?
> Gads.


I'd say if you knew I was depressed, suicidal and psycotic buying me a gun for "hunting" might not be the best course of action. Your culpability in my subsequent suicide will be between you, your conscience, and your god.

Just as selling flowers for a variety of occasions to a gay couple seems to make you a participant in their relationship. At least as much, to me, as selling them flowers for their wedding makes you a participant in that ceremony. You can practice don't ask, don't tell and the law says you don't have to consistently practice your beliefs to make them valid. What your god says is between you and her.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> So you judge others frequently? Why is this such a bother to you? Why not allow them to just live their lives? why meddle like that? Why is it you think OTHERS should be PERFECT? do you not know that no human is perfect?
> Which sins do you want them to ignore? Why is your list the one to go by?


You seem to be bothered by many, many things that others do or believe. In fact you are judging me right now. Kettle meet pot.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I remember you using this analogy b/4. Hilarious!
> Has NOTHING to do w/anything except perhaps to show how loving the bakery is.


The reason the court case was lost so it has everything to do with it. You just don't agree with the ruling.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> W
> The work of those preparing items for the event do so participate.
> 
> In fact it is their participation that you demand as a low master to a slave of a government.


And if the atheist florist won't cater the Catholic wedding...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Then I'll ask again. Why was the florist not participating I this sinful relationship every time she sold the couple flowers?


I'll tell you again. There was NO KNOWN sinful act. NO ONE could possible know. Did she live w/them? Even if she did, did she stand in their bedroom?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Is your position that the florist has to be mean to all gays all the time, which is not in keeping with her faith at all, in order to preserve her religious rights not to participate in a gay wedding? Your understanding of Christianity is very different than most every Christian I've ever heard of except for the evil anti-Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church. Congrats, you are in fine company.
> 
> And where did our country go so wrong when people so casually interpret freedom of religion, which is protected by the USCONS, to include fines and jail time if you don't follow a law which violates your faith? How about if we interpret freedom of speech in a manner that you can say anything you want but the gov't gets to jail you if it doesn't like the speech? Do you think speech is still free?
> 
> The law, the supreme law, is on the side of the Christians in this case. Laws that violate the constitution have no merit, even if a bunch of liberal justices ignore the plain language of the constitution.


Post of the century award.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> And if the atheist florist won't cater the Catholic wedding...


They'd be subject to the same laws. That's how equal protection works.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll tell you again. There was NO KNOWN sinful act. NO ONE could possible know. Did she live w/them? Even if she did, did she stand in their bedroom?


It's not us you have to convince of your ignorance of their actions. It's that greater power you believe in you must reconcile with.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Duplicate post


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Has this baker made and sold cakes with these messages before? If not there no requirement for him to do so in the future. The complainants in the original case didn't ask for anything the bakery hadn't done and sold before. They were denied the opportunity to buy a cake even before discussion of what that cake would look like occurred.
> 
> 
> I'll refer you to Reynold v. US, the 1879 decision that upheld the ban on polygamy. Here's a quote from the decision that says government "is deprived all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to rule on actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." I'd say that allowing people to use their religous beliefs to discriminate is subversive to good order and could only lead to more problems. You're free to disagree and violate this or any law you wish. You're also free to pay the penalty for doing so.


Hmmm...so does that polygamy case define marriage as b/w 1 man & 1 woman?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> The Consitution is about limiting the government from certain actions, not you. Unless the government, in all its levels, has an overriding interest in achieving a goal and has no other less intrusive way of achieving that goal, it can not limit the rights of others. And one of those rights is religious non interference.
> So, the government can't tell you that you can not practice sharia law in your private life. Where that freedom ends is when you insist that others follow it. And if you try to establish a parallel justice system to compete with the government's, it becomes an overriding interest to limit it.
> You keep confusing a religious principle with your own social value. So you suggest that a person of religious values would stone an adulterer because you vaguely remember that from the bible, neverminding the story that ended with Jesus saying "go and sin no more." But the point for a religious person would be to consider an adulterer as sinner and even might exclude them from their church if they persist in that behavior but that is as far as most Christian sects would go. I have heard of Islamic states stoning people but they do not differentiate between religious and state law.
> Since we do have such a thing there is both a limit to what actions a person can take based on religion and what the government is allowed to take based on their laws. The government's limit is to make sure it has no other way of accomplishing a goal, which must be clearly defined and have limits, and that goal is of overriding need. It is not simply whether you or a majority think the religion is wrong but whether the government and religion can coexist without limiting the practice of relgion.


You coulda mentioned that our country was founded on & laws made in concurrence w/Judeo-Christian values & laws. That is why sharia law is against our constitution, or one reason. But it would've opened a new can of worms.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Hmmm...so does that polygamy case define marriage as b/w 1 man & 1 woman?


Nope. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> No one said that flowers should not be sold to gay people. Where on earth did you come up with that?
> 
> The post in question was about a florist that had done arrangements for a gay couple for years, but suddenly couldn't do the flowers for their wedding because it was against her religion. I don't know how to explain it more simply.


Some one said that to provide flowers for the gay couple b/4-like b.days, etc- seemed to be ok & now the florist was not going to provide for the wedding. Whoever posted that said the florist was going against their religion when they provided flowers at all & the poster had a problem w/that being inconsistent. So, that was what I was referring to.
Do you not read all the posts? I don't want to go back & find out who posted that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> They'd be subject to the same laws. That's how equal protection works.


Wanna take bets on the law never being enforced in that case?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> And if the atheist florist won't cater the Catholic wedding...


 Ya well how about this


> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake, And Is Denied Service By All Of Them (WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO)
> 
> by Ted on December 12, 2014 in Featured, General, Highlight
> SHOEBAT EXCLUSIVE
> ...



http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Some one said that to provide flowers for the gay couple b/4-like b.days, etc- seemed to be ok & now the florist was not going to provide for the wedding. Whoever posted that said the florist was going against their religion when they provided flowers at all & the poster had a problem w/that being inconsistent. So, that was what I was referring to.
> Do you not read all the posts? I don't want to go back & find out who posted that.


The poster was me. The point was in reference to another post that stated the florist didn't wish to "profit" from the gay couple. My question was why it was acceptable to profit from some parts of their relationship and not others. Asked and sort of answered.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Ya well how about this
> 
> 
> 
> http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/


No one has the obligation to put language they find offensive on a cake, t-shirt or sign for another. They get to decide what language is offensive. I would even defend the Christian baker who doesn't wish to put "Gus & Stan True love Always" on a cake. It's quite different than refusing to sell a cake at all.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Some one said that to provide flowers for the gay couple b/4-like b.days, etc- seemed to be ok & now the florist was not going to provide for the wedding. Whoever posted that said the florist was going against their religion when they provided flowers at all & the poster had a problem w/that being inconsistent. So, that was what I was referring to.
> Do you not read all the posts? I don't want to go back & find out who posted that.


Of course I read the posts, I even understood most of them. 

The florist was fine with the relationship and provided flowers for them for years knowing they were a same sex couple. When asked to do flowers for their wedding she decided that it was against her religion. The couple was offended and wanted their day in court, the judge agreed that they had been discriminated against and they won the court case. 

I feel you're being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Greg said it best in 'Politics', the thread: "Be careful what you wish for"-
(I'm unable to cut & Paste) Y'all can go read it there, last page.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wanna take bets on the law never being enforced in that case?


First you'd have to find an atheist florist who would refuse service, an event I find highly unlikely. Second you would have to find the self centered catholic couple so intolerant of others to wish to pursue the case. Also highly unlikely since we know the tolerant religous folks would just do the right thing and seek out another florist.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Greg said it best in 'Politics', the thread: "Be careful what you wish for"-
> (I'm unable to cup & Paste) Y'all can go read it there, last page.


It's good advice. Remember if you can use it against others there will come the day it is used against you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Interesting......


But we have evidence of the first happening. We even have evidence of the second. What we don't know is how many couples have walked away from discriminatory acts before one was intolerant, or brave, enough to stand up for what they, and the law, believe to be right. Laws and behaviors don't change because people go along with the status quo. They do when laws and the underlying beliefs are challenged by those brave enough.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> But we have evidence of the first happening. We even have evidence of the second. What we don't know is how many couples have walked away from discriminatory acts before one was intolerant, or brave, enough to stand up for what they, and the law, believe to be right. Laws and behaviors don't change because people go along with the status quo. They do when laws and the underlying beliefs are challenged by those brave enough.


I have been "discriminated" against because I am a female (fired, because my boss, who was Italian, said "pregnant women belong in the home".)
That is not the only time, but one of a few.

I have been "discriminated" against because of my age.

I have been "discriminated" against because of my marital status.

My son was "discriminated" against because he was home educated.

It's a big ugly world and some people just suck.
It is, what it is.
I can't help that I am female, over 30 and divorced.
I'm sorry that those who "discriminated" against me are so small minded.
It's their loss.
I just keep moving on.....

If people want to operate in this world with small minds and narrow focus? 
Let 'em. I appreciate when they "show their true colors" right out of the gate and not waste my time putting on a front.

Maybe it's my generation. We're just 'thick skinned" and don't get our 'widdle feewings hurt' so easily? IDK?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Sure she did. Who cares? Concentrate on the logic rather than the tactic. At least she had the good taste to use an entire quote rather than taking partial ones out of context or claiming quotes never said, strategies used quite often by some.


I can't let this one go. You simply do not change someone else's words, and keep the attribution. It's just not done, and it could be libel.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have been "discriminated" against because I am a female (fired, because my boss, who was Italian, said "pregnant women belong in the home".)
> That is not the only time, but one of a few.
> 
> I have been "discriminated" against because of my age.
> ...


It's your choice to move on or not. But moving on didn't help the next woman fired for being pregnant, did it? Moving on did nothing to change the world for those who come behind. Women could have moved on and never gotten the right to vote. Many did before some brave enough, or intolerant enough of the views of the day, did stand up.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have been "discriminated" against because I am a female (fired, because my boss, who was Italian, said "pregnant women belong in the home".)
> That is not the only time, but one of a few.
> 
> I have been "discriminated" against because of my age.
> ...


So you suck it up instead of fighting for what is right. That is not how I want to live my life. I don't honor those that fought for my ability to use my rights by sucking it up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Doggonedog said:


> I can't let this one go. You simply do not change someone else's words, and keep the attribution. It's just not done, and it could be libel.


She was clear in her changes and her intent. Others are bit more nefarious. Those I will call out. Let it go. I can, and will defend myself.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I don't live my life battling.
There are certain hills I am willing to die on......
Having my widdle feewings hurt is not one of them.

I am not discriminated daily. Not weekly, heck, not even monthly.
I run into a 'small minded' person every once in a while......
There are FAR more folks out there that are tolerant (either out of fear, or because it's just who they are).

There are FAR more folks out there that don't 'attach labels' to others.
And this world goes round because of them.

I do not waste my time making a federal case every time my feelings get hurt, or when I don't get my way, or I 'perceive' and 'injustice' MIGHT happen'.

I have too much life to live to be in constant battle mode......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I don't live my life battling.
> There are certain hills I am willing to die on......
> Having my widdle feewings hurt is not one of them.
> 
> ...


That you belittle peoples fight for equality speaks volumes. It is not about feelings it is about doing what is right. You put down both sides by using statements such as this "Having my widdle feewings hurt is not one of them."


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I don't live my life battling.
> There are certain hills I am willing to die on......
> Having my widdle feewings hurt is not one of them.
> 
> ...


The choice to battle or not is yours. I apologize for criticizing that choice. I have no more right to criticize the choice, or the reasons for that choice, not to battle as those who criticize those who battle or their reasons to do such battle.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The choice to battle or not is yours. I apologize for criticizing that choice. I have no more right to criticize the choice, or the reasons for that choice, not to battle as those who criticize those who battle or their reasons to do such battle.


God Bless America!!

That's the beauty!
We can choose our battles!!

Some folks feel compelled to fight for Animal rights.....
Some folks feel compelled to fight for Senior Citizens.
And the list goes on and on.....

So long as one group, doesn't try to trump another group, or raise themselves up as superior over another group; Battle on.

What I choose to 'battle' is rarely mentioned here on this site.
Most folks don't understand it, and if I lost my mind and came out with fangs drawn every time I saw a post that "made fun of, made light of, belittled, etc' my 'battle'.........whew. I'd be a tired gal!! 

I write it off as (1) folks are under educated about the topic (2) folks have no personal experience with it (3) or they are just not nice people. 

It is with those who are under educated and inexperienced, and want to learn, do I speak about my 'battle' choice. It's only those who matter anyway.......

For what it's worth, as a future business owner?
I'd deny service to the Westboro cult folks before I'd deny service to a gay couple. 
Yeah everyone's money is green........but what the Westboro folks do "in the Name of God" is more than my Faith can handle.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Wlover said:


> So you suck it up instead of fighting for what is right. That is not how I want to live my life. I don't honor those that fought for my ability to use my rights by sucking it up.


No
I don't walk around having a conniption fit every time something doesn't go my way. 
I don't walk around all wound up just WAITING for someone to say, do or believe something I don't like.
I don't walk around in perpetual defense mode.

I have the RIGHT to home educate.
I didn't like what the public schools were calling education.
INSTEAD OF being a wack job lunatic mom.......I quietly, without a scene, pulled the kids, and home educated.
I still pay taxes to the school system.
I DIDN'T DEMAND that the school 'bow' to what *I* wanted.
I DIDN'T DEMAND that the school "change" to fit MY wants.

Because if I did? Then I'd be a 'Bible thumping right wing tea party lunatic trying to force others to adhere to my religion'.

It's a no win.......

So you chose your battle, and I respect that. It's your choice.
I don't have to like it or agree with it, but my men and women fight to protect that right every day. And I honor them! Ooo Rah.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Doggonedog said:


> The baker said he was so pious that making a cake for a gay wedding was against his religion. However he was perfectly willing to mock the sanctimony of marriage by baking a cake for a dog wedding.
> 
> Do you understand now?



The statement needed is 

You, nnod not understate
You, are demanding that you will define anothers faith for which you
Fail to fully understand. 

I does not seem to me that you care about searching where your rights end.

Do you believe you have the right over others. That's yes or no..even a bit can do that


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Doggonedog said:


> When you order flowers don't you have the arrangement sent with a small card? I do. You tell the florist what you'd like printed on the card.
> 
> Why can't some see that the religious business owner has a choice? They don't have to have a business relationship with anyone, but if they deny service that is discriminatory they could be sanctioned. It's really not that hard to understand.


Marriage is out....loving andcare is not...you freighter accept that is a tenant or you don't accept that reality.. to demand that we follow your restrictions is ludicrous. You have had this nicely explained to you and clearly but you refuse...you demand to change our teachings. You hold no authority to do so.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> They'd be subject to the same laws. That's how equal protection works.


Control..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> No
> I don't walk around having a conniption fit every time something doesn't go my way.
> I don't walk around all wound up just WAITING for someone to say, do or believe something I don't like.
> I don't walk around in perpetual defense mode.


How does discussing and educating ourselves, on ours and others opinions equate to a conniption fit? Or any other being in perpetual defense mode?

How does your labeling people as "Having my widdle feewings hurt is not one of them." empower people to decide for themselves what they will fight for?

It was a clear cut put down of people fighting for what they think is right.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I will fight a battle for what I believe is important. I will fight a battle for others if I feel they can not defend themselves from abuse. I will not defend a bully whether they are right on an issue or not.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> It's not us you have to convince of your ignorance of their actions. It's that greater power you believe in you must reconcile with.


Covered in my faith....since I would have no factual knowledge....because caring and loving everyone is a task for us....but it is clear when homosexuals request us to assist in the sin,which is made clear when the request us for marriage....just as tricky... tried to explain with the purchase of a gun for someone seeking to kill. Self or others..... making assumptions as to flower or cakes, from one sex to another person of their same sex is judgmental...

My son ordered a floral for a male friend..... why because his friend did not have the money for prom flowers .....they were not getting married.... my son did it secretly ...why because they were doubling going to the prom.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> No one has the obligation to put language they find offensive on a cake, t-shirt or sign for another. They get to decide what language is offensive. I would even defend the Christian baker who doesn't wish to put "Gus & Stan True love Always" on a cake. It's quite different than refusing to sell a cake at all.



Well since the baker had sold to them prior your above is why the wedding cake request was refused.... you seem to understand there is a line. 

A plain cake is not what the baker was demanded to make... WEDDING CAKE... THE HOLD KIT AND KABOODEL OF DECORATION...violated the faith of the baker.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Nor does selling a cake change the bakers opinion of such a union. _Wishing to impose Sharia law on nonbelelievers is no different than Christians wishing to impose their law on nonbelelievers by defining marriage only by their tenants._
> 
> *Agreed. The Bible should not be used to justify US law. However, tradition and accepted standards can be. But I don't want to get bogged down in a thread drift on if gay marriage should be legal. It is realy not what this thread is about.*
> 
> ...


And I've shown that equal protection is not the issue because equal protection is a concept applied to gov't, not individuals, equal protection is not a right whereas 1A is a right which trumps congressional law. 

So yes, we are going in circles so agreed, we disagree. And others are chiming in with the usual pro-gay / anti-gay snark which takes all the fun out of this thread for me. 

Peace...you commie loving, heathen, child of an unmarried couple. :whistlin: :bow:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> That you belittle peoples fight for equality speaks volumes. It is not about feelings it is about doing what is right. You put down both sides by using statements such as this "Having my widdle feewings hurt is not one of them."




Militant control


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> And I've shown that equal protection is not the issue because equal protection is a concept applied to gov't, not individuals, equal protection is not a right whereas 1A is a right which trumps congressional law.
> 
> So yes, we are going in circles so agreed, we disagree. And others are chiming in with the usual pro-gay / anti-gay snark which takes all the fun out of this thread for me.
> 
> Peace...you commie loving, heathen, child of an unmarried couple. :whistlin: :bow:


One last effort.

You also seem to accept that government can put limitations on religous expression. Or do you think the proscription against polygamy also invalid and unconstitutional? Equal protection comes into play as neither the polygamy ban nor the requirement to sell to all comers single out a particular religion. They apply to all equally. Christians cannot discriminate against other protected groups but neither can Muslims , Budhists, animists or whateverists. As long as the law is applied equally it is valid. Unless, of course, no law regulating religion is valid in which case marry as many as you like, stone an adulterer or do whatever else your religion requires with impunity.

I've also enjoyed our discussion you gun totin', bible thumpin', John Birch lovin' son of a gun.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Well since the baker had sold to them prior your above is why the wedding cake request was refused.... you seem to understand there is a line.
> 
> A plain cake is not what the baker was demanded to make... WEDDING CAKE... THE HOLD KIT AND KABOODEL OF DECORATION...violated the faith of the baker.


Asked, not demanded. And the whole kit and caboodle of decoration on a wedding cake for a dog wedding ceremony didn't violate the sanctimony of marriage? 

This discussion is like hitting my head against a brick wall- it's going no where and is giving me a headache.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have been "discriminated" against because I am a female (fired, because my boss, who was Italian, said "pregnant women belong in the home".)
> That is not the only time, but one of a few.
> 
> I have been "discriminated" against because of my age.
> ...


Post of the decade award.
I might add, we're talking about tossing the 1st amendment...freedom of religion part. That amendment TRUMPS the person wanting their way. The person wanting someone to NOT practice their religion. That is the whole thing.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> And I've shown that equal protection is not the issue because equal protection is a concept applied to gov't, not individuals, equal protection is not a right whereas 1A is a right which trumps congressional law.
> 
> So yes, we are going in circles so agreed, we disagree. And others are chiming in with the usual pro-gay / anti-gay snark which takes all the fun out of this thread for me.
> 
> Peace...you commie loving, heathen, child of an unmarried couple. :whistlin: :bow:


Here we are discussing the 1st amendment...and some seen to confuse that w/hatred...something most cannot connect. Even shows PROOF of NO hatred b/c florish/baker did provide services for these folks b/4. IT IS THE ACT THEY ARE AGAINST. I'm pretty sure the acts aren't protected, freedom of religion is.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here we are discussing the 1st amendment...and some seen to confuse that w/hatred...somehting most cannot connect. Even shows PROOF of NO hatred b/c florish/baker did provide services for these folks b/4. IT IS THE ACT THEY ARE AGAINST. I'm pretty sure the acts aren't protected, freedom of religion is.


I'm glad to see that you see that gay marriage and polygamy are protected religous acts under that same amendment. Hallelujah!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Dictionary.com

Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
3. *the** body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:* a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: 


Webster Definition

Religion
1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3. an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group


U.S. Constitution 1rst Amendment 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"An establishment OF"
"Prohibiting the free exercise there of"

Based upon the definition of the word "religion"....it's not only 'God and gods'.
It is also a body of people adhering too/practicing a particular set of beliefs.

Now, if there is a group that believes that the end of the world is March 9 2011, and that certain things much be done to prepare for that........because they are a 'body of people adhering too and practicing a particular set of beliefs" they are 'religious' based upon the definition.

So.

There are MANY religions that do not bow to or even have a 'god'......based upon the definition of the word, religion.

So re-read the 1rst Amendment.

PETA folks are free to exercise their 'religion'.
GLBT folks are free to exercise their 'religion'.
Westboro folks are free to exercise their 'religion'.
Catholic folks are free to exercise their 'religion'.

Everyone can exercise their religion.
Just don't expect everyone one else to like it, accept it, embrace it, celebrate it, love it, cater to it.
And don't think your religion is above anyone else's.

Cause at the end of the day, we all bleed red, and we all end up in the dirt.

If we could just stop labeling ourselves and limiting our potential; what a better world this would be.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> One last effort.
> 
> You also seem to accept that government can put limitations on religous expression. Or do you think the proscription against polygamy also invalid and unconstitutional? Equal protection comes into play as neither the polygamy ban nor the requirement to sell to all comers single out a particular religion. They apply to all equally. Christians cannot discriminate against other protected groups but neither can Muslims , Budhists, animists or whateverists. As long as the law is applied equally it is valid. Unless, of course, no law regulating religion is valid in which case marry as many as you like, stone an adulterer or do whatever else your religion requires with impunity.
> 
> I've also enjoyed our discussion you gun totin', bible thumpin', John Birch lovin' son of a gun.


I know you are sending my same joke back at me but...I do tote a gun, I don't thump the Bible because I think it rarely has a place in secular law, and John Birch is not terribly inapt for me except that as an extreme libertarian, I'm pro-communism between consenting adults. My wife and I practice communism at home. I think the Israeli Kibbutzes are just fine as long as force is not used on the people to make them participate. 

OK, the restrictions on all rights that I believe may exist do not involve expression, they involve actions. There is a big difference between the two. SCOTUS 1A restriction history generally agrees with me, to my very limited knowledge, and involves stopping people from infringing on others rights. So stoning adulterers as you keep using is a legit restriction especially if the adulterer doesn't want to get stoned. Similarly, the gov't can't restrict my free speech to certain places as Universities had tried to implement free speech zones, but it can stop me from holding a protest in the middle of an interstate during rush hour, where exercising my rights would impose upon/infringe/deny the rights of others it is reasonable for the gov't to create restrictions. 

AFA polygamy, you've made me have to think again. STOP IT! :lookout:

I might be open to change on this if someone provided a cogent argument one way or the other, but I don't think there can be a valid law against it using the Bible or people's beliefs in what God prefers. I don't want to research all the pro and con arguments since this is purely an academic exercise between us, (unless you're considering a plural marriage and haven't told us) but I am leaning towards it should be legal among consenting adults. I can argue the gov't shouldn't give it recognition, but I don't see how the gov't can make it a crime either. 

Perhaps I've confused myself, how does this apply to forced cake baking? 

BTW, you son of a motherless goat, I'll happily continue this convo within this thread and just focus on replying to you. I'll try, try, try to ignore those that in agreement or disagreement with either of us try to take the topic...ummm... in other directions. But based on you continuing to believe that equal protection as a 14A restriction on gov't means that gov't can use force to make individuals perform certain actions, and I have no other ways to explain why that that is, IMO, an invalid argument, I don't see us taking this further except to repeat ourselves.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> I know you are sending my same joke back at me but...I do tote a gun, I don't thump the Bible because I think it rarely has a place in secular law, and John Birch is not terribly inapt for me except that as an extreme libertarian, I'm pro-communism between consenting adults. My wife and I practice communism at home. I think the Israeli Kibbutzes are just fine as long as force is not used on the people to make them participate.
> 
> OK, the restrictions on all rights that I believe may exist do not involve expression, they involve actions. There is a big difference between the two. SCOTUS 1A restriction history generally agrees with me, to my very limited knowledge, and involves stopping people from infringing on others rights. So stoning adulterers as you keep using is a legit restriction especially if the adulterer doesn't want to get stoned. Similarly, the gov't can't restrict my free speech to certain places as Universities had tried to implement free speech zones, but it can stop me from holding a protest in the middle of an interstate during rush hour, where exercising my rights would impose upon/infringe/deny the rights of others it is reasonable for the gov't to create restrictions.
> 
> ...


If you can show me the law that forces a bakery to sell a wedding cake you'll get my attention. Absent that the only government requirement is that if the bakery willingly and freely offers such cakes for sale everyone gets the equal opportunity to buy said cake. Don't wish to sell cakes for weddings, don't. Problem solved.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

As for considering a plural marriage, I would have to get the idea cleared by the CFO. She might be willing if she got to choose.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> If you can show me the law that forces a bakery to sell a wedding cake you'll get my attention. Absent that the only government requirement is that if the bakery willingly and freely offers such cakes for sale everyone gets the equal opportunity to buy said cake. Don't wish to sell cakes for weddings, don't. Problem solved.


of course there is not a law that anyone sell wedding cakes. But there is a law or ruling that says you must sell wedding cakes to gays even if it is against your religious beliefs. Do we agree on that much?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> of course there is not a law that anyone sell wedding cakes. But there is a law or ruling that says you must sell wedding cakes to gays even if it is against your religious beliefs. Do we agree on that much?


I don't know of any law that forces me to sell a wedding cake to gays. Of course, I don't sell wedding cakes to anyone so that would not be discrimination on my part.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> of course there is not a law that anyone sell wedding cakes. But there is a law or ruling that says you must sell wedding cakes to gays even if it is against your religious beliefs. Do we agree on that much?


Nope. The law makes no specific mention of gays or wedding cakes. It simply stipulates that you cannot not sell what you offer for sale to someone based on arbitrary criteria like their sex, skin color, religion or sexual orientation. It's that pesky equal protection thing again. All laws must be applied equally. A law specifically requiring a bakery to sell wedding cakes to gay couples would be unconstitutional.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

basketti said:


> I don't know of any law that forces me to sell a wedding cake to gays. Of course, I don't sell wedding cakes to anyone so that would not be discrimination on my part.


Exactimundo!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I haven't read everything here but I still can't figure out how it is that if a baker sells a cake for a gay wedding, that makes him part of the "sin".

When a gun dealer sells a gun, does that make him complicit in whatever is done with that gun?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

basketti said:


> I haven't read everything here but I still can't figure out how it is that if a baker sells a cake for a gay wedding, that makes him part of the "sin".
> 
> When a gun dealer sells a gun, does that make him complicit in whatever is done with that gun?


They have been sued for such. But you really need to read because it has been covered ad nauseum. And it get really, really, really old to explain why it is so for a few people in the face of those who refuse to see that there might be a difference in that value from their own value.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> They have been sued for such. But you really need to read because it has been covered ad nauseum. And it get really, really, really old to explain why it is so for a few people in the face of those who refuse to see that there might be a difference in that value from their own value.


Fair enough.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> They have been sued for such. But you really need to read because it has been covered ad nauseum. And it get really, really, really old to explain why it is so for a few people in the face of those who refuse to see that there might be a difference in that value from their own value.


No one has been sued for not providing a cake or flowers. Prosecution has been brought against some for violating laws and ordinances.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

basketti said:


> I haven't read everything here but I still can't figure out how it is that if a baker sells a cake for a gay wedding, that makes him part of the "sin".
> 
> When a gun dealer sells a gun, does that make him complicit in whatever is done with that gun?


May have tried that. Have you seen lawsuits against smith & wesson? I hve.

And w/these new 'anti-discrimination' laws, Ministers will be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> May have tried that. Have you seen lawsuits against smith & wesson? I hve.
> 
> And w/these new 'anti-discrimination' laws, Ministers will be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.


Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Has the government come after them? If they sold a gun legally? I don't believe a gun sold legally implicates a dealer in what was done with it. Not if it is used in a crime nor used in a B&C trophy hunt. Can't see how selling a cake implicates the baker either.
If a pastor is only marrying couples in his church and not performing civil marriages, he has nothing to worry about. It's when you offer a service and restrict it only from a protected class, that's when they will be tripped up.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Nope. The law makes no specific mention of gays or wedding cakes. It simply stipulates that you cannot not sell what you offer for sale to someone based on arbitrary criteria like their sex, skin color, religion or sexual orientation. It's that pesky equal protection thing again. All laws must be applied equally. A law specifically requiring a bakery to sell wedding cakes to gay couples would be unconstitutional.


In my haste, I worded that poorly. I know it makes no specific mention of gays, just used that as the example. There is another law, the USCONS which says congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. USCONS law is supposed to always take precedent over Congressional law. So a law requiring someone to violate a religious belief, no matter how reprehensible you and I might find that belief, is unconstitutional and invalid. And despite what someone else has stated previously, per uslegal.com, "Unconstitutional refers to a government action which is in violation of the authority and rights defined and granted in the government's constitution," so a law can be unconstitutional even if SCOTUS has yet to rule on it. 

Equal protection clause is a phrase you are using because it sounds good for your position, but you are using it completely out of context and not in compliance with the case law interpretation that I have seen. if you have a cite where SCOTUS has held that equal protection may be applied to force citizens to act in ANY manner, please enlighten me. I'm no expert. 

Here's a wiki link that explains equal protection better than I have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

I did a quick read of the article, I think equal protection in every case was used to alter gov't conduct, not private conduct. 

Be careful of what you wish for, because if you are OK with the gov't ruling that someone's faith is insufficiently anti-gay or pro-traditional marriage to allow free expression of that faith, then you are arguing for gov't control of religious expression. Then maybe if I don't attend church often enough in the opinion of some bureaucrat or judge, I will lose a religious liberty. Very scary and not in keeping with the original intent of the framers nor any justice I've ever heard of.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

basketti said:


> Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Has the government come after them? If they sold a gun legally? I don't believe a gun sold legally implicates a dealer in what was done with it. Not if it is used in a crime nor used in a B&C trophy hunt. Can't see how selling a cake implicates the baker either.


Ok- once more. If a person believes a marriage is a sacrament and that that sacrament is specifically restricted to a man and woman, then they might feel that creating a part of that celebratiin in opposition to that teaching is morally wrong. They have no reason to think this of ordinary, undifferentiated goods but it is unavoidable if specifically ordered to celebrate a gay wedding.
it is the refusal to accept that this might be a religious value or that even if it is, it is unacceptable that keeps this thread going on and on. As I said, it been said before but is found unacceptable rather that unexplained.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

basketti said:


> I don't know of any law that forces me to sell a wedding cake to gays. Of course, I don't sell wedding cakes to anyone so that would not be discrimination on my part.


OK, you got me. Point for you. :bow:

I should have said, there is a law which is being used to force wedding cake bakers to sell wedding cakes for a gay wedding. That better?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

basketti said:


> I haven't read everything here but I still can't figure out how it is that if a baker sells a cake for a gay wedding, that makes him part of the "sin".
> 
> When a gun dealer sells a gun, does that make him complicit in whatever is done with that gun?


You and the courts should not get to decide what religious expression makes sufficient sense. I don't get why some people worship snakes, why some Muslims want to impose Sharia law on the unwilling, or like you, why making that gay cake (whatever that is) is such a big deal. If someone believes it is part of their faith, they should be able to act or not act accordingly until such time, as has been stated so many times before, that it infringes upon the rights of others.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> You and the courts should not get to decide what religious expression makes sufficient sense. I don't get why some people worship snakes, why some Muslims want to impose Sharia law on the unwilling, or like you, why making that gay cake (whatever that is) is such a big deal. If someone believes it is part of their faith, they should be able to act or not act accordingly until such time, as has been stated so many times before, that it infringes upon the rights of others.


I can turn that around and ask why a wedding cake is such a big deal? It's just a wedding cake, people make them for dog weddings. 

Religion doesn't trump any other type of discrimination.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> I can turn that around and ask why a wedding cake is such a big deal? It's just a wedding cake, people make them for dog weddings.
> 
> Religion doesn't trump any other type of discrimination.


Please reread my message. You have not turned around my Q, you have asked the same Q as I did. I don't get why it is a big deal either. 

Agreed religion doesn't trump other discrimination. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Please reread my message. You have not turned around my Q, you have asked the same Q as I did. I don't get why it is a big deal either.
> 
> Agreed religion doesn't trump other discrimination. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.


Sigh. It wasn't directed at you, Deke01 rather a poke at why "pious" people have a problem making a cake. Don't be peevish.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You and the courts should not get to decide what religious expression makes sufficient sense. I don't get why some people worship snakes, why some Muslims want to impose Sharia law on the unwilling, or like you, why making that gay cake (whatever that is) is such a big deal. If someone believes it is part of their faith, they should be able to act or not act accordingly until such time, as has been stated so many times before, that it infringes upon the rights of others.


And I don't get why some Christians wish to impose their law on others through things like outlawing gay marriage. The answer is simple if you don't wish to bake a wedding cake don't. Pay the fine if you must and move on with your life.

My repeated reference to the 14th amendment has little to with what you say I say. It does have everything to do with the fact that the laws in question don't single out Christians for special enforcement. Just as they aren't singled out for exemption from the anti discrimination laws.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> I can turn that around and ask why a wedding cake is such a big deal? It's just a wedding cake, people make them for dog weddings.
> 
> Religion doesn't trump any other type of discrimination.


Sure it does! Just because you wish it to be true, it's not, and it is protected by our Constitution, should you ever care to read it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Sigh. It wasn't directed at you, Deke01 rather a poke at why "pious" people have a problem making a cake. Don't be peevish.


For a newbie who doesn't like it when insults and name calling is used, you sure like to use them yourself! Just saying! I'm sure your savior will be along and refute what I said. It is quit comical to say the least!

:doh:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And I don't get why some Christians wish to impose their law on others through things like outlawing gay marriage. The answer is simple if you don't wish to bake a wedding cake don't. Pay the fine if you must and move on with your life.
> 
> My repeated reference to the 14th amendment has little to with what you say I say. It does have everything to do with the fact that the laws in question don't single out Christians for special enforcement. Just as they aren't singled out for exemption from the anti discrimination laws.


Your religion allows gay marriage, others do not. Simple eh? Some try to make it into something more, it isnt.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Your religion allows gay marriage, others do not. Simple eh? Some try to make it into something more, it isnt.


And if my religion allows it how can a law making it illegal be constitutional? Simple, eh?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And if my religion allows it how can a law making it illegal be constitutional? Simple, eh?


No law is necessary then! Simple eh?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> No law is necessary then! Simple eh?


Interesting that so much time and effort have been spent of late passing just such unconstitutional laws.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Interesting that so much time and effort have been spent of late passing just such unconstitutional laws.


Simply because of the "tolerant" liberals that have only tolerance for "their" own beliefs. Simple eh? This is not rocket surgery!

Eta: it sure seems like those that hide behind the compassion and tolerance ideal, are anything but, and you keep proving it here!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> Sigh. It wasn't directed at you, Deke01 rather a poke at why "pious" people have a problem making a cake. Don't be peevish.


Or you could admit you made a mistake. 

You quote my message and say something that implies my words are the opposite of what they say. Then you don't answer a polite Q posed to you. If you think that is peevish, one of us doesn't understand how forums are supposed to work.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Simply because of the "tolerant" liberals that have only tolerance for "their" own beliefs. Simple eh? This is not rocket surgery!
> 
> Eta: it sure seems like those that hide behind the compassion and tolerance ideal, are anything but, and you keep proving it here!


Interesting that you find it intolerant to allow people the choice of who they wed but define being tolerant all efforts to deny such choice. I'd think the opposite might apply. I haven't seen any of those liberals fighting for a law that demands you only marry someone of the same sex.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Or you could admit you made a mistake.
> 
> You quote my message and say something that implies my words are the opposite of what they say. Then you don't answer a polite Q posed to you. If you think that is peevish, one of us doesn't understand how forums are supposed to work.


I didn't realize I was required to answer all questions posed to me. I'm sorry, I guess I don't know how forums are supposed to work. I'll try harder just for you.

What was your question?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Interesting that you find it intolerant to allow people the choice of who they wed but define being tolerant all efforts to deny such choice. I'd think the opposite might apply. I haven't seen any of those liberals fighting for a law that demands you only marry someone of the same sex.


Where did I ever say I was intolerant of allowing anybody to marry who they wished too? Why do liberals always do that? Twist what others say when they don't like the message?

I see laws.demanding that certain religions denounce their own beliefs because someone else, outside of that religion, got their feelings hurt. I also don't see these upstanding compassionate and tolerant liberals passing laws to protect ones religious views. How very tolerant and compassionate of them, and you, for not standing up for the injustice foisted upon them from the extremists! Why do you not support "their" rights?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> And I don't get why some Christians wish to impose their law on others through things like outlawing gay marriage. The answer is simple if you don't wish to bake a wedding cake don't. Pay the fine if you must and move on with your life.
> 
> My repeated reference to the 14th amendment has little to with what you say I say. It does have everything to do with the fact that the laws in question don't single out Christians for special enforcement. Just as they aren't singled out for exemption from the anti discrimination laws.


And being fined for a religious belief is usually a violation of the constitution which trumps and invalidates the law which created the fine. 

Ah, maybe I see where you are going with your 14A equal protection issue. Are you saying that a law which applies equally to everyone, say like speeding, is OK as long as it applies to everyone? Such that there are not various speeds for Hispanics, Indians, Jews, and Druids? Ehhh...maybe you have a point. I don't think so but hopefully the supremes will weigh in on the matter. 

There is a concept called disparate impact which is usually used by gov't against businesses that discriminate in employment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact That might apply in this case. Also, the plain language of 1A is still in effect and the court will have to decide if "Congress shall make no law..." means Congress can make a law as long as it is applicable to everyone. The law will also have to pass a strict scrutiny test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny and I find it hard to believe that cakes and flowers will rise to the level of a compelling state interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve forced business transactions with of gay weddings. 

If this stuff was easy, there wouldn't be opposing sides doing the song and dance in front of the justices. 

I think you've exhausted my (most likely flawed) knowledge of SCOTUS in regard to this topic.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> I didn't realize I was required to answer all questions posed to me. I'm sorry, I guess I don't know how forums are supposed to work. I'll try harder just for you.
> 
> What was your question?


Never mind. All my desired responses to that would have been snark on top of snark. I was trying to keep the tone a bit higher. Play on by your own rules as you see fit.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> And being fined for a religious belief is usually a violation of the constitution which trumps and invalidates the law which created the fine.
> 
> Ah, maybe I see where you are going with your 14A equal protection issue. Are you saying that a law which applies equally to everyone, say like speeding, is OK as long as it applies to everyone? Such that there are not various speeds for Hispanics, Indians, Jews, and Druids? Ehhh...maybe you have a point. I don't think so but hopefully the supremes will weigh in on the matter.
> 
> ...


Cakes and flowers aren't really the issue. You can substitute anything you wish for them. But if you allow discrimination in cakes and flowers then to be consistent can you deny discrimination based on religous grounds for food , housing, transportation or even medical care. The state does, in my opinion, have a compelling interest in ensuring that public accomodations be access able to all of the public. Else they become something less.

We probably have beaten this horse enough and I'm willing to let scholars greater than I battle it out in the appropriate courts. We can then take up arms again and argue about why we agree, or disagree, with the decision.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Where did I ever say I was intolerant of allowing anybody to marry who they wished too? Why do liberals always do that? Twist what others say when they don't like the message?
> 
> I see laws.demanding that certain religions denounce their own beliefs because someone else, outside of that religion, got their feelings hurt. I also don't see these upstanding compassionate and tolerant liberals passing laws to protect ones religious views. How very tolerant and compassionate of them, and you, for not standing up for the injustice foisted upon them from the extremists! Why do you not support "their" rights?


Laws allowing gay marriage require no one to denounce their beliefs. They force no one into a union they don't desire,nor do they force one who wishes not to to participate in any religous ceremony codifying such a union. They simply allow people to wed the one they love. I do support the right of any one of any religion to practice the tenets of their faith. I also recognize that sometimes tenants of different faiths will conflict. The answers aren't always easy but no one should be forced by law to do that which breaks their faith. No baker should be required to bake a cake, and they aren't. No florist should be required to provide flowers, and they aren't. Sometimes adhering to ones faith requires sacrifice. Something all Christians should be well aware of as they walk through the doors of houses of worship named after those who sacrificed much more in the name of their faith than any modern baker or florist.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> And being fined for a religious belief is usually a violation of the constitution which trumps and invalidates the law which created the fine.
> 
> Ah, maybe I see where you are going with your 14A equal protection issue. Are you saying that a law which applies equally to everyone, say like speeding, is OK as long as it applies to everyone? Such that there are not various speeds for Hispanics, Indians, Jews, and Druids? Ehhh...maybe you have a point. I don't think so but hopefully the supremes will weigh in on the matter.
> 
> ...


I had another random thought. Certain religions preach non violence and won't participate in war efforts. In times of draft the law allows them alternate service. Maybe a bit akin to paying a fine rather than baking a cake? Just more food for thought. Thanks for making me think you old son of a window dresser.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Laws allowing gay marriage require no one to denounce their beliefs. They force no one into a union they don't desire,nor do they force one who wishes not to to participate in any religous ceremony codifying such a union. They simply allow people to wed the one they love. I do support the right of any one of any religion to practice the tenets of their faith. I also recognize that sometimes tenants of different faiths will conflict. The answers aren't always easy but no one should be forced by law to do that which breaks their faith. No baker should be required to bake a cake, and they aren't. No florist should be required to provide flowers, and they aren't. Sometimes adhering to ones faith requires sacrifice. Something all Christians should be well aware of as they walk through the doors of houses of worship named after those who sacrificed much more in the name of their faith than any modern baker or florist.


Except those tolerant and compassionate liberals are all about lawsuits if their feelings get hurt. So laws are enacted that prohibit the free exercise of said religions. How is that fair?

You still haven't answered some questions posed to you, why not?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Except those tolerant and compassionate liberals are all about lawsuits if their feelings get hurt. So laws are enacted that prohibit the free exercise of said religions. How is that fair?
> 
> You still haven't answered some questions posed to you, why not?


No lawsuits were filed in the cases cited. No new laws were enacted that prohibited the free exercise of said religions. The anti discrimination and public accomodation laws have been in place for quite a while. They have been expanded to include more groups but their purpose is the same- not to allow discrimination under the guise of religion, any religion, or any other reason.

I apologize if I've failed to answer any of your questions. Ask again and I'll do my best to answer them.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Doggonedog said:


> Sigh. It wasn't directed at you, Deke01 rather a poke at why "pious" people have a problem making a cake. Don't be peevish.


Are you asking deke to do something or commanding I am confused as rudeness is not your colour....is it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

fyi....I have answered you...you just do not like or accept that ....wish weather you accept it not is mute to my beliefs.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Never mind. All my desired responses to that would have been snark on top of snark. I was trying to keep the tone a bit higher. Play on by your own rules as you see fit.


When your interests include annoying leftists you have to assume that they may get a bit irritable.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> And if my religion allows it how can a law making it illegal be constitutional? Simple, eh?


STATE RIGHTS ALLOW FOR STATES TO EVEN HAVE STATE RELIGIONS.

That is constitutional shocking to some.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Cakes and flowers aren't really the issue. You can substitute anything you wish for them. But if you allow discrimination in cakes and flowers then to be consistent can you deny discrimination based on religous grounds for food , housing, transportation or even medical care. The state does, in my opinion, have a compelling interest in ensuring that public accomodations be access able to all of the public. Else they become something less.
> 
> We probably have beaten this horse enough and I'm willing to let scholars greater than I battle it out in the appropriate courts. We can then take up arms again and argue about why we agree, or disagree, with the decision.


There was a case a few years ago about an elderly woman advertizing for a roommate. She wanted a nice, Christian, gentleman to share her home, do chores and repairs in exchange for lower rent. Uh-oh. 

The do-gooders slapped her down. She had to remove the ad and I don't recall what else happened like if she had to pay a fine. It was funny because the commentators fell all over themselves to say she they knew her heart was in the right place and she wasn't trying to discriminate. What? Of course she was and IMO it was perfectly fine. If I'm going to open my home to a stranger, I should be able to set the terms and type of individual. I also understand and agree with a no discrimination in housing law but somewhere, there needs to be an exception for housemates. 

There should also be and are some religious exceptions. If I run a convent, I can legally limit participation to female Catholics. Medical care has been a subject of debate recently and I don't recall the specifics but it involved abortion or birth control and a Christian doctor who didn't want to participate. I don't remember how it resolved itself. 

:bdh:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I had another random thought. Certain religions preach non violence and won't participate in war efforts. In times of draft the law allows them alternate service. Maybe a bit akin to paying a fine rather than baking a cake? Just more food for thought. Thanks for making me think you old son of a window dresser.


{scratching noggin} And how is serving as a medic analogous to paying a fine?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> I haven't read everything here but I still can't figure out how it is that if a baker sells a cake for a gay wedding, that makes him part of the "sin".
> 
> When a gun dealer sells a gun, does that make him complicit in whatever is done with that gun?


Well, your current lack of knowledge of certain religious tenants of faiths seems to be a part of the problem along with acceptance of the first amendment..
None of us here will be able to help .

Gun dealers...well are you asking legally per the current laws of the USA or God's laws....see I do not know all faiths views I know mine and a few other faiths and in my faith if a gun dealer knowingly sold ....or provided a gun for the person to caused harm it is a sin in my faith .....just like selling a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> When your interests include annoying leftists you have to assume that they may get a bit irritable.


Yes, it is a character flaw of mine. I admit it. I often do enjoy annoying liberals. Chastised long ago in this thread, I decided to take it up a notch and have gotten nothing positive from you. No worries, doesn't bother me. Heck, it doesn't even "desiccate" me. Whoops, character flaw in action. 

You seem to wish for me to go away and not participate in the discussion merely because I present a side of the argument you don't like. Again, no worries. You'll get the hang of General Chat or get frustrated and leave. Your choice. Discussions of contentious issues is what we do here. 

There are lots of people I could have discussed this topic with but I would have quit the topic long ago because we would have been in close enough agreement that we didn't challenge the thinking of each other. 

Me: I like the color blue
Kasil: Me too
Tricky G: Me too
Jeffrey: I prefer dark blue

See boring convo. MMOTEC made it interesting because like all those homosexual loving ladies, he prefers pink. Here's his pic: :grit: 

But seriously, MMOTEC made me think outside my own biases and education and do research I found way interesting. I'm sorry you didn't find it to your liking but no one compelled you to participate, read, or comment in less than productive ways.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> {scratching noggin} And how is serving as a medic analogous to paying a fine?


Sometimes I think out loud. Not sure that it is but I'll cogitate on it further.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> There was a case a few years ago about an elderly woman advertizing for a roommate. She wanted a nice, Christian, gentleman to share her home, do chores and repairs in exchange for lower rent. Uh-oh.
> 
> The do-gooders slapped her down. She had to remove the ad and I don't recall what else happened like if she had to pay a fine. It was funny because the commentators fell all over themselves to say she they knew her heart was in the right place and she wasn't trying to discriminate. What? Of course she was and IMO it was perfectly fine. If I'm going to open my home to a stranger, I should be able to set the terms and type of individual. I also understand and agree with a no discrimination in housing law but somewhere, there needs to be an exception for housemates.
> 
> ...


If this is the case https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/d...inst-woman-seeking-christian-roommate-dropped it seems the situation was resolved as you, and I, would like. I'm not a fan of overzealousness, especially by those not directly involved in such a case.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Sometimes I think out loud. Not sure that it is but I'll cogitate on it further.


I do the same thing. Used to get me in trouble at work when employees would assume me wondering about storming the castle gates meant I really wanted them to storm the castle gates. Semi-retirement is better so that I can have a dumb idea (not to imply yours was dumb) every now and again and the worst thing that happens is I get called out on HT. 

And you forgot to insult me in your response. Please go back and edit your message so that we can maintain the level of decorum to which I have become accustomed to, you iggnert, backwater, panty pusher. :icecream:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> If this is the case https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/d...inst-woman-seeking-christian-roommate-dropped it seems the situation was resolved as you, and I, would like. I'm not a fan of overzealousness, especially by those not directly involved in such a case.


I'm pretty sure the one I remember involved a search for a male roommate, but maybe not. I like how that one turned out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> I do the same thing. Used to get me in trouble at work when employees would assume me wondering about storming the castle gates meant I really wanted them to storm the castle gates. Semi-retirement is better so that I can have a dumb idea (not to imply yours was dumb) every now and again and the worst thing that happens is I get called out on HT.
> 
> And you forgot to insult me in your response. Please go back and edit your message so that we can maintain the level of decorum to which I have become accustomed to, you iggnert, backwater, panty pusher. :icecream:


Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!


I'm feeling the love!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

basketti said:


> Oh please.


exactly. I said please.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, it is a character flaw of mine. I admit it. I often do enjoy annoying liberals. Chastised long ago in this thread, I decided to take it up a notch and have gotten nothing positive from you. No worries, doesn't bother me. Heck, it doesn't even "desiccate" me. Whoops, character flaw in action.
> 
> You seem to wish for me to go away and not participate in the discussion merely because I present a side of the argument you don't like. Again, no worries. You'll get the hang of General Chat or get frustrated and leave. Your choice. Discussions of contentious issues is what we do here.
> 
> ...


I have no wish, intention, or even a fleeting thought of you going away from any discussion, you won't believe it so I won't labor the point. 

I still can't believe you don't like the word desiccate. It's a wonderful word, and one of my personal favorites.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!


Monty Python. Blarg. My second husband loved Monty Python, it isn't the sole reason we are no longer married though.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Doggonedog said:


> I have no wish, intention, or even a fleeting thought of you going away from any discussion, you won't believe it so I won't labor the point.
> 
> I still can't believe you don't like the word desiccate. It's a wonderful word, and one of my personal favorites.


Desiccate is a great word. Use it as often as you like. Just don't expect me to understand what you're saying when you use it inappropriately. I still don't get what you were trying to say.


----------

