Posted on 12/02/2017 2:52:44 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, “Jesus is Lord.”
Haven’t muslim bakers declined to make a cake for fags? I recall that they have.
Yes. There are several youtube videos of horrified muslim bakers declining to make a same sex “wedding” cake.
tuffydoodle wrote:
“Yes. There are several youtube videos of horrified muslim bakers declining to make a same sex “wedding” cake.”
Any reports of Muslim bakers getting sued?
Wonderful arguments. I go further. Public accommodation laws should be limited to requiring services that are not reasonably available by other means. I call on the involuntary servitude provisions of the 13th Amendment and the free association principles in the First.
It is a built-in approach to implement social justice. Congress could deal with this outrage. . . but of course . . .
Homophobes and the Klan are not protected classes.
Should a Muslim caterer be required by law to provide pork for a secular event?
If they do not provide pork to anyone else under any circumstances then they can't be compelled to provide it to a secular event.
Should a Jewish photographer be required to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath?
If they don't do any other work on the Sabbath then no.
The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?
Because denying services based on sexual orientation is a crime in Colorado. Change the law.
That would be a “no.” Homosexuals are afraid to jack with muslims. Christians are easier targets, they won’t cut your head off with a dull butter knife.
The philosophy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that government only has powers that are openly enumerated. The remainder of powers are reserved to the States and the People.
When we sought to address the grievous mistreatment of blacks in the South, where they were denied even access to the necessities of life such as a place to go to the bathroom or a place to eat, we chose the path that ignored the founding principle of enumerated and limited powers.
In the rush to correct this problem, government did what government loves to do, which is to expand its power. We went down the path of declaring that a private business was somehow a “public accommodation”. This was done so that people could be declared to be a “protected class” and thus government in essence then could alienate the inalienable right of free association and private property from the business owner.
This was done by people who had far more faith in government than in how humans would respond to a properly crafted appeal to have compassion and respect for their fellow citizens. To illustrate this, can you imagine what would happen today if some business announced it would no longer serve some racial group? The public outrage would be so tremendous that government would never need to act to enforce the law. The business would either change or close due to lack of customers.
So we started down the road of allowing government to alienate the rights of the business owner. Of course, once a legal theory of expanded government power is approved by the courts, government immediately started to expand those powers ever more widely. While everyone would agree that all citizens of any race should enjoy their basic human rights, what happens when some government jurisdictions then move to include people such as gays as members of a class that deserves explicit protection?
When I was growing up in the 1950’s it was not uncommon to hear the rejoinder, “it is a free country.” I never hear this any more. Although nothing has changed in the Bill of Rights, I no longer can address any difference with another citizen by simply walking away peacefully, or simply and politely declining to conduct business with them. As a business owner, I can no longer say to a customer, I am sorry but I decline to offer my services to you. Please go elsewhere.
This is how we got from good intentions to allow blacks to use a rest room and a lunch counter to militant gays having the power of the state to force someone to perform services they fundamentally find offensive and violation of their conscience.
When gays rioted at the Stonewall Inn in NYC in 1969, all the media voices told us that gays just wanted to be left alone, that what they do in private is their private business. Besides, who wants to give government the power to regulate what consenting adults do? Well, the hard truth is that gays didn’t just want to be left alone. They really crave our approval and validation of their sexual orientation and sexual activities. I can never give that approval, for I take my morality from Scripture and God’s word is very very clear about sexual morality.
So, when Progressives insist that #LoveWins, they are willing to take society down this road. They would rather throw those who disagree in jail, than to allow them to withhold their acquiescence to this demand. #BakeTheCake or else!
I hope Trump gets 3 more justices to retire - Ginsberg, Altimeter and Beyers. It would be great...
That’s what’s known as a straw man. This isn’t about denying services to homosexuals which are afforded to normal people. This is about forcing Christians to affirm a practice, and engage in celebrating a practice, which violates the Christians’ personally held religious faith.
I was hoping the right to assemble (or not) that was mentioned by a FReeper in a previous article is a consideration as well. Freedom to assemble implies a right not to assemble, or in this case, dis-associate from groups condoning LGBT. That right was abridged by the Oregon commissioners’ order.
More of a conumdrum.
This isn’t about denying services to homosexuals which are afforded to normal people. This is about forcing Christians to affirm a practice, and engage in celebrating a practice, which violates the Christians’ personally held religious faith.
But in doing so they are denying services to homosexuals based on their sexual orientation. This is a no win situation. Forcing the baker to abide by the law in their view violates their religious beliefs. Allowing the baker to follow their faith as they see it violates the anti-discrimination laws. One side or the other are going to consider their rights violated.
By that standard, you could force people to engage in homosexual sex, because refusal is based on sexual orientation.
Now, in the real world, refusal to engage in homosexual activity, and refusal to engage is celebration of homosexual activity, is not the same thing as refusing to sell someone a loaf of bread because they engage in homosexual activity. So please stop equating the two. They are absolutely not the same thing.
This is NOT about refusing service to anyone, based on their sexual choices. This is about forcing Christians to engage in activities that violate their faith. These are activities that they would not engage in, for anyone. You’re demanding they engage in these activities, specifically for homosexuals, in violation of the Christians’ faith. It really makes no difference who you’re making these demands on behalf of. You have no right to make the demand.
You can sit at the counter with everyone else. You can be served the food on the menu, same as everyone else. You cannot force me to prepare a tribute to your sexual perversion.
This is really not difficult. I don’t understand why you have such difficulty understanding it.
That's idiotic.
This is NOT about refusing service to anyone, based on their sexual choices. This is about forcing Christians to engage in activities that violate their faith.
It's both. Hence the conundrum.
You’re demanding they engage in these activities, specifically for homosexuals, in violation of the Christians’ faith.
I'm not demanding anything. The state of Colorado is doing that.
This is really not difficult. I don’t understand why you have such difficulty understanding it.
Yeah it is. No matter what, in this situation someone is having their rights violated.
Of course it’s idiotic. Why do you support such idiocy? It’s very easy to see the difference between selling someone a loaf of bread, and creating a tribute to sexual perversion. Why can’t you see the difference?
The reason for the discrimination is no more important that\n the reason for abridging someones religious freedom. What's important is that regardless of which side you look at someone's rights are being trampled. I don't know what the solution is when siding with one side violates the other sides rights and vice-versa.
No, you don’t have the right to force others to engage in your perversions. You just don’t. No.
The state of Colorado and their anti-discrimination laws say otherwise.
They, and you, are wrong. Dead wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.