3RU7AL

23,000 plus nominally Christian denominations is religious anarchy, isn't it obvious?

And I for one appreciate the first amendment, even if it allows for the existence of all these heretical churches and false religions. Even God deniers!

The Church respects free will. Freedom of religion is very much in line with what we believe as far as coercion being unacceptable in spiritual healing.

People certainly have the right to be wrong!

What if my religion believes that blacks are afflicted with evil. Should I have the right to exclude blacks from my business? What if I believe the disabled are afflicted because of their sin. Should I have the right to exclude the disabled?

Someone does not have to justify their religious beliefs.

First of all, the cake guy does this all day long, this is not "forced labor".

lol dude come on, it's forced labor if he doesn't want to do it isn't it?  I mean that IS the definition.

The objection was based on their sexual orientation alone, not that they were asking for a ridiculous cake.

the objection was based on a gay marriage as they were able to pick a cake from the case, so it was not actually based on their sexual orientation because he would have still provided a product to them.

Can we force a restaurant employee to make a milkshake or a cappuccino for a minority they hate?  Yes.

correct as I have been explaining to secularmerlin it's about an action/verb and not a noun, please read those posts I don't feel like typing it out all again.

What if gay people are jeopardizing religious peoples afterlife.  Unfortunately this has to be considered right?

Even so, you still have to show the rule.

but again I believe many of these things are open to interpretation are they not?  If they are, does the individual have the right to their interpretation?  Who decides if the individual's interpretation is wrong and who's is correct?  If you think they are wrong do you think it's ok to make them accept yours?

There is no such rule in Christianity. 

Last time I told you that you were presuming people's beliefs you said something like "they say its based on religion" but what you are actually doing is saying that their conscience can be assumed to align with your own presumptions like "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners" without proof.

Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".

The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.  I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.

...they could have purchased a cake from the case, his creativity, skill, artistic interpretation, his physical labor for which someone wishes to enter into a contract with him for is at his discretion.

Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.

Yeah, there could still be Jewish arguments on that subject.  In Christianity something like that is considered as a consequence of the fall and/or policy of specific historical context, and no longer institutionally valid in any circumstance.

you can have a ceremony without being legally married or be legally married without a ceremony, they can be exclusive.

...with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.

And there is also an equally long history of objecting to eating bacon-cheeseburgers and marrying a divorcee.

lol you are really trying hard here I see that but come on LOL

you don't ask to enter into a mutual contract to have a person eat bacon-cheeseburgers do you?

so only your interpretation matters then, because you believe theirs is incorrect?

because, as you claim, they allow for other sins or things you think are prohibited in the bible that they can't object to homosexuality, it's all or nothing for you, correct?

Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.

but there does seem to be a long history of objecting to homosexual sex, or is that incorrect?

Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another.  There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity.  It is like an oxymoron.  Interracial marriage would still be marriage.

Marriage in this context is a legal designation not a religious one. Otherwise no legislation would be necessarry or apply.

no, before civil rights they were denying people, not actions,celebrations and things I've already outlined.

One of the ways they did this was by refusing services to certain individuals (say baking wedding cakes for interracial couples).

we have to allow any reason to maintain freedom over one's self and their person.  this includes refusing to make,create, participate in any religious settings, or just the ones I agree with.

How is celebrating a gay wedding any different then celebrating a marriage of divorcees, or a wedding between two felony convicts, or a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian (which is specifically prohibited)?

I'm not as knowledgeable about religion as you are, so I don't know.  You seem rather insistent wanting to apply logic to something you consider so illogical to begin with.

Everyone has different values and things they object to, that is their right and should be.  As I have said this is one of the prices for freedom, letting people choose freely rather than being totalitarian and making them prove it or justify it to your or the state's satisfaction.

To me this is very similar to a speech some white supremacist, nazi would might have, no matter how much I may hate it, it still needs to be protected if we are to maintain freedoms, either everyone is equal or they aren't, this includes people who make choices we would not and we would even consider repugnant.

again the refusal is not based on the person, but the reason for the proposed contract, but even then as I have said in providing certain services anyone should have the right to refuse and not give a reason so what the true reason doesn't matter, though I guess if you could show a pattern.

No you can't discriminate based on characteristics, being gay is a characteristic, a gay wedding is not, it's an event, celebration, whatever, you can choose to participate or not.

The cake issue specifically, he had a problem with a cake that celebrated or was for a celebration of a gay wedding, an act/event.

whether they choose to give a reason or not it's their choice they have the right and freedom to choose not to labor in the context I have already laid down.  Their body their choice.

there doesn't have to be a specific text, it's their interpretation of it, hence belief and freedom of religion.

does the muslim religion have specific texts, I honestly don't know but I assume they do since they toss gays off of buildings etc they must, which I gather you'd give them a pass but not other religions unless they can present the specific text.

I think there's plenty of precedence of how some religions feel about gays. 

Can get receive communion, be priests, nuns or hold certain positions in some churches?  Are there still some who will not perform a religious gay wedding?  I believe these are still the cases so the objection seems consistent for those who do object.

I am frequently objecting to divorce. Next question, please. I would rather die alone than ever go through a divorce.

How do you object to a gay wedding but not to a divorcee wedding?

can atheist object to gay weddings or are they somehow prohibited from doing so?

I disagree. Would you say the same if Muslims are in charge, or is your issue with Christians?

Out of curiosity, why is cash of significance to you?

...it's not hate to disagree with something the Bible calls a sin.

Discrimination is not marrying someone of the same sex because they are the same sex as you.

So in this case it is a matter of whether or not you respect the baker's right of free will

Secondly, the idea that all people who do not abide by your religion should not receive service would seem to practically necessitate a closed system of business to begin with.  

Discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination on the basis of someone's race is illegal.

I don't  believe that is how the first amendment works.

Besides that, protestant Christianity is far too diverse for this to be practical anyway.

Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy?

That sounds like "guilty until proven innocent", and it's not helped by presumptively assuming the motive

I wonder if the cake guy asked the people getting married whom he DID make cakes for, if they'd had premarital sex, or were living together. Wouldn't he HAVE to? In order to be consistent with the biblical objections, I mean, which is basically the crux of his argument.

I think there is a big difference between spreading bad publicity and using the force of the law.

All laws "compel action" by threat of force.

do they?  trying to think of what other laws actually forces you do something physically with your body, can't think of anything atm  What law forces you to work or perform work against your will?  Drawing a blank, help me out there.

If a sole proprietor doesn't want to "serve the public" they should open a private club.

isn't that his private business/property if he is the owner?

if it is he can invite people or not onto his property anytime he chooses can't he?

do we have rights over our own property?

Actions that support individual equality and the function of a peaceful society should be enforced by law. 

how about blood donations, there's always a shortage, that saves lives shouldn't that be mandatory over hurt feelings or inconvenience?

looking for some lines here.

just to be clear you seem to be fine with forcing people to work at gun point because discrimination is the greater of 2 evils.

The real thing he wants is attention because nobody cares about his [CRAZY IDEAS].

This was primarily meant to dissuade the kinds of @$$#$% who decided to pick on the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop to force them out of business on account of the owner's religious beliefs that they didn't like.

The Ultimate Reality is what is God means.

In a majority christian setting a homosexual could hypothetically be refused the bulk of ordinary services and the businesses that would cater to them might abuse them in other ways (such as price gouging or offering inferior goods) since they have no alternative. We know this is possible specifically because of the conditions in America that led to the civil rights movement in the first place. 

so then it comes back to do you force the individual who has not agreed or bound to specific behavior and standards to an employer, do you force the sole proprietor to perform under threat of force?  

to what end?  

how can you justify such actions?

what other compelled actions should we force at gun point?

I'd prefer they be out in the open than hiding.

I'd want to know upfront so I can find an alternative place who I could trust, who does want my business and then i could inform others.

Forced labor under threat, whether it's paid for or not is still wrong imo.

their decisions should be respected, this does not mean there won't be consequences, people can ask to boycott the business, protest legally and what ever other legal means are available.  This is a more civilized and appropriate approach than threat of violence to force labor.  Don't you think?

as a side not, yes I agreed and supported the cake shop's position.

If I can choose what to do with my body/labor, without the force and threat of people with guns forcing me to do preform with my body/labor than any religious objection is moot as it's my body/labor choice so I don't have to give a reason., which is exactly what I said previously, perhaps a 2nd reading will help you understand better?

The verses I presented said any male who has sex with other men won't go to heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine