Page 110 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110111112120 ... LastLast
Results 1,091 to 1,100 of 1212

Thread: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

  1. #1091
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,187

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I am a Christian.
    Is that your defense for bigotry? If you are a Christian act like Christ did instead of making empty claims.

    In fact it is.
    Actually it is not and you are unable to make a case for why or how making a cake for a gay wedding compromises your faith.

    One of the points about religious freedom is that you do not get to decide what others' faiths will be or include.
    I am not trying to decide what your faith is, you made it clear what you call it. You may also note that there is really no mystery about Christianity is all about, but you are attempting to change that to mean that it includes bigotry. It does not and never did.

    The point being that just as you think that is is stupid for someone not to take you at face value when you state what you believe and what you are pursuing, it is stupid of you to refuse to do the same for others.
    Yea, but again, you did no claim nor did the bigoted proponents of this law to be followers of some obscure religion that no one really understands, not that that would make it acceptable, but it was the pretense of following Christianity and that is laughable.

  2. #1092
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,187

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Your honestly is a breath of fresh air.
    But this post reeks of bigotry.

  3. #1093
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    But this post reeks of bigotry.
    Actually it doesn't. The recognition of the right of free association and property regarding goods, services, and labor of the individual is not bigotry because everyone would have those rights, not only a select few.

    The Arizona law, which is the topic of this thread, could be viewed as bigotry. It would have provided special rights only to those who claim religion as the foundation for their business decisions. However someone else who makes the exact same decision but doesn't mouth the magic phrase "I did it because of my sincerely held religious belief" is not afforded the same protection that this law applies.

    Let me give you a couple of examples. I spent 20-years in the military risking my life multiple times and participated in a war (Desert Shield/Desert Storm) where I have combat flight time for missions flown in theater, I did it because I believe in liberty and freedom and felt a responsibility to serve my country. As you can guess I'm a pretty patriotic guy. However I oppose legislation to make flag burning a criminal act, on the other hand I will bad mouth those who actually burn a flag as low life scum sucking turds. Even though I disagree with their speech, I will defend their right to have it. Same goes for the wacka-doodles at Westboro Baptist Church, I disagree with their message about homosexuals, but I would stand against a law making their speech illegal.

    Same applies to this situation. To defend the rights of private business owners to free association and the ability to manage their property, goods, and labor in accordance with the model that they desire does not support bigotry, it supports freedom, liberty, and individual self-determination. I think a florist that turns away an interracial couple BECAUSE they are an interracial couple are unmitigated jerks - but that is their bigotry not mine. I think a photographer that turns away a lesbian couple for a commitment ceremony (Elane Photography, New Mexico) BECAUSE they are a lesbian couple are schmucks - but that is their bigotry not mine.

    I opposed this law because it grants "special rights" to discriminate, no such "special right" should be needed - Public Accommodation laws applied to private business should be repeal - IMHO. That is not condoning discrimination, when such discrimination occurs the light of truth should be shined strongly on it and pubic reaction should let the business owners know that conduct is unacceptable through lawful means such as information sources such as newspapers, the internet, web sites, and customer reviews. Some call that harsh, but Focus on the Family had no problem calling for boycotts of companies they considered "gay friendly" and what good for the goose is good for the gander. Ask Sweetcakes by Melissa how well their business did once their discrimination because known to the public. IIRC business dropped by 60% and they closed their storefront.



    >>>>

  4. #1094
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked about Forcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.



    Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.
    How exactly is your faith violated on one specific sin and not another? Are all other sins less egregious or does your faith allow you to pick and choose degree of sin?

    Where in your faith does it say not to bake a cake for a sinner? Where in your faith does it say to shun business from sinners...or some sinners over others?

    The use of the calim of faith or religion needs clairification to be held paramount over Constitutional law. I think it is a fantastic scam by some. Cherrypicking is not God's handwork.

  5. #1095
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    How exactly is your faith violated on one specific sin and not another? Are all other sins less egregious or does your faith allow you to pick and choose degree of sin?

    Where in your faith does it say not to bake a cake for a sinner? Where in your faith does it say to shun business from sinners...or some sinners over others?
    It's not the baking of the cake - it's the taking part in, the support of, the ceremony. No one should force you to celebrate that which you morally disapprove of, and no one should force you to violate your beliefs because people can't stand it when you don't celebrate what you morally approve of.

    The use of the calim of faith or religion needs clairification to be held paramount over Constitutional law
    Freedom of Conscience IS Constitutional Law! It's the First Amendment, for crying out loud.

  6. #1096
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    Is that your defense for bigotry? If you are a Christian act like Christ did instead of making empty claims.
    Indeed so should we all. But one of Christs' continued sticking points (he talked about it a good bit) is the sanctity of marriage, which He defined as between a man and a woman. You seem to have "agreeing with you" confused with "acting like Christ."

    Actually it is not and you are unable to make a case for why or how making a cake for a gay wedding compromises your faith.
    In fact it is because it isn't just a cake - it is a wedding cake. It is a part of a celebration of a union of two people. If baker believes that he cannot in good conscience take part in that celebration, well it's not your right to force him or her to do so anyway simply because you disagree.

    I am not trying to decide what your faith is, you made it clear what you call it.
    In fact you are because you are telling me that it does not, in fact, include what I say that it does. You are attempting to define the borders of others' faith. See, for example, below:

    You may also note that there is really no mystery about Christianity is all about, but you are attempting to change that to mean that it includes bigotry. It does not and never did.
    - There you are.

    Yea, but again, you did no claim nor did the bigoted proponents of this law to be followers of some obscure religion that no one really understands, not that that would make it acceptable, but it was the pretense of following Christianity and that is laughable.
    you know, I'm tempted to simply declare that, given the situation surrounding this law, anyone who opposes it is just an anti-Christian bigot, seeking to persecute religion. That wouldn't be true, but it seems ya'll sure do get a lot of emotional mileage out of a pretense of superiority.

    Christianity is clear on the nature of marriage, and it is clear on the nature of homosexuality. It is not at all wrong for those who seek to follow it's precepts to feel that they are morally incapable of joining in a celebration that it would disapprove of.

  7. #1097
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.

    I do wonder though why people get so pissy about such things. It would have been interesting to see someone turn down my grandparents for a cake because they wanted it to say something like "50 years Chuck and Bill" on it and it was either ordered over the phone or by only my grandfather or perhaps one of us younger ones.
    The ones who got 'pissy' about it were the Gays. Instead of calling the owners idiots and going to another bakery, which most people would do when insulted, they got a fit and made themselves look even more petty and ridiculous. I still support Gay rights but, damn, the Gay militants are getting tiresome.

  8. #1098
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    It's not the baking of the cake - it's the taking part in, the support of, the ceremony. No one should force you to celebrate that which you morally disapprove of, and no one should force you to violate your beliefs because people can't stand it when you don't celebrate what you morally approve of.



    Freedom of Conscience IS Constitutional Law! It's the First Amendment, for crying out loud.
    The topic of my discussion was refusal of service on what grounds. Not the act of celebrating.

    A baker does not celebrate any of the occasions he bakes a cake for. His business is baking cakes. The question is not celebrating the occasion, it is whether his belief allows him to refuse service to a class of people. A class of people he chose not to serve.

    Freedom of Conscience does not need to be listed as a right to uphold, because that right...like the right to self defense and marriage pre-dates the US Constitution.

    You have freedom to believe as you wish. The question is whether your belief is pararmount over other's rights. No right is sacroscant over another just as no religion is sacrocant over another.

    If your claim is that your faith is in your head[Freedom of Conscience] and that should be sufficient to act as you will, that might be sufficient to your God[whatever that may be], but I don't think that is sufficient justification in a court of law in the US.

    If someone comes before the court with a claim of "religious exemption", then they should - at least- have something written down so that all can all follow along with the defense. To tell the judge..."it's all in my head Judge"...I don't think will go over very well in court.

  9. #1099
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    The topic of my discussion was refusal of service on what grounds. Not the act of celebrating.
    In this case, the service being provided is part of a celebration. If a Baker does not wish to take part in a gay wedding via his or her work, that is his or her right.

    A baker does not celebrate any of the occasions he bakes a cake for. His business is baking cakes. The question is not celebrating the occasion, it is whether his belief allows him to refuse service to a class of people. A class of people he chose not to serve.
    No - it is for an event.

    Freedom of Conscience does not need to be listed as a right to uphold, because that right...like the right to self defense and marriage pre-dates the US Constitution.
    The Right of Religious Conscience does indeed pre-date the Constitution, but it is there that it was firsts enshrined into written law.

    You have freedom to believe as you wish. The question is whether your belief is pararmount over other's rights.
    Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have a right to force other people to support your wedding. You do not have a right to force other people to bake a cake for you. You do not have a right to force other people to let you use their space. You do not have a right to other people's stuff or their labor.

    No right is sacroscant over another just as no religion is sacrocant over another.
    On the contrary - if any of our rights is more Sacrosanct, it is religious freedom; which played not a little role in the founding of this country.

    If your claim is that your faith is in your head[Freedom of Conscience] and that should be sufficient to act as you will, that might be sufficient to your God[whatever that may be], but I don't think that is sufficient justification in a court of law in the US.
    Sure. and if you think you should get married then that should be sufficient to act as you will, and let me act as I will.

    If someone comes before the court with a claim of "religious exemption", then they should - at least- have something written down so that all can all follow along with the defense. To tell the judge..."it's all in my head Judge"...I don't think will go over very well in court.
    Christianity is pretty clear on the nature of marriage and the nature of homosexuality. That being said, we live in a country where each individual is free to define their own faith, and we make pretty great allowance for those who wish to follow it - which is why we allow people to opt out of the Draft, or Social Security on that basis.

  10. #1100
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    In this case, the service being provided is part of a celebration. If a Baker does not wish to take part in a gay wedding via his or her work, that is his or her right.

    No - it is for an event.
    The Right of Religious Conscience does indeed pre-date the Constitution, but it is there that it was firsts enshrined into written law.
    Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have a right to force other people to support your wedding. You do not have a right to force other people to bake a cake for you. You do not have a right to force other people to let you use their space. You do not have a right to other people's stuff or their labor.
    This passage above all the others is indicative of your undertanding of rights.

    On the contrary - if any of our rights is more Sacrosanct, it is religious freedom; which played not a little role in the founding of this country.


    Sure. and if you think you should get married then that should be sufficient to act as you will, and let me act as I will.
    Christianity is pretty clear on the nature of marriage and the nature of homosexuality. That being said, we live in a country where each individual is free to define their own faith, and we make pretty great allowance for those who wish to follow it - which is why we allow people to opt out of the Draft, or Social Security on that basis.
    If I were to have ten Christian ministers, with churches and congergations in the community, to testify in court on my behalf that Christianity does not foster or advocate disrimination against anyone for any reason...would that help or hurt my case against religious dicrimination?

    There is [and will be shown by the US Supreme court that there is] a difference in of one's religious convitions[which are protected] and religious belief meant to discriminate[which are not protected].

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •