"Actually Allowing Businesses To Refuse Service Based On Sexual Orientation"

[phkrause]

I definitely agree Pam

[Naomi]

I understand that people should not be discriminated for their lot in life, be it race, religion, social status, or sexual preference...

But what I don't understand is why someone would feel the need to enter a business and declare their sexual orientation... I don't see the purpose.. In a way, it's almost like bullying, in that it intentionally sets up a business to honor a person's [what should be] private preferences, rather than simply being an individual who wishes to patronize a business.

YES!!! Well spoken Pam

[bonnie]

I understand that people should not be discriminated for their lot in life, be it race, religion, social status, or sexual preference...

But what I don't understand is why someone would feel the need to enter a business and declare their sexual orientation... I don't see the purpose.. In a way, it's almost like bullying, in that it intentionally sets up a business to honor a person's [what should be] private preferences, rather than simply being an individual who wishes to patronize a business.

Some of the most intolerant are those that profess tolerance.

It is not possible in the minds of some that others disagree with their "tolerance"

To hold a personal and religious belief that does not include their "tolerance" is intolerable.

A lesbian couple,two close friends of mine for well over thirty five years,know my beliefs towards their lifestyle. They don't demand I agree with it or endorse or support gay marriage. I don't believe they would ever "marry" as a straight couple would,but if that should happen they would never expect me to attend the wedding. They would not insult my beliefs.These are not "closet" friends.We go out to eat frequently and as they love to fish more than anything else,my husband goes fishing with them. I don't hate them or fear them because of their lifestyle, but neither to I accept it as just another choice that is as valid as one man,one woman.

There are many businesses that will serve any and all groups for anything.These are not the ones they choose as it defeats their purpose.

Now that the definition of marriage has been changed and the camels nose is not just in the door but is in the living room,the demand for churches is not far behind.

So many SDA's have either agreed,promoted or endorsed gay marriage as "christian acceptance" there isn't much to stand on in denial of full acceptance

[Tom Wetmore]

I understand that people should not be discriminated for their lot in life, be it race, religion, social status, or sexual preference...

But what I don't understand is why someone would feel the need to enter a business and declare their sexual orientation... I don't see the purpose.. In a way, it's almost like bullying, in that it intentionally sets up a business to honor a person's [what should be] private preferences, rather than simply being an individual who wishes to patronize a business.

And that begs the question. Was this really something happening in Arizona to such an extent that businesses needed to be afforded the option to put a stop to it if it offended their religious beliefs? The answer apparently was a resounding "No!"

Has anyone here ever in their whole life witnessed that happening - A person walks into a restaurant and declares, "I am gay and hungry, I would like to have lunch." Without a gay person doing that, or wearing a sign that says it, how often can you be absolutely sure? How good is your gaydar? I'm thinking there are going to be a lot of false positives in the gay detection of consciencious Arizona business owners and way more gays missed in the gay dragnet.

The supposed intent was to fight against this decidedly rare or even nonexistent problem to protect the religious freedom of those whose conscience was offended by homosexuality. I saw an interview with one of the Arizona legislators behind the bill where he was asked for one specific instance of where such a confrontation of religious beliefs of a business owner had occurred in Arizona. He could think of none. Not even the supposed motivation had much of a basis.

But the bill itself was apparently so badly crafted, (too vague and too broad) that it would have also allowed for pretty much any religious belief against anything or anyone as the basis to refuse service. So a devout Muslim taxi driver could refuse to pick up anyone Jewish, or Christian because they were an infidel.

[bonnie]

But the bill itself was apparently so badly crafted, (too vague and too broad) that it would have also allowed for pretty much any religious belief against anything or anyone as the basis to refuse service. So a devout Muslim taxi driver could refuse to pick up anyone Jewish, or Christian because they were an infidel.

Oh but they can. Not sure if it has changed here but Muslims have done just that.

Refusing passengers at the airport if the passenger had alcohol in his luggage or if a service dog was necessary for the passenger.

One of the major discount stores was forced to accommodate Muslims in the handling of items at checkout they had religious opposition to.

They new on applying for the job what would be required.They deliberately took the job and then promptly sued on religious grounds.

At one of the colleges in Mn a student was forced to change schools because of actions of a Muslim that came in after.The young man needed a service dog to attend classes independently>

The young man feared for the life of his dog after the Muslim threatened to kill it

This is exactly where we are at with the gay community

[Tom Wetmore]

Really? Exactly?

Weirdly inapposite examples. The service dog example sounds unresolved since it was between two students, the business (college) didn't act. The threat to kill a service dog would likely have been prosecutable criminally. That student left in fear. Did he seek legal help? The others, involve accommodation in employment - customer was still served by the business in question.

The one that perhaps fits, the Muslim taxi driver... What was the legal consequence of the Muslim taxi driver in MN? Allowed? Do you see that refusal acceptable? That was the point of the Arizona law, to allow that sort of thing. Apparently most people have problem with that.

[bonnie]

Really? Exactly?

Weirdly inapposite examples. The service dog example sounds unresolved since it was between two students, the business (college) didn't act. The threat to kill a service dog would likely have been prosecutable criminally. That student left in fear. Did he seek legal help? The others, involve accommodation in employment - customer was still served by the business in question.

The one that perhaps fits, the Muslim taxi driver... What was the legal consequence of the Muslim taxi driver in MN? Allowed? Do you see that refusal acceptable? That was the point of the Arizona law, to allow that sort of thing. Apparently most people have problem with that.

What do you think would have been the outcome if a "christian" student" had exhibited the same behavior in attending class with a Muslim? Service dogs are allowed anywhere,at least here,even in hospitals.The Muslim student should have been told he was wrong and accept it or find something more to his liking.

So in the cases causing the ruckus the same is true....customer was still served by the business in question.

Most secular businesses would not have a problem with serving their needs,let them patronize them.

Doesn't matter whether I see the taxi driver situation as acceptable. The law should apply equally.

The Muslim drivers should have been the ones that went to the back of the line. They took up the "first in line" spot and then refused passengers based on their religious beliefs.

[fccool]

Quote:

What do you think would have been the outcome if a "christian" student" had exhibited the same behavior in attending class with a Muslim? Service dogs are allowed anywhere,at least here,even in hospitals.

Why should this even matter in context of higher ethical standards that we aspire to as a society?

Should these isolated incidents make it ok to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference?

It's hard to understand your point in all of this.

Quote:

The Muslim student should have been told he was wrong and accept it or find something more to his liking.

So in the cases causing the ruckus the same is true....customer was still served by the business in question.

Most secular businesses would not have a problem with serving their needs,let them patronize them.

What does that have to do with discriminating against gay people? You keep running to these Muslim cases as some examples of lack of fairness, but it ends up not making much sense in this context. What exactly is the point? Is it that gay people should be mistreated because Muslims are treated preferentially in some cases?

Perhaps the point is that anyone should refuse any type of service to anyone based on their religious preferences?

It's hard for me to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps you can explain?

[bonnie]

Why should this even matter in context of higher ethical standards that we aspire to as a society?

Should these isolated incidents make it ok to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference?

It's hard to understand your point in all of this.

[fccool]

So, are you saying that unless we remove all of the discrimination, that means that other is justifiable? So, does racism against whites justify racism against blacks? I'm still not following you. What is your point that's worthy defending this discrimination against gay people?

Sure, gay people are not special group, but they are group that's discriminated against.

Shouldn't we aspire to higher societal relational standards, instead of playing to the lowest common denominator.

Quote:

Ethical standards mean I apply the same ethical behavior to everyone. Incidences of "gay discrimination" is as isolated as you claim the other examples given

The difference is that I don't justify these as comparable example... Adventists are likewise given preferential treatments, and sue their employers if they suddenly demand them to work on Sabbath or be let go.

I personally think that religion tends to muddy these issues to begin with, but as an employer... if I really want to keep a worker, I'd do my best to accommodate their preferences. The same goes for my clients.

[bonnie]

So, are you saying that unless we remove all of the discrimination, that means that other is justifiable? So, does racism against whites justify racism against blacks? I'm still not following you. What is your point that's worthy defending this discrimination against gay people?

Sure, gay people are not special group, but they are group that's discriminated against.

Shouldn't we aspire to higher societal relational standards, instead of playing to the lowest common denominator.

We will never remove all discrimination,including the intolerance by the so called tolerance of opinions and religious beliefs of others.

I have not really defended,more that there is more to the story than this supposedly widespread discrimination against gays.

We have had a few weddings here performed in bars. Should a wedding photographer be forced to attend and provide a service in a bar if he is religiously against those establishments?

Those screaming the loudest are many times more guilty of intolerance than those they accuse.

I don't believe that all that is claimed to be discrimination fits that definition. My religious beliefs trump your secular definition of discrimination any day.

If that religious belief tells me that I should not be a party to a service in a bar,that is the way it would be.

To actively and willingly take part in a "gay marriage" service

would violate my religious beliefs.

It is a delusion to think that this will stop with a refusal by a baker. Each inch forward is taking us closer to religions losing the right to say who they will perform a marriage ceremony for.

I am not sure that many care one way or another,but SDA's that have and continue to back "gay marriage" as a right and demand that whoever they chose serve them will look a little hypocritical in the future if they "discriminate".

If 'gay marriage" is a right,they should not be denied anything they demand as to that right

[fccool]

Quote:

We will never remove all discrimination,including the intolerance by the so called tolerance of opinions and religious beliefs of others. I have not really defended,more that there is more to the story than this supposedly widespread discrimination against gays.

But, you seem to go on and contradict yourself in the very next part here, stating that your religious view demands you to be intolerant of certain homosexual behavior... Am I wrong?

Quote:

We have had a few weddings here performed in bars. Should a wedding photographer be forced to attend and provide a service in a bar if he is religiously against those establishments?

The problem is that there is no clearly defined religious consistency, and these "values" seem to be fairly arbitrary when it comes to any sort of consistent application of these values. These are ever-evasive when it comes to actually nailing down what exactly it is people are fighting for other than maintaining their religious beliefs in a way that excuses them from otherwise inexcusable behavior.

No one is forcing you to be an accept homosexuality as normal... as your individual belief. BUT When you engage in commercial activity you step into the territory of society you live in, in which you have to deal with arbitration of these values in a matter that's justifiably functional. That's the concept that's seem to evade you.

You are free to hold any beliefs you want, but when you deal with other people there are consistent rules that keep our society functional and at relative peace with each other.

If everyone begins adopting "I don't believe that, therefore screw you" mentality... it would be a very difficult society to function in, especially in a melting pot like the US, where we have a wide variety of religions and views.

That's why tolerance standards exist... not to infringe on your religious view, but to protect them when they need it most.

Quote:

I don't believe that all that is claimed to be discrimination fits that definition. My religious beliefs trump your secular definition of discrimination any day.

Then there can never be a consistent definition of anything, if people keep redefining concepts against their own beliefs. The reason why we've had the enormous amount of largely religious wars and violence is precisely because of the "My religious beliefs trump yours" type of mentality.

Quote:

If that religious belief tells me that I should not be a party to a service in a bar,that is the way it would be.

How are these issues even in the same league?

Quote:

To actively and willingly take part in a "gay marriage" service would violate my religious beliefs.

I didn't realize that supplying food, or documenting gay marriage is almost the same as being as being a groomsman. Business if objective in nature. Photographing a gay marriage is not the same as participating in gay marriage. It's a documenting job. The same goes for a Christian baker... they would be feeding people, in spite of their preferences, like any other people would.

If we adopt your mentality, then it's impossible to have a peaceful and functional society in a way in which we can separate people supplying their base needs from our disagreements.

I'm sure God disagrees with plenty of things that you do, but he doesn't prevent food from getting into your frige, because it would enable you do more of the terrible stuff in his eyes. Christians who adopt these ideas make themselves out to be more moral than God in such instance... or at least it seems to be.

That's why this concept is somewhat puzzling. Where the line? There is no underlying consistency to these objections that can be pinned down.

Quote:

It is a delusion to think that this will stop with a refusal by a baker. Each inch forward is taking us closer to religions losing the right to say who they will perform a marriage ceremony for.

Can't the same be said by the opposite side? It's a delusion to think that it will stop with the refusal by a baker?

Quote:

If 'gay marriage" is a right,they should not be denied anything they demand as to that right

How exactly do you come to this logical conclusion?

Gay marriage is merely a symbol of "equality", or at least tolerance for people whose only crime seems to be to want to have relationship with their own gender in a functional way, that makes sense in context of society... and not be ostracized for it.

There's more to homosexuality than sexuality, and that's what many Christians ignore. The actual act of having sex constitutes less than 1% of our lives. Yet, in this case it's blow up to be the entire being of people, who are functional, production, and law-abiding members of our society.

Why shouldn't we be understanding of their preferences, even if we don't find them to be "normal"?

[fccool]

Here's the final thought to clear up this conversation:

Business owners have the right not to offer goods and services to the general public. That’s the choice. Only if they CHOOSE to offer goods and services to the general public are they expected to offer those goods and services to the WHOLE general public. And that's the point here.

If you don’t want a gay dinner guest in your home, don’t invite gay dinner guests into your home. But if you CHOOSE to open a restaurant and offer meals to the general public, then guess what gay people are going to eat there.

The same goes for Photographers, and Bakers. No one is demanding them to bake anything, or participate in gay wedding ceremony... which they don't... if they don't want to. Demand is for consistent treatment of the customers in general public... and no religious beliefs will ever supersede that, especially when Christian religious ideals call us to serve and understand people, instead of ostracizing and isolating them based on their perceived pitfalls.

[bonnie]

But, you seem to go on and contradict yourself in the very next part here, stating that your religious view demands you to be intolerant of certain homosexual behavior... Am I wrong?

[fccool]

Quote:

I would not spend my day in a bar,gay or otherwise. Yet there are those in the gay community that will try to force that if a service refuses.

That's not the complaint in any viable case of that manner. There have yet to be a case that I'm aware of where being in a bar was an issue of intolerance.

No need for straw men here.

Quote:

A wedding cake by a specific baker is hardly supplying people with their basic needs. Whether or not he should have refused is beside the point.The "gay community" wants tolerance for their behavior,maybe it should go both ways

We are not talking about needs. We are talking about a service that's offered to general public.

I'm quite certain that when these people are walking into these bakeries there are no signs that would say "Baking only for straight weddings... no gay weddings please". That would be awkward and would cost them a TON of business from majority of people would would find this revolting.

Quote:

I am sure he does. It doesn't have anything to do with enabling someone.

So, you believe that baking a cake... as a job ... enables homosexuality? If so... so don't you believe that let's say God allowing a porn addict to have internet ... is not "enabling them" in a similar contextual view of it?

You are not being consistent.

Quote:

Of course it isn't going to stop.No one,least of all the baker claimed it would.

That's not what the point was. The point was whether the other side can make the same case that it will stop with them being denied wedding-related services. How far can this attitude really go? How about Russia?

Why shouldn't gay people be concerned about such attitude?

Quote:

Understanding that homosexuality exists is a far cry from accepting it as simply another God given choice.

I could care less about 1% of what constitutes our lives.

How should marriage be defined,no longer one man,one woman,so what does it mean? Who gets to decide?

NOT YOU, unless it's your marriage... and that's the point. You don't get to decide that for anyone else. Marriage is a matter between two people, God and their approving families. Not government or general public's opinion.

Quote:

Again where is it we draw the line? As long as someone is a productive member of society?

That's not your line to draw, neither it is mine... unless it's my marriage.

Quote:

We knew a woman that lived with two men.Obviously they were not allowed to marry.They all worked and as far as I know never broke the law.Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry ,shouldn't they be allowed the symbol of equality?

In Bible they were, and God didn't say a word. He was quite tolerant of the fact, even when Biblical patriarchs were engaging in this cultural practice of "marriage".

Again, you are forcing your religious views on people who don't want them. If it's their view that three people can be married... then it's their view. They can have their private ceremonies... and state should stay out of it.

If God doesn't see it as marriage... then it's not. It's as simple as that. BUT you don't get to force your views on these people.

State is in it because IRS qualifies marriage. That's the only reason why we are talking about "marriage legality"... otherwise it's a completely private matter between consenting adults to co-exist under very specific sets of parameters. These can be religious... and qualify as marriage, or can be something else... and still be their choice.

You don't get to decide what they want to do in such arrangement.

Quote:

The man that fathered a child by his adult niece,never broke any other law that I know off.Neither was married to anyone else. Both worked.Never harmed anyone.Why can't they be allowed equality? The man with four wives should be allowed the same.

Sure... why not bring up a man and a dog in there too . It's these kinds of false analogies that really drive these conversations into the ground.

I could likewise go off the deep end and begin with "Well, if we begin to refuse gay people, why not bring back the racism, and begin building stoves for all the Jews". These are not legitimate and obviously red-herring questions in this context.... which are structured to avoid the main focus of this discussing and instead devolve into dubious slippery slope assumptions.

None of that has to do with the issue at hand. We are talking about a group of people walking into a store where Wedding Cakes are made for GENERAL PUBLIC... with no indication that "Gay Marriages are not served", and they are essentially told that they will not be included in the concept of the "General Public" in this instance, because in the owner's view what they are doing is immoral. How do you suppose anyone would react in such instance?

I'd probably not waste my time retaliating, but if I was bullied and ostracized for being different my entire life... I'd probably do something.

[bonnie]

Not a straw man at all. The only reason it has not happened yet is a photographer has not been chosen that refused service to a couple in a bar.I have never seen any photographer post that they will not provide service in a bar so they would be fair game

Quote:

We are not talking about needs. We are talking about a service that's offered to general public.

I'm quite certain that when these people are walking into these bakeries there are no signs that would say "Baking only for straight weddings... no gay weddings please". That would be awkward and would cost them a TON of business from majority of people would would find this revolting.

That is precisely why this would not be a widespread practice.

Talk about strawmen,what in the world does Russia have to do with this?

Quote:

So, you believe that baking a cake... as a job ... enables homosexuality? If so... so don't you believe that let's say God allowing a porn addict to have internet ... is not "enabling them" in a similar contextual view of it?

You are not being consistent.

Please go back and read.I actually said it didn't have anything to do with enabling.

Quote:

NOT YOU, unless it's your marriage... and that's the point. You don't get to decide that for anyone else. Marriage is a matter between two people, God and their approving families. Not government or general public's opinion.

I asked you for the definition of marriage.I did not say that I was defining marriage for anyone else.For me,marriage is one man,one woman. How can marriage be a matter between two people in a plural situation. Approving families do not always have a say.When I got married very young to a Catholic you can bet his family disapproved loudly. On sun we will have been married 52 years without their approval.

But more to the point,I asked what the new definition of marriage should be. Specifically I am more interested in the definition of practicing SDA's which seems difficult to obtain.

For the record if marriage no longer means one man,one woman,I personally don't think anyone should be denied to have as many spouses as they wish legally,marry half siblings,gay man married to gay nephew,straight man married to his niece.

Once that definition is changed I think it very hypocritical to have anyone say the change only includes unrelated gays

Quote:

That's not your line to draw, neither it is mine... unless it's my marriage.

I didn't say it was my line to draw.I asked where the line was,or maybe it should be should there be any legal restrictions? I don't think there should be in fairness to all

Quote:

In Bible they were, and God didn't say a word. He was quite tolerant of the fact, even when Biblical patriarchs were engaging in this cultural practice of "marriage".

Did God approve or was that is plan.I don't believe it was. I would be interested in hearing from practicing SDA's.

Quote:

Again, you are forcing your religious views on people who don't want them. If it's their view that three people can be married... then it's their view. They can have their private ceremonies... and state should stay out of it.

I didn't say one word about forcing my views. Nor did I at any time infer that they could not.Gays can have their private ceremonies just as easily.In fact have been doing so for years.

I am not however talking about private ceremonies for the example,but letting them be as "equal" as any traditional couple. Simply a yes or no will do.

Logically, as long as the definition of marriage has changed and it only involves the two people or three or more,I believe they should be.

If God doesn't see it as marriage... then it's not. It's as simple as that. BUT you don't get to force your views on these people.

Quote:

State is in it because IRS qualifies marriage. That's the only reason why we are talking about "marriage legality"... otherwise it's a completely private matter between consenting adults to co-exist under very specific sets of parameters. These can be religious... and qualify as marriage, or can be something else... and still be their choice.

You don't get to decide what they want to do in such arrangement.

You keep telling me I don't get to decide. I am not trying to decide.

Quote:

Sure... why not bring up a man and a dog in there too . It's these kinds of false analogies that really drive these conversations into the ground.

Not a false analogy at all.Real people that most in town knew and real circumstances. They were law abiding,productive,both the age of consent,your criteria.

How can you or anyone else decide for them that they do not have the right to be treated equal? You get to decide that?

Quote:

I'd probably not waste my time retaliating, but if I was bullied and ostracized for being different my entire life... I'd probably do something.

So it is acceptable to you that one side,as long as it is what you consider the right side be allowed to be bullied?

Being different isn't the issue.The issue for some is how they believe their own personal religious views enter in.

I have first hand experience with "tolerant bullies". Whether I continue in what I do is not a decision I have made as yet,but I am sick to death of someone trying to force me to not only accept the fact of their bizarre lifestyle,but provide them with the product they require.

There are thousands that will provide them,however their only interest is in the few that won't of which I am one .

Again,try to understand this.I am not deciding what the definition of marriage is for others.

I am asking what the definition is now? For those that agree gay marriage is a equal right,where do you draw the line?

And if you draw a line isn't that discrimination.

I would not object to any variance at all if I agreed gay marriage was a right

[Narcah]

How can you force an artist to create artistic work based on the threat of lawsuit? What if they mixed up the salt and sugar, or the camera card malfunctioned and lost all the photos?

It seems to me queers should want to hire people who want to serve their deviant lifestyle, not forcing artists to make sub-quality products for their "special" day.

Yes, fcccool, homosexuality is and always will be, a vile sin according to the Bible. It's written right there in plain English.

[bonnie]

How can you force an artist to create artistic work based on the threat of lawsuit? What if they mixed up the salt and sugar, or the camera card malfunctioned and lost all the photos?

It seems to me queers should want to hire people who want to serve their deviant lifestyle, not forcing artists to make sub-quality products for their "special" day.

Yes, fcccool, homosexuality is and always will be, a vile sin according to the Bible. It's written right there in plain English.

There isn't about being treated respectively.This is about forcing those that have an objection into acceptance and participation.

What I provide to buyers is available in the thousands. When I started I was completely unaware of the bizarre,depraved community out there. I didn't screen the buyers or have them fill out a questionaire. I know that I sold to those that belonged to this "group". I can't weed out everyone if I tried.

Yet with the availability those that don't enthusiastically enter into this are targeted.

I have been asked specifically to add certain items as there is a large demand and I could make a lot of money with their promotion.

I was polite when I refused,left out any religious objection out of my reason,saying only that I was as busy as I could afford to be and those that really needed what I provided was my priority.

I soon found myself on facebook.Not even as a negative comment but as someone that was providing the product they wanted and aren't they great and on and on. Complete with some of the foulest language I have ever read.

It is not the product they are after,it is any that don't support "their right" by providing,endorsing or even passive silence that are singled out to promote fear of reprisal.

I don't need their private lives shoved in my face,simply purchase the item as many do and go on their way. But that does not serve their purpose.

I suspect that is a lot of what is behind the controversy over the baker.

I don't expect the denomination to march in the streets against

"gay marriage" but we will pay a price for our passive silence

or conceding or agreeing that "gay marriage" is a right.

[fccool]

Quote:

Talk about strawmen,what in the world does Russia have to do with this?

Russia has fairly extreme anti-gay policies, which were historically present in the US also.

Merely 150 years ago homosexuals in the US could face the maximum penalty of death, or being castrated (as a "liberalization" proposal of the sodomy policies).

Prior to 1962, being an active homosexual was a felony in every state, which would land you prison term and hard labor.

So, I'm not drawing up something imaginary when I'm bringing up the present Russian policies. It's not merely a case of intolerance. It's a case of brutal historic intolerance of homosexuals in the US, where people were supposed to have constitutional guaranteed freedom.

I would argue that prejudice against homosexuality historically has been much stronger than prejudice against black people.

Quote:

Please go back and read.I actually said it didn't have anything to do with enabling.

I did read, and I understood it correctly. Baking a cake for homosexual wedding it's not the same as enabling or endorsing it. It's merely providing a service that one would otherwise provide anyway.

Quote:

For the record if marriage no longer means one man,one woman,I personally don't think anyone should be denied to have as many spouses as they wish legally,marry half siblings,gay man married to gay nephew,straight man married to his niece.

I've already explained to you that it's not for public or government to define marriage. Marriage historically has been a religious institution, and respective religion can define it as much as they like, and refuse people to marry independent of the state policies.

Marriage was defined culturally by various religious institutions, and the ideal definition is one may and one woman. That's not what the argument is about. You keep coming back to it, and it's not about marriage at all.

If you define marriage differently, then you are not really engaging in a marriage ceremony. If someone says "Hey let's go play football", and you show up and they are playing soccer... there's a clear semantic problem, since you are not talking about the same thing here. The same with the current cultural ideals and ideas of marriage.

Homosexuals are not attempting to "redefine marriage". They are attempting to live in a society, in context of who they are... enjoying the same level of acceptance as other couples, and not being treated like they are sub-human. The same goes for their celebration of union. You don't have to call it marriage, and to you then it wouldn't be. In fact, you are not required to show up or support it at all... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE ISSUE HERE IS AT ALL, and you keep going back to it as though it is.

I've already explained... the issue is not your ideals of marriage. The issue here is of functional discrimination of a specific groups of people, and whether we as a society should support and protect such discrimination if it's hiding behind the concept of "religious protest".

If Christians historically didn't jail, kill or castrate homosexuals... it wouldn't be an issue at all IMO. But they did, and you don't experience extreme prejudice that they do on occasion, until very recently. This is the extend of retreat of Christian intolerance these days thankfully.

While you find such intolerance acceptable, other people don't, given the history of such intolerance being quite violent. I know you don't intend to cause violence, but that's what your beliefs historically did. Therefore, these people are rightfully concerned when they walk into a store GENERALLY OPEN TO ALL PUBLIC and denied service without any prior warning or indication that store doesn't serve "their kind" in that particular context.

And it's precisely because you don't understand and refuse to understand why this is a problem... why they choose to file these lawsuits.

[Tom Wetmore]

...It is not hatred of gays , but rather a desire to live by the word of God.

My first reaction to that statement was, "Well, don't be gay. Choose to live your own life as a sexually pure heterosexual.

To live by the word of God.... It says they should be stoned along with adulterers and rebellious children and sabbath breakers. Are you suggesting that as Godly watchdogs over society this is what should be done?

And what was Jesus' response to a call to stone the adulterous woman brought to him?

Maybe if we would "live by the Word of God" tha spoke words to us about being peacemakers, loving our enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiveness, bringing every lost sheep into the fold, being kind to those looked down on by others...

[bonnie]

Quote:

I did read, and I understood it correctly. Baking a cake for homosexual wedding it's not the same as enabling or endorsing it. It's merely providing a service that one would otherwise provide anyway.

I don't know what all transpired in this and neither do you. Nor did I say that I felt the baker was within his "rights".

I do know from first hand personal experience that those that don't enthusiastically embrace certain groups can quickly become targets.

The public and government did and are now redefining marriage,regardless of how you feel about it. For a time yet religions can refuse people to marry. How long?

Quote:

Marriage was defined culturally by various religious institutions, and the ideal definition is one may and one woman. That's not what the argument is about. You keep coming back to it, and it's not about marriage at all.

Of course it is.A lesbian? couple wanted to arrange for a WEDDING cake.

Quote:

If you define marriage differently, then you are not really engaging in a marriage ceremony. If someone says "Hey let's go play football", and you show up and they are playing soccer... there's a clear semantic problem, since you are not talking about the same thing here. The same with the current cultural ideals and ideas of marriage.

Homosexuals are not attempting to "redefine marriage". They are attempting to live in a society, in context of who they are... enjoying the same level of acceptance as other couples, and not being treated like they are sub-human. The same goes for their celebration of union. You don't have to call it marriage, and to you then it wouldn't be. In fact, you are not required to show up or support it at all... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE ISSUE HERE IS AT ALL, and you keep going back to it as though it is.

They certainly are redefining marriage. They are not celebrating a union,they want marriage,two men,two women.That is a redefinition.

I keep asking what is the new definition of marriage,so far no one seems to know.

Quote:

I've already explained... the issue is not your ideals of marriage. The issue here is of functional discrimination of a specific groups of people, and whether we as a society should support and protect such discrimination if it's hiding behind the concept of "religious protest".

Religiously,culturally,and legally marriage has been defined since the beginning of time. Not my ideals BTW.

Still please stay on the subject. If marriage no longer means one man one woman,define what it means.

Does it many any legal union that people claim as their "right"

Should there be a line drawn that does not include all?

Quote:

And it's precisely because you don't understand and refuse to understand why this is a problem... why they choose to file these lawsuits.

I understand perfectly as I am beginning a transition away from items that interest perverted minds. Their "loving tolerance" of my beliefs is something I don't want to accept to much longer.

Whether it is you or someone else,please give me the definition of marriage. Preferably practicing SDA's that either support gay marriage vocally or with passive silence.

One man,one woman,two men,two women,one man and four wives,gay man gay nephew. Straight man,niece,one woman and two men?

If claiming to love one another and are productive and law abiding,who has the right to define marriage for them?

If there isn't any definition and anyone that wants a marriage license should receive one in the interest of fairness,what do we do with beastiality which is alive and well. A man and his dog?

If they are not harming anyone else should some be discriminated against while others are not?

[CoAspen]

Yep, Sin is an abomination to God...I don't see everyone dying when they sin. It is called pick and choose...which sin, of others, that I will discriminate against. Of course people believe they can bring out absolution for them self by declaring that don't sin willing! Ah yes, the human condition that always seek a way out for themselves but not others! And.....even find tests that seem to support their viewpoint.

If those in the anti-gay crowd believe they can tell someone to go shop somewhere else, based on their religious view, they should be very careful of what they wish for. We have had religious society's in the past that governed that way...shackle all the sinners, go for it!

I see this discussion being used as a thinly disguised desire for personal discrimination of others which is NOT based on the words of God.

[bonnie]

Yep, Sin is an abomination to God...I don't see everyone dying when they sin. It is called pick and choose...which sin, of others, that I will discriminate against. Of course people believe they can bring out absolution for them self by declaring that don't sin willing! Ah yes, the human condition that always seek a way out for themselves but not others! And.....even find tests that seem to support their viewpoint.

If those in the anti-gay crowd believe they can tell someone to go shop somewhere else, based on their religious view, they should be very careful of what they wish for. We have had religious society's in the past that governed that way...shackle all the sinners, go for it!

I see this discussion being used as a thinly disguised desire for personal discrimination of others which is NOT based on the words of God.

What is the legal definition of marriage now?

What would prohibit an individual from obtaining one? Is it only the traditional straight marriage and gay or lesbian marriage? Who gets to decide? Can some be denied a legal union based on the discrimination of others?

[fccool]

Quote:

What is the legal definition of marriage now?

What would prohibit an individual from obtaining one? Is it only the traditional straight marriage and gay or lesbian marriage? Who gets to decide? Can some be denied a legal union based on the discrimination of others?

Why should it matter in context of this thread?

Many states acknowledge the legality of gay marriage today, and it hasn't really stop Christians defining it on their own terms. Is it government's job to decide and define what marriage is and what it's not? If you think that it is, then would you accept it when government doesn't hold your views on the subject matter? I doubt you would, so this question is somewhat meaningless.

As a heterosexual, I of course will prefer to define the marriage in context of 1 female and 1 male. HOWEVER, and it's big HOWEVER, I don't shove that choice down the throat of other people, and I don't enforce it by boycotting anything that doesn't agree with my views on the subject. That rests with my understanding that:

1) This issue doesn't just arise with no historic context, which you are largely ignoring.

Merely 50 year ago, gay people in this country were sterilized, undergone torture through aversion therapy where they were sent to mental institutions and had been electrocuted, made sleep in their feces and urine, and listen to audio tapes day and night calling them queer while they watched photographs of men having sex... all in attempt to deconvert them.

And if that failed, they would get an ice-pick through their eye, and turned into a walking zombies for the rest of their lives.

Until the 70s, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, with many homosexuals were made believe that they are mentally ill and needed a cure, or forcefully sent to mental hospitals and suffered the above.

I really can't begin to imagine the horror of that.

2) Religious freedom can't ever supersede the base human decency in context of established societal norms. If we allow that, then anyone can refuse a service based on their aversion of other people, and claim religious belief as a blanket reason for doing just about anything.

3) It's very silly to get into situation where your faith can be compromised via commitments that one makes.

We live in a society that abides by social contracts, and one of these contracts is the idea that we will not discriminate people based on their preferences or individual characteristics, unless we specifically state that our service or product is intended for a narrow and specific group of people.

If a person decides to be open about their faith as extension of their business I'm all for it. But, there should be adequate openness. There are Christian bookstores, and no-one would ever come in there looking for racy novels or pornography and demand that it will be there.

But, we are talking about services that are advertised as such to general public. I really wouldn't want to go from store to store, and figure out which one will serve me due to their understanding of concepts aligning with mine. I want the same service everyone else gets for that price. And that's the point.

If you want to be an exclusively "Non-Gay Wedding" photographer, or baker... it should be made very clear, and you should face the consequences of the lack of customers that such label would follow.

As a result, philosophical views of many people would be to avoid doing business with people who discriminate in such manner... and on and on we go with this culture war that's initiated by such mentality.

[bonnie]

Why should it matter in context of this thread?

Many states acknowledge the legality of gay marriage today, and it hasn't really stop Christians defining it on their own terms. Is it government's job to decide and define what marriage is and what it's not? If you think that it is, then would you accept it when government doesn't hold your views on the subject matter? I doubt you would, so this question is somewhat meaningless.