They want it to be a sin and that is good enough for them. That's the way bigotry works.
I'd like to think that you can make some of the anti LGBT'ers think a bit if you hit them with the Good Samaritan story and get them to realize they are acting like the Priest and the Levite, but, no. If that doesn't do it there's not much hope because obviously they like mean, nasty, Old Testament God better and think that's the way to go. 'Screw this softie Jesus stuff,' they think deep down, 'Give me the God who drowns people and kills firstborns.' I think a lot of them are just angry that stoning gays is illegal, so, how you going to get them to sell you their wares?
Of course sleeping with your wife's hand maidens is okay or getting drunk and sleeping with your daughters. You can still sell those people a cake with their favorite frosting.
icanseethelight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A business owner can refuse the right to serve > anyone, for any reason(or at least they should be > able to).
This is not true. A business owner, who owns a business which caters to the public, cannot discriminate on the basis of anyone in a [legally] "protected class"---which means, most of the time, on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. (and any gender discrimination has to make sense...which, in our contemporary society, is a legally moving target at present, so "makes [apparent] sense" at one point in time may be considered illegal discrimination at another: rest rooms, locker rooms, Prom King and Queen, etc. as easy examples).
This is now settled law, and has been since the Civil Rights Era, which (in its embryonic form) began at the close of World War II.
Many Americans were imprisoned, were murdered, and died so that this kind of now-illegal discrimination could be made illegal throughout the USA.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2017 02:03PM by Tevai.
Exactly - a business owner can post a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service" but it means absolutely nothing. As a public business, you are required by law to serve the public and that means everyone with money in hand to buy what it is you're selling. If you are a kosher butcher, you don't have to sell anyone ham since that's not what you sell, but you do have to sell your brisket to gentiles.
We aren't talking about people "associating" with each other--forced or voluntary. That is very misleading.
We are talking about people open for business to the public refusing their wares to all of the public based on discrimination and claiming that action is justified because for them it would be a "sin" to sell to LGBT. Big difference.
The subject of thread is regarding what makes it a sin to sell your product to LGBT? Why sin?
Okay, no doubt showing ignorance here but.... I understand the LGBTQ, but what is indicated by the 'IA'? The 'A' maybe indicating 'asexual'? Can't figure out what the 'I' is? And I may be totally wrong on the 'A', as well?
I am old and come from a time when we could be arrested without committing any crime other than being us. We could be sent to an asylum by family doctors against our will as we were listed as mentally ill. We could be subject to bashings and murders and electroshock therapy. Suicides were common. And many either didn't care or thought we were getting what we deserved. So whose sin was that?
The drag queens and trans and gays threw bricks at police to turn things around at the Stonewall standoff and started the ball rolling. A kinder more enlightened and embracing society have joined the battle with us. What is their sin?
When I was a kid I heard from my Mormon elders the words "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," as we watched the race riots on TV and the Peaceful marches as well. Who would dare say that now in public? Who wants to own that sin?
Very few dare to *openly* discriminate against Jews or Blacks or some others nowadays, but they still want to reserve the right to target whoever was next on their list. Some, like the Mormon church, wrap this up as their " religious rights," making a whore of the word "rights." So many looking for ways over, under or around decency and inclusion while claiming their divine privilege to be their trump card.
No shirts. No shoes. No service. Let's leave it at that. Unless maybe a homeless person needs a helping hand. Then even that is off?
Wasn't Jesus known for hanging out with sinners? I thought he kind of made a point of it. Aw hell, I probably just didn't read the NT with the right "spirit", in order to glean all the hate out of it that others have managed to.
Non-lib Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goodness, why don't they just include all 26 > letters in the stupid acronym and call it a day.
Doesn't matter what the acronym is or isn't -- this isn't about an acronym. It's about religious people discriminating against people they don't like. For whatever reason. For whatever acronym is used or isn't used.
The *exact same* "it's against my religion" arguments were used to discriminate against blacks. And Asians. And (in some other places) whites. What part of that are you justifying as reasonable?
It's strictly business for me. I believe that the couple went to that bakery just to stir controversy. A business CAN choose its customers: in supermarkets there's "no shoes, no shirt, no service," a tattoo artist can choose whether or not to tattoo a drunk person or a nazi symbol, cross, a Chinese character, etc., pregnant women can be refused alcohol, and a baker can choose not to provide a cake decorated with gay propaganda. I'm sure they requested penis decor on there.
This is capitalism where we can choose to go to businesses that will serve us how we like it. It creates competition in businesses as well. For every one baker who won't bake a cake, there are thousands that will.
I don't agree with being forced into following a gay agenda. There's no proof that being gay is even a thing you're born with. I've known many people who went gay as a fad. Anyway, that's another topic. I'm not jumping down the rabbit hole with you. These are my thoughts.
Not that I agree with the idea but as I understand it to bake a cake would be seen as supporting the occasion - when the bakers no doubt believe the event is an affront to God. Supporting something that goes against God's way of doing things is therefore sin
A hard principle to put into practice in almost every other way of life but one they're determined to force on this issue