Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I thought it was about the baker not wanting to support the gay wedding. If it is about the cake, there would be no discrimination. You still don't get it. It is about FORCE! Forcing the person to do something they find abhorrent
Ahab Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I thought it was about the baker not wanting to support the gay wedding. If it is about the cake, there would be no discrimination.Think that through a little more please.A baker who refuses to bake a cake that he is told will be used for a gay wedding party IS or IS NOT discriminating against those gay people if his refusal is based on not wanting to bake any wedding cake for any gay people because he doesn't want to support any gay people getting married?
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 One is freedom, the other is coercion Depends on which side you are standing.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 You still don't get it. It is about FORCE! Forcing the person to do something they find abhorrent And the person certainly should not be forced to do something they find abhorrent. Similarly, the gay person shouldn't be forced to follow the dictates of someone else's religion.
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I thought I referred to the appeal. If I didn't specifically mention it, I figured the appeal was obvious in that it went to the CA Supreme Court. You now refer to the petition. In our previous posts I never mentioned the petition. I talked about the Church's campaign against Prop 8. That campaign most certainly occurred during the time that gay marriages were legally recognized in California. Even if we were just talking about the petition, obviously it was being created in anticipation of Prop 22 being overturned and gay marriage becoming legal. Are you going to say that a petition was started to solve a problem that did not exist?The proposition was created because citizens wanted to influence the government, as was their right.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Rockpond:You really ought to avoid making up your own "facts" and then attributing them to the targets of your propaganda.I regret to inform you that Elder Oaks did not "assure everyone that the Brethren do not repent," and that representation is unavailable to anyone making even the slightest effort to get their facts straight.And the words in your "clever" little graphic, which you claim "quoted" Elder Oaks, are not found in the transcript of the Press conference, which may be read here:http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/publicstatement-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscriminationWhy is that?Regards,Pahoran They were part of the Q&A. They are not in the transcript. But were written up in the Tribune.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 It is performed in the temple. That makes it religious. More importantly -- for me it is very much a function of religion. But if you want to argue that it is only a state function then denying a cake to a gay marriage ceases to be a matter of religious freedom. I agree that it remains a matter of individual freedom but that is not what our apostles were making a case for two days ago. It is performed in the temple because that is where the sealing is performed. Without the sealing the marriage can be and is performed literally anywhere. You agree it is a matter of individual freedom and IMO religious freedom is part of individual freedom.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 The proposition was created because citizens wanted to influence the government, as was their right. Influence the government to take away gay couples ability to legally marry. It is their right to petition for initiatives and participate in the democratic process. I do not disagree.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 It is performed in the temple because that is where the sealing is performed. Without the sealing the marriage can be and is performed literally anywhere. You agree it is a matter of individual freedom and IMO religious freedom is part of individual freedom. Good. We agree.
Ahab Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 You still don't get it.It is about FORCE!Forcing the person to do something they find abhorrentIt's about that, yes, but it also involves what may be classified as discriminatoon.Maybe what we need is a Cake Nazi mentality where the general rule is "No cake for you!" unless the baker wants to do somebody a favor.
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 And the person certainly should not be forced to do something they find abhorrent. Similarly, the gay person shouldn't be forced to follow the dictates of someone else's religion. Good, then we agree. The baker should not be forced to bake the cake.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 This is inevitable. What about those who believe polygamy should be legal? Or that a brother and sister or mother and son should be able to marry? Where does it end? There is give and take in all of this. Taking more in one direction absolutely takes from the other. It is not possible for there to be total freedom for everybody. We are fooling ourselves. Polygamy should be legal. I find incest to be deplorable but if someone wants to make a reasonable case for incestuous marriages, they are welcome to do so. And yes, there have to be some limits to religious freedom. I just don't see bans against gay marriage to be one of the justified limits.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 No, the person can buy there cake elsewhere No he can't, read the scenario. You still don't get it. It is about FORCE! Forcing the person to do something they find abhorrent I thought it was about the CAKE! At first it was about the marriage, then about the cake, now it's about force. Make up your mind dude. But I agree it is about force, but it goes both ways. The problem is that you think all gay people are going to WANT to go to an inferior store or bake their own cake. If I want that CAKE and no other CAKE, then you are going to FORCE me to go without that particular CAKE.
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Good, then we agree. The baker should not be forced to bake the cake. Yes, as a matter of religious & individual freedom, the baker should not be forced to bake the cake. And for those same reasons, the gay couple asking for the cake should be allowed to marry.
Pahoran Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Then I will count you among us who are unwilling to take up Elder Oaks call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning. We serve all of God's children, rich or poor, bond or free, saint or sinner. We are all beggars unto Christ. I personally would always want you to have the ability and right to express your freedom of speech in the condemnation of homosexual behavior or anything else you think is sinful. Whether someone is a sinner or not should have no bearing on whether we should serve them.The assertion that Elder Oaks has issued a "call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning" is a lie.And there has not been even one instance put forward of anyone refusing to serve someone because they were "gay."People have tried to refuse to participate in certain types of immoral activities, especially "gay weddings," but that does not constitute a refusal to serve people because they were "gay."Get it right.Regards,Pahoran
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 No he can't, read the scenario. I thought it was about the CAKE! At first it was about the marriage, then about the cake, now it's about force. Make up your mind dude. But I agree it is about force, but it goes both ways. The problem is that you think all gay people are going to WANT to go to an inferior store or bake their own cake. If I want that CAKE and no other CAKE, then you are going to FORCE me to go without that particular CAKE. Forcing someone to violate their conscience is immoral. Going without cake, an inconvenience.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Forcing someone to violate their conscience is immoral. Going without cake, an inconvenience. What if that gay persons conscience tells them that discrimination is evil and that they need to stand against it? To them it is not an inconvenience, but an evil. Just like the blacks of history who were thrown in jail for sitting down at a soda-fountain bar. Edited January 29, 2015 by pogi
Pahoran Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Rockpond wrote: The apostles seem to feel that it is a matter of religious freedom. And if being able to not bake a cake for a gay wedding is a matter of religious freedom, I submit the the gay wedding itself must also be a matter of religious freedom. Interesting logic. Let's see if I can do that too. If refusing to be forced to enter a brothel is a matter of religious freedom, then frequenting the brothel itself must also be a matter of religious freedom. What a remarkable argument. Regards, Pahoran 1
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 There are religious people (myself included) who believe that same-sex marriage is no different than traditional marriage. It is a matter of religious freedom and as such it needs to work both ways. It, in theory, is no different because marriage is a state ceremony. The citizens of the state get to decide if SSM or any other marriage has enough benefit for the state to sanction it. On the other hand sealings are a religious rite and the state must stay out of.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 What if that gay persons conscience tells them that discrimination is evil and that they need to stand against it? To them it is not an inconvenience, but an evil. Just like the blacks of history who were thrown in jail for sitting down at a soda-fountain bar. If that gay person knows that discrimination is evil does he not also know slavery is evil?
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Rockpond wrote:Interesting logic. Let's see if I can do that too.If refusing to be forced to enter a brothel is a matter of religious freedom, then frequenting the brothel itself must also be a matter of religious freedom.What a remarkable argument.Regards,Pahoran Gay marriage is a religious practice, like it or not.
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 What if that gay persons conscience tells them that discrimination is evil and that they need to stand against it? That person should engage the public, they might write letters, they might go on TV and make anouncements, they might talk to other bakers, they could start their own bakery, They could start their own church, they could encourage boycotts, they could talk to the owner. What I don't think they should be able to do, is use the police powers of the government. People should be good because they want to, not because they are forced to.
thesometimesaint Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Forcing someone to violate their conscience is immoral. Going without cake, an inconvenience. No it is not. For thousands of years religious people of good conscience owned chattel slaves. There is even substantiations for slavery in our Scriptures. Is forcing someone not to engage in chattel slavery immoral? Yes; ideally a person should be good because they want to. For better or worse If all men were angels no government would be necessary, and if all men were devils no government would be possible. Edited January 29, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 No it is not. For thousands of years religious people of good conscience owned chattel slaves. There is even substantiations for slavery in our Scriptures. Is forcing someone not to engage in chattel slavery immoral? Please, I know we are here to argue, but don't pretend that you don't know the difference between forcing someone perform something and stopping someone from doing something wrong.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 If that gay person knows that discrimination is evil does he not also know slavery is evil? You lost me. It is slavery because he has to do something that he doesn't want to do? Are you really equating being paid to bake a cake from a business that you own as "slavery"? Is it also "slavery" that a fast food business is forced to take the time to keep sanitary conditions against his will? Is it slavery that a contractor has to follow state regulated building and safety standards, even though they don't want to?
Recommended Posts