Calm Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The implied threat here is that if I don't like you I will hurt you. Great way to run a society if all are sociopaths. Some people will spit in drinks of people they don't like or just for fun if they think they can get away with it. Doesn't mean they are sociopaths.
california boy Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 So you think it's okay or acceptable in today's world for a person to not be able to sell any wedding cakes to anybody just because he doesn't want to sell 1 to some gay people?Oh, excuse me. Of course you would think so, wouldn't you. So lets try another example that you aren't so prejudiced about.Suppose someone wants to be a doctor who helps women deliver babies but he doesn't feel right about helping lesbian women get inseminated, so that's the only thing he isn't willing to do. And just FYI, he doesn't feel totally comfortable helping single women deliver babies either, but in some situations he is willing to do that, just not all situations. So would you say he should not help any women deliver babies just because there are some women that he doesn't feel right about helping.You'll probably say yes to that too but it would be nice if you would surprise me.I think it is time to give you the same answer I have given Rob. I think it has become crystal clear that you are bound and determined to discriminate against gays and who knows who else. Fine. Go ahead. Do what you want. I wish you well in your business. I have tried to show you a way where Christ tried to teach us that we should serve all God's Children, even the sinners. I have tried to show you that almost all people are sinners. We are all beggars unto Christ. For me, that is enough of a reason to not discriminate against ANYONE. I choose to serve who ever is in need of my services whether I am compelled to do so by the law of the land or by my own belief. I think I will be a better person by exhibiting compassion and charity towards everyone. I also think this approach is in keeping with the news conference's call for more understanding. I do know this. It just feels right. I have tried to show you how you could still be a baker, but just not sell wedding cakes. There are plenty of other bake goods you could offer. Sure you might miss out on a little money. But if you feel it is blood money, it seems to me like that small sacrifice would be worth it to you. I have also tried to show you that if you feel you have a right to discriminate, then you have the right to test those anti discrimination laws. Perhaps there is no Constitutional justification for them. Through all of this, you still defiantly want to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. If you feel that is an appropriate way to use your religion, then go ahead. Feel free. Like I said, I wish you both well. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 All of your wedding cakes could indeed look like tempes. But if a gay or Catholic wanted one of the temple cakes, you would be required to sell it to them.I'm not required to sell them anything.
california boy Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I'm not required to sell them anything.Like I said, I wish you well in your quest to discriminate.
Rob Osborn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Like I said, I wish you well in your quest to discriminate.Well, Gods heavenly kingdom is a massive place of discrimination- no wicked, no whoremongers and such will be allowed in heaven. 1
rpn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I cannot conceive of a deeply felt religious belief that would prevent someone from feeding someone. I can see prevent them from decorating a cake in celebration of a gay wedding. But there isn't any faith that says starve those who believe differently than you do, that I know of. Same thing with shelter. Yes, you might object to housing unmarried couples or gay couples (and to families with children those these on grounds other than religious ones). But how could you ever justify refusing housing to people because they are gay or transgendered on gender grounds. I wouldn't be willing to support a law that allowed a religious exemption for renting to someone just because they are gay (and how would a landlord even know their sexual orientation). I could see an objection to renting to someone who is gay who wanted to advocate for a gay lifestyle while they lived in my home. 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I cannot conceive of a deeply felt religious belief that would prevent someone from feeding someone. I can see prevent them from decorating a cake in celebration of a gay wedding. But there isn't any faith that says starve those who believe differently than you do, that I know of. Same thing with shelter. Yes, you might object to housing unmarried couples or gay couples (and to families with children those these on grounds other than religious ones). But how could you ever justify refusing housing to people because they are gay or transgendered on gender grounds. I wouldn't be willing to support a law that allowed a religious exemption for renting to someone just because they are gay (and how would a landlord even know their sexual orientation). I could see an objection to renting to someone who is gay who wanted to advocate for a gay lifestyle while they lived in my home.The law should be very specific. A person can discriminate if they are being asked to be involved in a specific activity that goes against their beliefs but not the person itself. Since I am against gay marriage and it offends my religious sensibilities, I should not be required to attend a gay wedding if I was a photographer. That requires someone to be involved in an activity they are against. However it the person is simply gay and they are not doing anything that goes against a specific religious beliefs it should be legally required to treat them like anyone else., I would not mind renting to them, or serving them dinner if I was a waiter, ect. I am not gay. A person has a right to be gay. Just don't involve me in the gay lifestyle and a gay marriage would be involving me in that lifestyle.
california boy Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Well, Gods heavenly kingdom is a massive place of discrimination- no wicked, no whoremongers and such will be allowed in heaven.I am sure you will be found worthy. As you know, my fate is not so assured.
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Well, Gods heavenly kingdom is a massive place of discrimination- no wicked, no whoremongers and such will be allowed in heaven.True, but if God told Joseph Smith that he could not always discern between the righteous and the wicked why should I assume the town baker is more qualified?
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Some people will spit in drinks of people they don't like or just for fun if they think they can get away with it. Doesn't mean they are sociopaths. A sociopath is someone who has no regard for rights and feelings of others. So yes the person who spits in your drink just for fun or malice is a sociopath. The degree of harm is not indicative of degree of sociopathy. It is the law that determines the amount of punishment for the amount of damage.
Daniel2 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) The law should be very specific. A person can discriminate if they are being asked to be involved in a specific activity that goes against their beliefs but not the person itself. Since I am against gay marriage and it offends my religious sensibilities, I should not be required to attend a gay wedding if I was a photographer. That requires someone to be involved in an activity they are against. However it the person is simply gay and they are not doing anything that goes against a specific religious beliefs it should be legally required to treat them like anyone else., I would not mind renting to them, or serving them dinner if I was a waiter, ect. I am not gay. A person has a right to be gay. Just don't involve me in the gay lifestyle and a gay marriage would be involving me in that lifestyle.On reflection, I'm leaning towards private (self-employed) wedding photographers or planners are the one exception that I tend to agree with, because a wedding requires attendance and involvement at the actual event itself.Bakeries, dressmakers, and florists would all simply be required to sell the same goods they sell to every other couple, without participating directly in the event.As for refusing to sell birth control... I suppose any pharmacist could refuse to perform any aspect of their job they wish, such as declining to sell any given medication (or a waiter or other service employee that refuses to serve gays, blacks, jews, Christians, or whatever)--but then their employers should be free to fire any employee that declines to perform their job. Employees that refuse to do any aspect of their job would willingly forfeit their right to employment and should not be able to claim they were fired based on discrimination or any minority status.This freedom to fire an employee who declines to do his job would be just as true for the employer of a gay employee that refuses to serve Christian customers, or any other combination of employees refusing to do their jobs.It's not fair that an employer should have to forfeit the business of customers, or be forced to hire and bear the cost of a second employee to cover the refused responsibilities of an employee who declines to fulfill the responsibilities of their job. Edited January 31, 2015 by Daniel2
LOSTONE Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The terminology “Homosexual” or “Gay” or of similar wording needs not to be found in scripture to know that LGBT is wrong according to the Bible. Terminology has changed alot over the years and words have shifted their original meaning, but descriptions have not changed. The following 2 examples of scriptures clearly show the act of homosexuality in a way it was understood back then and still is today as being wrong.- - -Leviticus 18:22“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. ( NIV )Leviticus 20:13“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)This does not mean we should reject those of same sex desires or relationships or cast them out. This means we should welcome them into our community with the desire to help them understand their ways of wrong behaviors and thinking and the correct way to behave and think when it comes to love and sex. We should help them, not hurt them.
Ahab Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The implied threat here is that if I don't like you I will hurt you. Great way to run a society if all are sociopaths. Threatening people with legal fines and fees if they don't want to bake a cake for a ceremony they don't approve of is a threat to hurt the baker, too. Do you approve of that type of threat? Sure it's a great way to run a society if you don't care that it may violate somebody's conscience but do we really need to threaten to do that when there are other alternatives?
LOSTONE Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 To threaten or actually fine a person for not wanting to bake a cake / cookies due to personal religious believes sounds a lot like a dictatorship or communist mentality to me. I will stand in defiance when called to in defense of my religious believes and accept the results of doing so. I answer to God, not man. Whatever man does to me, God can easily undo and fix.
Daniel2 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) To threaten or actually fine a person for not wanting to bake a cake / cookies due to personal religious believes sounds a lot like a dictatorship or communist mentality to me. I will stand in defiance when called to in defense of my religious believes and accept the results of doing so. I answer to God, not man. Whatever man does to me, God can easily undo and fix.And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.Would compliance with anti-discrimination laws more analogous to following God's law (if one exists, regarding refusing to bake wedding cakes...), or rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? Edited January 31, 2015 by Daniel2
LOSTONE Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?And they said unto him, Caesar's.And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.Who would be responsible for anti-discrimination law.... God? Or Caesar? The Bible actually answers this question in what scripture tells us to do and not do. I am not concern about the made up laws of man but more commited to the truw laws of God.
Daniel2 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) The Bible actually answers this question in what scripture tells us to do and not do. I am not concern about the made up laws of man but more commited to the truw laws of God.Then follow the article of faith that says you believe in being subject to civil governments, and render unto Caesar that which is his.When it comes to following your belief about God's laws--by all means, don't get gay-married! ;-) Edited January 31, 2015 by Daniel2
LOSTONE Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I am happily married to a woman and we have a child together, as it was meant to be. Man and woman. I follow man's law if I agree with it, but if my faith disagrees with it, I discard that law made by man and go with my faith and what I believe God wants. Man can not compare to God in any fashion of equal or greater so God is always the first one to be considered. If you places all the gay men on an island and all the lesbian women on another island and all the heterosexuals on an island, which group will reproduce and continue on in generations to come and which group will be unable to and eventually die off? M and W = C , but M and M or W and W equals nothing. God knows what he is doing and how it should work. Man only thinks he knows and thus, screws things up. 1
Calm Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Then follow the article of faith that says you believe in being subject to civil governments, and render unto Caesar that which is his.)LostOne is not LDS. 2
LOSTONE Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 LostOne is not LDS. You are very correct, I am not LDS. I have study LSD and still have some close friends who are LDS, but no, I am not LDS. I am just a Christian who practice what he believes in and as all people do ( including LDS ) wish to share my point of view. Does me not being LDS make me a bad person or wrong? I know, that might be a heavily loaded question I may come to regret asking.
Daniel2 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) LostOne is not LDS.My mistake! Sorry for my wrong assumption, and thanks for the correction. The first part of that post, then, applies only to Latter-day Saints... the second to Christians in general. Edited January 31, 2015 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I am happily married to a woman and we have a child together, as it was meant to be. Man and woman. I follow man's law if I agree with it, but if my faith disagrees with it, I discard that law made by man and go with my faith and what I believe God wants. Man can not compare to God in any fashion of equal or greater so God is always the first one to be considered.If you places all the gay men on an island and all the lesbian women on another island and all the heterosexuals on an island, which group will reproduce and continue on in generations to come and which group will be unable to and eventually die off? M and W = C , but M and M or W and W equals nothing.God knows what he is doing and how it should work. Man only thinks he knows and thus, screws things up.Congrats on your family--it's wonderful to enter into a marriage with someone that is meaningful and resonates with your own deepest beliefs, personality, and desires. And children certainly are lucky to be raised by loving, committed parents.That hypothetical story is rather useless, because it simply will never be a reality, and ignores other positive non-procreative contributions by gays and lesbians to society (kin selection, adoption, fulfilling roles beyond procreative functions that still benefit society). For what it's worth, though, if we were all gay on a deserted island and we HAD to procreate for the perpetuation of the species, I'd willingly help father kids for their lesbian parents to raise and be glad for any lesbians that carried children for my husband and I to raise. Chances are that the majority of our kids would be heterosexuals without any coercion from their supportive gay parents. ;-) Edited January 31, 2015 by Daniel2
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The Bible actually answers this question in what scripture tells us to do and not do. I am not concern about the made up laws of man but more commited to the truw laws of God. I think it would be very unfortunate if anyone today to use the Bible as justification for what to do and what not to do to someone else.
Calm Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Does me not being LDS make me a bad person or wrong? I know, that might be a heavily loaded question I may come to regret asking.No, not at all.In Daniel's post he was assuming you abided by the Articles of Faith that LDS use as a quick summary of our teachings.I was just pointing out it was a faulty assumption on his part. There isn't anything wrong either by choosing to live by a different standard in regards to government than LDS do...well, depending on how one goes about expressing conflict with one's government's laws.PS: you've probably come across them before, but I was thinking the lack of capitals might lead you to miss the reference (the phrase "articles of faith" not being unique to LDS) plus you wouldn't likely know them well enough to know the specific one he was talking about. Here are all of them, can't remember the number, but the specific one has "kings" and "presidents" in it:https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.1-13?lang=eng Edited January 31, 2015 by calmoriah
Daniel2 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 No, not at all.In Daniel's post he was assuming you abided by the Articles of Faith that LDS use as a quick summary of our teachings.I was just pointing out it was a faulty assumption on his part. There isn't anything wrong either by choosing to live by a different standard in regards to government than LDS do...well, depending on how one goes about expressing conflict with one's government's laws.I got what you meant, Cal... ;-) thanks for the help all around.
Recommended Posts