thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) By Utes I meant university of Utah alums. Perhaps that might be legal? I don't know what the state laws of Utah are regarding college alumni and restaurants. But if I had to hazard a guess it would be legal and a really bad business decision. Much better to serve them the best possible and allow them to help make you rich. Edited April 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint
williamsmith Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 This article explains what is really happening with the Indiana Bill.... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-conservative-religious-protection-law-20150403-story.html#page=1 1
Grudunza Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) This is great: http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/For me, the distinction comes between providing basic goods and services to all, and when something creative/expressive is involved. If you make cakes and advertise that you can provide a number of specific cakes, people should be able to patronize you and buy one of those cakes no matter who they are or what the purpose of that cake is. If someone wants a particular thing depicted or written on the cake, then it should be a person's decision as to whether or not they will do that. My understanding of the Indiana bill is that it didn't make that distinction, and the more overt kind of discrimination could have been allowed.Edit: Yes, exactly what the article above this says. Expressive choice must be protected. But aside from the law, I love the idea of baking two cakes. Edited April 5, 2015 by Grudunza
mikegriffith1 Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 It is not "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host or service a ceremony that he finds spiritually and morally offensive. Getting wedding flowers, or getting a wedding cake, or getting your wedding catered or photographed are not basic needs nor essential services. They are optional conveniences. No one has a right to force someone else to host or service their wedding. This is not even close to the same thing as declining to serve a gay couple a meal in a restaurant, rent them a hotel room, or provide them with medical care, etc. All people must eat, sleep, live somewhere, and get needed medical attention. Those are basic--and normal--needs. Serving a gay couple a meal in your restaurant, or renting them a room in your hotel, or treating their medical needs does not violate any known religious belief, certainly no mainstream Christian or Jewish belief. But when a gay couple asks a religious business person to host or service their wedding, that is a very different situation. If the religious vendor declines, he has not denied the gay couple a single basic right, nor have they suffered "discrimination." Rather, the gay couple has merely encountered a vendor whose moral beliefs are different from theirs. The gay couple are still perfectly free to simply go use another vendor, and they are not being forced to do anything that they find morally offensive. But when a gay couple seeks to coerce a religious vendor with threats of a lawsuit or when they sue the vendor for politely declining to host/service their wedding, they are violating the vendor's constitutional rights of freedom of religion, right of private property, and freedom of speech. If a gay couple sought the services of a photographer who happened to be an old-style hippe who viewed marriage as an oppressive institution and who therefore never photographed any weddings, they most likely would laugh it off and just go get another photographer. They wouldn't complain about being "victims of discrimination" nor run to the nearest ACLU office to file a lawsuit. But if the photographer happened to be a Christian, their reaction would be very different. Why? For that matter, nobody "needs" to use any vendors at all for their wedding, gay or straight. Lots of people have done their own wedding flower arrangements. Lots of people have baked their own wedding cake or had friends bake it (we did). Lots of people, especially in our digital-camera age, have simply asked a friend or two to take pictures at their wedding. Furthermore, marriage itself is not a basic survival need. We need to eat, sleep, live somewhere, and get needed medical attention. We do not "have" to get married to survive. Indeed, it was not all that long ago that gay rights advocates, along with some other liberals, were claiming that marriage was an archaic, exploitative, and oppressive institution. The ones showing the intolerance and discrimination are certain gay couples and their supporters, In the case of the Mennonite-owned restaurant in Iowa, a gay couple sued the owners for refusing to host their gay wedding, even though the owners offered to bake their wedding cake for free and even though the Mennonite couple had gladly served gays in their restaurant for years. But that wasn't good enough for the gay rights folks, and so they sued the Mennonite couple. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 It is not "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host or service a ceremony that he finds spiritually and morally offensive. Getting wedding flowers, or getting a wedding cake, or getting your wedding catered or photographed are not basic needs nor essential services. They are optional conveniences. No one has a right to force someone else to host or service their wedding. This is not even close to the same thing as declining to serve a gay couple a meal in a restaurant, rent them a hotel room, or provide them with medical care, etc. All people must eat, sleep, live somewhere, and get needed medical attention. Those are basic--and normal--needs. Serving a gay couple a meal in your restaurant, or renting them a room in your hotel, or treating their medical needs does not violate any known religious belief, certainly no mainstream Christian or Jewish belief. But when a gay couple asks a religious business person to host or service their wedding, that is a very different situation. If the religious vendor declines, he has not denied the gay couple a single basic right, nor have they suffered "discrimination." Rather, the gay couple has merely encountered a vendor whose moral beliefs are different from theirs. The gay couple are still perfectly free to simply go use another vendor, and they are not being forced to do anything that they find morally offensive. But when a gay couple seeks to coerce a religious vendor with threats of a lawsuit or when they sue the vendor for politely declining to host/service their wedding, they are violating the vendor's constitutional rights of freedom of religion, right of private property, and freedom of speech. If a gay couple sought the services of a photographer who happened to be an old-style hippe who viewed marriage as an oppressive institution and who therefore never photographed any weddings, they most likely would laugh it off and just go get another photographer. They wouldn't complain about being "victims of discrimination" nor run to the nearest ACLU office to file a lawsuit. But if the photographer happened to be a Christian, their reaction would be very different. Why? For that matter, nobody "needs" to use any vendors at all for their wedding, gay or straight. Lots of people have done their own wedding flower arrangements. Lots of people have baked their own wedding cake or had friends bake it (we did). Lots of people, especially in our digital-camera age, have simply asked a friend or two to take pictures at their wedding. Furthermore, marriage itself is not a basic survival need. We need to eat, sleep, live somewhere, and get needed medical attention. We do not "have" to get married to survive. Indeed, it was not all that long ago that gay rights advocates, along with some other liberals, were claiming that marriage was an archaic, exploitative, and oppressive institution. The ones showing the intolerance and discrimination are certain gay couples and their supporters, In the case of the Mennonite-owned restaurant in Iowa, a gay couple sued the owners for refusing to host their gay wedding, even though the owners offered to bake their wedding cake for free and even though the Mennonite couple had gladly served gays in their restaurant for years. But that wasn't good enough for the gay rights folks, and so they sued the Mennonite couple. 1. Businesses don't have religions. The owners may or may not as is their choice. So yes it is illegal for a business to discriminate on the basis of religion. Further a business has no right to decide for you what is or isn't essential. IE; Say I ran a hamburger shop, and, in my opinion, overweight person came in an tried to buy a hamburger. I have no legal right to refuse to sell that hamburger to him/her. 2. Actually there are court cases every year of mainstream religious people discriminating on the basis of religion when in business. We have laws in this country to protect religious minorities. 3. Businesses have no religious rights. As to going elsewhere does Plessy v Ferguson mean anything to you? 4. Because the "Hippie" photographer is not required by law to provide a service they normally don't provide. IE; I can't go to a Ford dealership and demand they sell me a Chevy. BTW. They now call "Hippies" Grandma and Grandpa. Sometimes with increasing frequency Great Grandma and Great Grandpa. 5. Plenty do. OTOH; My wife an I eloped to the Oakland Temple 43 years ago. We had neither flowers, cake, nor a photographer. So that is not the question. I only question is if you as a business owner can legally refuse your service to customers on the basis of race, creed, color religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. 6. Businesses have no religious rights.
tonie Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 This article explains what is really happening with the Indiana Bill.... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-conservative-religious-protection-law-20150403-story.html#page=1 Nope. We have dispensed the propaganda in this thread. What was going on in Indiana has been thoroughly covered. And the propaganda piece that you link provides nothing new or useful.
tonie Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 It is not "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host or service a ceremony ... The New Mexico photographer who refused services lost in every Court she appealed to. The US Supreme Court also refused to hear her appeal. So I would say that is a pretty good indication that the photographer unlawfully discriminated against a protect class of individuals.
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) Im not so sure there could be such a thing. Man on man relationships were not meant to work. Well, I'd agree that they work very poorly unless you happen to be gay. Edited April 6, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Gays are asking for equal protection under the law even if it means taking away another person's agency in providing a service. That is just as intolerant as what is being done to them.There is a razor thin line between not being discriminatory and not having to perform a business function they disagree with. Should a children's bookseller be required to carry "Heather Has Two Mommies" to serve the gay community?How about if it's a Christian bookstore?Should a family owned bed and breakfast be required to allow a homosexual couple to share a bed in one of their rooms in their home?Should a Christian student be required to study/read novels supporting or even describing homosexuality in order to pass a class? Should a Christian school be required to teach them? The line gets vary hazy... It's not really a hazy line. Just treat gay people the same as you'd treat anyone else. It couldn't be simpler.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Well, I'd agree that the work very poorly unless you happen to be gay.Yeah, I'm not gay, I was raised different and had good influences.
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Yeah, I'm not gay, I was raised different and had good influences. If you were raised under bad influences, you still wouldn't be gay.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 If you were raised under bad influences, you still wouldn't be gay.I would more likely be gay if I was raised in a bad environment with bad influences. Luckily I was raised by a loving mother and father that taught us the importance of relationships and marriage between man and woman. Thats why I am not gay in large part.
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) I would more likely be gay if I was raised in a bad environment with bad influences. Luckily I was raised by a loving mother and father that taught us the importance of relationships and marriage between man and woman. Thats why I am not gay in large part. There is no evidence that environmental factors have any influence on whether people are gay or straight, unless you're counting environmental factors in the womb. There are many gay members of the church who were raised in similar conditions to you. Edited April 6, 2015 by Gray
Mormonmaniac Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 There is no evidence that environmental factors have any influence on whether people are gay or straight, unless you're counting environmental factors in the womb.I dont rely on evidence. I rely on the Holy Ghost and what he teaches me. I have been shown that almost entirely, gay people are gay because of all of the social pressures, influences, and parenting methods. I dont have to convince you, I already know,
pogi Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Yeah, I'm not gay, I was raised different and had good influences. What are you suggesting about the parents of gay children in the church? 1
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I dont rely on evidence. I rely on the Holy Ghost and what he teaches me. I have been shown that almost entirely, gay people are gay because of all of the social pressures, influences, and parenting methods. I dont have to convince you, I already know, That's not unlike putting off studying for a big test and then relying on prayer to fill in the gaps where you didn't bother to study. It doesn't work out well wherever it's tried.
Rock_N_Roll Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I dont rely on evidence. I rely on the Holy Ghost and what he teaches me. I have been shown that almost entirely, gay people are gay because of all of the social pressures, influences, and parenting methods. I dont have to convince you, I already know, I already know as well. I raised three boys in the church. One is gay, the other two are not. What social pressures, influences and/or parenting methods did the one have that the other two did not?I’ll answer for you…none. Oh, and I rely on the Holy Ghost as well. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Jesus would not turn away gays. That's all that needs to be said about this subject. 2
Daniel2 Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I dont rely on evidence. I rely on the Holy Ghost and what he teaches me. I have been shown that almost entirely, gay people are gay because of all of the social pressures, influences, and parenting methods. I dont have to convince you, I already know,Please identify what social pressures exist for people who aren't gay to become gay?What influences exist for for people who aren't gay to become gay?What parenting methods exist for people who aren't gay to become gay? 1
Mormonmaniac Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I do not believe people are born gay. I believe largely that it is a choice based on several factors. That is what the HG teaches me. I have already received an answer.
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) I do not believe people are born gay. I believe largely that it is a choice based on several factors. That is what the HG teaches me. I have already received an answer. When I was a lad I would sometimes try to ask God to lead me to fill in the correct bubble on the scan-tron sheet when I hadn't bothered to study for a quiz. The results were predictable. Edited April 6, 2015 by Gray 3
Daniel2 Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I do not believe people are born gay. I believe largely that it is a choice based on several factors. That is what the HG teaches me. I have already received an answer.You mentioned this already.Will you please share the answers, as revealed to you by the Holt Ghost, to those three points you mentioned?
Mormonmaniac Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 You mentioned this already.Will you please share the answers, as revealed to you by the Holt Ghost, to those three points you mentioned?The HG has taught me that the gay epidemic in the world is largely due to social pressures and acceptance due to moral degradation of following after lusts of the flesh and selfish desires of that flesh. I cannot contend against such truth. Other factors do have an impact also be it a one time event on a scout outing, an overnighter at a friends house, etc. Parenting also plays a role n sexual identity. All of these factors contribute greatly to ones sexual desires and preferences.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) When I was a lad I would sometimes try to ask God to lead me to fill in the correct bubble on the scan-tron sheet when I hadn't bothered to study for a quiz.The results were predictable.I had studied this issue for many decades before I went in prayer. It was through that process that the HG taught me that it is Satan's work to spread his homosexual agenda. It has always been that way. When man gets away from godliness he will always fall into immoral behavior with both sexes as a playground. Edited April 6, 2015 by Mormonmaniac
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I had studied this issue for many decades before I went in prayer. It was through that process that the HG taught me that it is Satan's work to spread his homosexual agenda. It has always been that way. When man gets away from godliness he will always fall into immoral behavior with both sexes as a playground. By study do you mean you thought about very hard? Because your revelations don't match the actual experiences of any gay people that I know. Which is one reason that I think using revelation to get the type of knowledge available through intellectual inquiry is a misuse of revelation and almost always gives poor results.
Recommended Posts