The Bible doesn't say don't bake cakes for gay weddings, the Bible says stone gay people to death

So long as we're defining freedom of religion as the right to infringe on the rights of others could it not be argued that gay people are violating religious freedom by existing?

(July 5, 2015 at 2:05 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Its not a violation of the business owners civil rights because when you open a business to serve the public you are subject to anti-discrimination laws. Their personal stance on gay marriage is irrelevant when it comes to their business and the laws that govern that business.

Why only if the interracial couple was gay? There are plenty of Religious views that promote racial segregation, why would you be against a baker discriminating against a straight interracial couple and not a gay interracial couple?

Bottom line is bigots don't get to hide behind their religions to discriminate against groups of people.

Bigot is a word that's used too loosely to attack people who doesn't agree with a particular stance of another person. It's not bigotry to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, especially if gay marriages are against a person's religious convictions. I know of Christians who would refuse to recognize a straight marriage if the couple had been divorced from previous marriages. That doesn't they're bigoted against divorcees, it means that they have religious objections to divorce.

Actually bigot is the perfect word, they are intolerant of gays. They don't think gays should have equal rights I could care less if its part of your hateful religion. Just because they are using religion to deny somebody equal rights does not mean they are not bigots. Yes it also means they are bigoted against divorcees because they are denying them equal service. Its also included in the law that you cannot be discriminated against by places of business for you marital status.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:22 am)A Theist Wrote: I wonder how this will finally play out in the courts on appeal, especially if this goes to the SCOTUS. I knew this was going end up as an assault against peoples' religious and moral convictions. Serving gays, individually, as customers is one thing. But forcing business owners to recognize gay marriage against their religious convictions is another. This is the very thing that the dissenting justices and people of faith warned about. This assault against people of faith is very concerning. This is why I say there needs to be an organized effort to preserve the freedom of religion for people of faith.

Quote:Bakery ordered to pay $135,000 for denying wedding cake to lesbian couple

The former owners of an Oregon bakery have been ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple who were refused a wedding cake, in the latest front in the battle between religious liberty and individual rights.
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein, who owned the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore., to compensate the couple for emotional and mental suffering that resulted from the denial of service.
The Kleins had cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in refusing to make the wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Aaron Klein said his family had suffered because of the case and the glare of media attention.

The bakery's car was vandalized and broken into twice, he said. Photographers and florists severed ties with the company, eventually forcing the Kleins to close their storefront shop in September 2013.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bakery-...id=DELLDHP

I can tell you how the Supreme Court will rule if they follow precedent.  Just consider what happens if one refuses to serve black people.  It does not matter if one claims that one's religion forbids serving black people.

A business does not have the right to discriminate any which way they please.  That is a legal fact, and it is also in line with what is right and proper.

On one hand I do think the term "bigot" is over-used and I have said this before. It's lost all meaning in how the post-modernist left use it. Rather than being used to mean what it actually means, "intolerance of different ideas", it has become another word used to silence people. I can agree with A Theist on that.

However, a lot of these religous people constantly voicing their objections to gay marriage (or divorce, or abortion) are textbook cases of bigotry. It's not bigotry in itself to personally disagree with gay marriage, but it becomes bigotry when you take that belief and actively try to shut down gay marriage because you don't believe in it. I personally dislike seeing Muslim women wearing the Niqab, however if it was 100% her own personal un-pressured choice to wear it, I do have the maturity to think "well, she's grown, that's her choice". Therefore I'm not a bigot on that issue, because even if I don't agree I still respect and tolerate the right to make that choice.

(July 5, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Saxmoof Wrote: The Bible doesn't say don't bake cakes for gay weddings, the Bible says stone gay people to death

So long as we're defining freedom of religion as the right to infringe on the rights of others could it not be argued that gay people are violating religious freedom by existing?

This is the stupidest part of all.

"I'm going to ignore what the bible actually tells me to do, because obviously that doesn't apply anymore or something. But by golly I'm going to annoy them by refusing to bake them a cake!"

Fucking ridiculous.

Also, as I've pointed out endlessly, the bible punishment is for actual man to man sex not homosexuality, so unless they were having sex in the cake store not even the bastardized version of the verse applies.

(July 5, 2015 at 4:43 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Saxmoof Wrote: The Bible doesn't say don't bake cakes for gay weddings, the Bible says stone gay people to death

So long as we're defining freedom of religion as the right to infringe on the rights of others could it not be argued that gay people are violating religious freedom by existing?

This is the stupidest part of all.

"I'm going to ignore what the bible actually tells me to do, because obviously that doesn't apply anymore or something. But by golly I'm going to annoy them by refusing to bake them a cake!"

Fucking ridiculous.

Also, as I've pointed out endlessly, the bible punishment is for actual man to man sex not homosexuality, so unless they were having sex in the cake store not even the bastardized version of the verse applies.

It is about bigotry, religion is just the excuse.

I agree that yelling bigot is a cheap way to avoid an actual discussion.

Here's my take on the word "bigot":

It does seem to carry the implication of action rather than just thought. I'm not one for thought policing at all.

But I would see this manifest also by voicing the opinion that certain bigoted actions are acceptable and should be supported by law; or having the intention to perform bigoted actions when the chance arises. Supporting and intending bigotry, I suppose you could call these.

(July 5, 2015 at 9:33 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I agree that yelling bigot is a cheap way to avoid an actual discussion.

Not to mention, yelling, Racist. That's another term that's getting old and thrown around a lot as well. It's getting overused and misused so much that it's pretty much losing its meaning. Especially when someone yells racist and then turns around uses the "N" word himself.

I still think "bigot" in regards to business owners who do not want to provide service to gays is an accurate term. These owners are not targeting divorcees, unwed mothers, adulterers, interracial couples, they are targeting gay people. They do not think gays should have the same rights as straights and are trying to deny them their civil right to service, If that isn't called bigotry then I know where you draw the line.