"LGBT RIGHTS"

[Jhana]

Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence | Crisis Magazine

The U.S. appears to be placing sexual immorality above religious freedom.

Religious freedom is only supposed so extend insofar as personal religious freedom and the general laws of the country do. If say, for instance, I put my religious beliefs down as rastafarian, those religious beliefs allow me to smoke marijuana, and if I put mine down as christian, those religious beliefs (depending on my perspective of them) may tell me that I have to somehow treat homosexuals in a different way than other people, whatever that may mean in particular.

Being rastafarian doesn't give me the right of law to smoke marijuana in a state where it's illegal, the same way being christian doesn't give me the right to discriminate against homosexuals.

To say 'the US seems to be placing sexual immorality above religious freedom' is a blanket statement, and it's one based solely on perspective. A lawyer might tell you different, and a judge might view this statement in very different ways than you do.

For instance, the law of the land doesn't view 'sexual immorality' (by which you really mean 'homosexuality'), as against the law. Therefore, everyone has the right to choose whether they want to be homosexual, straight, abstinent or asexual. Those are rights, and those decisions, preferences, or some might say biological conditions, are not a basis for anyone to discriminate against a person, regardless of the 'discriminator's' religious beliefs.

Sexual immorality doesn't come above religious freedom. Anybody can choose to be any religion. And anybody can choose their sexual preference. Each is equal in the eyes of the law. And that's the law.

Where the problem in your statement lies is that you don't want to accept this law. You seem to think that christians shouldn't have to obey the laws of the land, that they have a right higher than 'the homosexuals' purely BECAUSE of their religious beliefs, and so you think that such a discrimination against homosexuals, by christians, has more merit than the premise of equal rights for each citizen.

Now, I don't know the outcome of the case with the baker. I should hope that the baker isn't imprisoned, but I should also hope that some more definitive premise is set for cases like this in the future, as regards to certain businesses.

I can understand, from the points people have made, that a creative service might not necessarily be the best example to use to illustrate the law. A better example would be an average shop. For a person to say to a homosexual 'you're not alowed to buy that can of coke, because you're gay', would be a plain and simple breach of consumer law and discrimination laws.

The baker, well, she puts her personal touch on it, and many of you are saying that she then might get her name renowned in the LGBT circles as a supporter. But this is where the point becomes wooly. I can argue that baking cookies, regardless of who eats them, may not inherently be support, and no biblical basis is really found to support either statement. And in the context of law, the case is probably fairly wooly too, due to the nature of the service itself. It's not your typical 'shop'. However, if the baker had those cookies already baked, and could have sold them to the customer, then I would say the baker is likely to loose the case. If the baker had not yet baked any cookies that day, the baker may have quite a strong chance to win. Because to ask for a service that is yet to be carried out, is technically either a contract of agreement or an informal agreement. and people have the right to refuse contracts for any reason. Whereas your average shop, by law and definition of their business, already agree to selll to whomever may come in, except for certain reasons, of which homosexuality isn't one.

A good example is a tradesman. If a company comes and says 'we want you to paint our offices', the tradesman can refuse to 'take on the contract', for literally any reason, simply because that contract is for all intents and purposes the 'customer' asking the 'service-giver' for a yes or no answer, thus giving them a choice of whether to 'sell' or 'not sell'; 'will you take on this contract'. So, if the baker hadn't yet baked the cookies, she'll likely win.

But on the other hand, a customer going into a shop that is actually set up to sell things over the counter, is a different matter. If I go into a shop and buy a crate of coca colas, a shop-keeper can refuse me for any number of reasons; slandering, violence, no shirt & shoes, perhaps I stole from that shop before, but if I am an everyday customer and I go into that shop to buy a crate of coca colas, there is no way that the law allows him to refuse me on the basis of sexual orientation, even if I tell him beforehand what the coca colas are for.

The same way that if the baker had cookies baked and available to sell, she can't refuse the homosexual on the basis of sexual preference alone.

And this is my point. You want to say to people 'the government are placing sexual immorality above religious freedom', but really what you're saying is 'I think christian's should be allowed to discriminate at will, besides the laws of the country'.

Perhaps 'tyranny' isn't the right word, but there's certainly something quite unsettling about that.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The forced compartmentalization of faith liberals are currently engaged in fundamentally conflicts with the protection of religious freedom in both our Constitution and is a human rights violation. Liberals deem First Amendment freedoms subordinate to their ideology when, in fact, our Founding Fathers revered religious freedom by giving the highest form of protection under the law.

Jefferson emphasized the value of freedom of conscience when he stated, “no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

Religious freedom is a subject on which our Founders had a lot to say and they said the opposite of what you are falsely asserting. The historical record is quite clear that all of our Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom and to the extent they differed on religious freedom, it was over what degree the government should favor religion and/or to what extent atheists or those without a religious belief should participate in public life.

The truth is that liberals are presently perverting the classical definition and exercise of freedom of religion and persecuting moral people for failing to support their perversities.

Your analogy is faulty to the point of absurdity. A strong analogy with what's actually occurring looks like this. The government perverts the Constitution by extending Civil Rights legislation intended to correct a racial imbalance in society to drug addicts who then use the law to imprison and bankrupt small business owners who refuse to support the drug addicts events designed to spread drug addiction amongst the populace.

That's almost an exact correlation.

The US is presently deciding whether they will place sexual immorality above the classical context of U.S. religious freedom as described above by Thomas Jefferson. If the US decides to pervert the Constitution to the point that moral people are discriminated against, imprisoned, and bankrupted at the behest of immoral people who engage in homosexuality: this certainly does open the door for other immoral special interest groups to petition for the same legal right to do likewise.

Your assertion that the "law of the land doesn't view sexual immorality as against the law" is false. Certain sexually immoral behaviors are presently against the law. Pedophilia is one example of a sexual immorality that is against the law. Not only are you wrong, but your invoking of that is a red herring for this discussion simply because what's under discussion is a different matter entirely: government supported discrimination and persecution of moral people for refusing to support sexual immorality.

But your also wrong that this is about people being discriminated against solely for their sexually immoral preferences (as was previously explained to you). This is about discriminating against moral Americans in denying them their classic freedom of religion and human right not to be involved in the promotion of immorality. This is NOT about the discrimination of immoral persons.

The law can certainly recognize that moral Americans must not discriminate against criminals and the sexually immoral on a personal basis while maintaining their classic Constitutional and human right to not promote criminality and immorality.

As you can plainly see, I certainly am not saying the words you wrongly put in my mouth ('I think Christian's should be allowed to discriminate at will, besides the laws of the country'). Those are your words based on your misconceptions, not mine.

My words are that while no business should be allowed to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of that person's race, gender, color, or sexual orientation, a distinction MUST be made between an event and a person. If a photographer hired by a school to do senior portraits refuses to photograph a gay senior, that's discrimination against a person and should be disallowed.

However, if a wedding photographer refuses to take pictures of a same-sex wedding, that's putting the moral wedding photographer into a position where they have to violate their own MORAL (not to be confused with immoral) freedom of conscience and MORAL (not to be confused with immoral) religious convictions against the promotion of immorality in the context of an event.

Given the First Amendment's clear affirmation of a person's right to freedom of moral conscience and to freely exercise his or her religion, such a difference should be respected in our society. Moral people should not be stripped of their freedom of moral conscience and freedom of religion and imprisoned and bankrupted for refusing to promote immorality. That IS tyranny.

People of faith should not be expected to leave their moral conscience and freedom of religion at the door before entering the marketplace or their place of work just because immoral people want them to.

The tyranny is going in exactly the opposite direction of what you assert. Moral Americans face imprisonment and bankruptcy solely for refusing to violate their moral consciences and moral religious convictions (which you confused with immoral religious convictions in your faulty analogy) and promote sexual immorality.

They would happily offer all their goods and services to any immoral person for any moral purpose whatsoever in a free market where immoral people have a plethora of options available to them.

But as John 3:19-20 points out, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

Immoral people cannot tolerate their immoral behavior being highlighted for what it really is (e.g. immoral behavior) and so have set about to use the government to destroy, if possible, all who oppose them. The homosexual lobby is now working to completely pervert and subvert the First Amendment and the U.S. government by drafting legislation that will effectively make any candidate who states that sexual immorality (e.g. specifically homosexuality in this case) is not a civil right ineligible for public office. If the homosexual lobby is not stopped they will effectively transform the U.S. government into an instrument of persecution against moral Americans.

That's tyranny and you are presently part of promoting the tyranny of the immoral against the moral. I'm not but you are.

 

[Jhana]

The forced compartmentalization of faith liberals are currently engaged in fundamentally conflicts with the protection of religious freedom in both our Constitution and is a human rights violation. Liberals deem First Amendment freedoms subordinate to their ideology when, in fact, our Founding Fathers revered religious freedom by giving the highest form of protection under the law.

Jefferson emphasized the value of freedom of conscience when he stated, “no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

Religious freedom is a subject on which our Founders had a lot to say and they said the opposite of what you are falsely asserting. The historical record is quite clear that all of our Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom and to the extent they differed on religious freedom, it was over what degree the government should favor religion and/or to what extent atheists or those without a religious belief should participate in public life.

The truth is that liberals are presently perverting the classical definition and exercise of freedom of religion and persecuting moral people for failing to support their perversities.

Your analogy is faulty to the point of absurdity. A strong analogy with what's actually occurring looks like this. The government perverts the Constitution by extending Civil Rights legislation intended to correct a racial imbalance in society to drug addicts who then use the law to imprison and bankrupt small business owners who refuse to support the drug addicts events designed to spread drug addiction amongst the populace.

That's almost an exact correlation.

The US is presently deciding whether they will place sexual immorality above the classical context of U.S. religious freedom as described above by Thomas Jefferson. If the US decides to pervert the Constitution to the point that moral people are discriminated against, imprisoned, and bankrupted at the behest of immoral people who engage in homosexuality: this certainly does open the door for other immoral special interest groups to petition for the same legal right to do likewise.

Your assertion that the "law of the land doesn't view sexual immorality as against the law" is false. Certain sexually immoral behaviors are presently against the law. Pedophilia is one example of a sexual immorality that is against the law. Not only are you wrong, but your invoking of that is a red herring for this discussion simply because what's under discussion is a different matter entirely: government supported discrimination and persecution of moral people for refusing to support sexual immorality.

But your also wrong that this is about people being discriminated against solely for their sexually immoral preferences (as was previously explained to you). This is about discriminating against moral Americans in denying them their classic freedom of religion and human right not to be involved in the promotion of immorality. This is NOT about the discrimination of immoral persons.

The law can certainly recognize that moral Americans must not discriminate against criminals and the sexually immoral on a personal basis while maintaining their classic Constitutional and human right to not promote criminality and immorality.

As you can plainly see, I certainly am not saying the words you wrongly put in my mouth ('I think Christian's should be allowed to discriminate at will, besides the laws of the country'). Those are your words based on your misconceptions, not mine.

My words are that while no business should be allowed to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of that person's race, gender, color, or sexual orientation, a distinction MUST be made between an event and a person. If a photographer hired by a school to do senior portraits refuses to photograph a gay senior, that's discrimination against a person and should be disallowed.

However, if a wedding photographer refuses to take pictures of a same-sex wedding, that's putting the moral wedding photographer into a position where they have to violate their own MORAL (not to be confused with immoral) freedom of conscience and MORAL (not to be confused with immoral) religious convictions against the promotion of immorality in the context of an event.

Given the First Amendment's clear affirmation of a person's right to freedom of moral conscience and to freely exercise his or her religion, such a difference should be respected in our society. Moral people should not be stripped of their freedom of moral conscience and freedom of religion and imprisoned and bankrupted for refusing to promote immorality. That IS tyranny.

People of faith should not be expected to leave their moral conscience and freedom of religion at the door before entering the marketplace or their place of work just because immoral people want them to.

The tyranny is going in exactly the opposite direction of what you assert. Moral Americans face imprisonment and bankruptcy solely for refusing to violate their moral consciences and moral religious convictions (which you confused with immoral religious convictions in your faulty analogy) and promote sexual immorality.

They would happily offer all their goods and services to any immoral person for any moral purpose whatsoever in a free market where immoral people have a plethora of options available to them.

But as John 3:19-20 points out, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

Immoral people cannot tolerate their immoral behavior being highlighted for what it really is (e.g. immoral behavior) and so have set about to use the government to destroy, if possible, all who oppose them. The homosexual lobby is now working to completely pervert and subvert the First Amendment and the U.S. government by drafting legislation that will effectively make any candidate who states that sexual immorality (e.g. specifically homosexuality in this case) is not a civil right ineligible for public office. If the homosexual lobby is not stopped they will effectively transform the U.S. government into an instrument of persecution against moral Americans.

That's tyranny and you are presently part of promoting the tyranny of the immoral against the moral. I'm not but you are.

I don't particularly agree with all that you said, but I value the fact that you recognize discrimination solely on personal lifestyle choice is wrong. And I understand that I've made a jump of logic in regards to the difference between refusing to support certain behavior, and discriminating against certain people. But again, people have the right to buy food from a shop, regardless of what they'll use the produce for. And if the food isn't there, the shop owner could have the right to refuse the request to bake more.

However, what I would say is this; the analogy of a drug dealer and a homosexual is not, in my opinion, an exact analogy. Homosexuals aren't doing anything illegal, a drug dealer is. So, promoting drugs would probably land you in prison. Likewise, a person's idea of morality, even a person who thinks they have moral absolutes, is still subjective to belief. So inherently, your idea of morality may differ very much from someone else's definition. And since the constitutional right to religious freedom is so inherently important to you, then I would assume that right extends to people of all belief systems (thus people of different moral perspectives)? Or is it just fundamentalist christians?

The kind of argument you're proposing isn't far away from the days when people wouldn't let black people into schools because the bible hinted at separatism in that respect. What I don't inherently understand is that christians might support, say, a rally for the war in Iraq & Afghanistan or something similar, where people actually get killed, maimed, tortured and all sorts, and yet they balk at the assertion that gay people should have the same rights to buy groceries or baked goods that a non gay person has, regardless of what the groceries are for.

It boggles my mind.

 

[Jhana]

Edit: replace 'drug dealer' with 'drug addict'.

 

[laura_charlotte]

Religious freedom is only supposed so extend insofar as personal religious freedom and the general laws of the country do. If say, for instance, I put my religious beliefs down as rastafarian, those religious beliefs allow me to smoke marijuana, and if I put mine down as christian, those religious beliefs (depending on my perspective of them) may tell me that I have to somehow treat homosexuals in a different way than other people, whatever that may mean in particular.

Being rastafarian doesn't give me the right of law to smoke marijuana in a state where it's illegal, the same way being christian doesn't give me the right to discriminate against homosexuals.

To say 'the US seems to be placing sexual immorality above religious freedom' is a blanket statement, and it's one based solely on perspective. A lawyer might tell you different, and a judge might view this statement in very different ways than you do.

For instance, the law of the land doesn't view 'sexual immorality' (by which you really mean 'homosexuality'), as against the law. Therefore, everyone has the right to choose whether they want to be homosexual, straight, abstinent or asexual. Those are rights, and those decisions, preferences, or some might say biological conditions, are not a basis for anyone to discriminate against a person, regardless of the 'discriminator's' religious beliefs.

Sexual immorality doesn't come above religious freedom. Anybody can choose to be any religion. And anybody can choose their sexual preference. Each is equal in the eyes of the law. And that's the law.

Where the problem in your statement lies is that you don't want to accept this law. You seem to think that christians shouldn't have to obey the laws of the land, that they have a right higher than 'the homosexuals' purely BECAUSE of their religious beliefs, and so you think that such a discrimination against homosexuals, by christians, has more merit than the premise of equal rights for each citizen.

Now, I don't know the outcome of the case with the baker. I should hope that the baker isn't imprisoned, but I should also hope that some more definitive premise is set for cases like this in the future, as regards to certain businesses.

I can understand, from the points people have made, that a creative service might not necessarily be the best example to use to illustrate the law. A better example would be an average shop. For a person to say to a homosexual 'you're not alowed to buy that can of coke, because you're gay', would be a plain and simple breach of consumer law and discrimination laws.

The baker, well, she puts her personal touch on it, and many of you are saying that she then might get her name renowned in the LGBT circles as a supporter. But this is where the point becomes wooly. I can argue that baking cookies, regardless of who eats them, may not inherently be support, and no biblical basis is really found to support either statement. And in the context of law, the case is probably fairly wooly too, due to the nature of the service itself. It's not your typical 'shop'. However, if the baker had those cookies already baked, and could have sold them to the customer, then I would say the baker is likely to loose the case. If the baker had not yet baked any cookies that day, the baker may have quite a strong chance to win. Because to ask for a service that is yet to be carried out, is technically either a contract of agreement or an informal agreement. and people have the right to refuse contracts for any reason. Whereas your average shop, by law and definition of their business, already agree to selll to whomever may come in, except for certain reasons, of which homosexuality isn't one.

A good example is a tradesman. If a company comes and says 'we want you to paint our offices', the tradesman can refuse to 'take on the contract', for literally any reason, simply because that contract is for all intents and purposes the 'customer' asking the 'service-giver' for a yes or no answer, thus giving them a choice of whether to 'sell' or 'not sell'; 'will you take on this contract'. So, if the baker hadn't yet baked the cookies, she'll likely win.

But on the other hand, a customer going into a shop that is actually set up to sell things over the counter, is a different matter. If I go into a shop and buy a crate of coca colas, a shop-keeper can refuse me for any number of reasons; slandering, violence, no shirt & shoes, perhaps I stole from that shop before, but if I am an everyday customer and I go into that shop to buy a crate of coca colas, there is no way that the law allows him to refuse me on the basis of sexual orientation, even if I tell him beforehand what the coca colas are for.

The same way that if the baker had cookies baked and available to sell, she can't refuse the homosexual on the basis of sexual preference alone.

And this is my point. You want to say to people 'the government are placing sexual immorality above religious freedom', but really what you're saying is 'I think christian's should be allowed to discriminate at will, besides the laws of the country'.

Perhaps 'tyranny' isn't the right word, but there's certainly something quite unsettling about that.

This looks like a chopped up piece of information from other sources online, where some words or half sentences have been substituted but i found it in various other places on the internet.

 

[Jhana]

This looks like a chopped up piece of information from other sources online, where some words or half sentences have been substituted but i found it in various other places on the internet.

Then either there are many people who agree with me and understand consumer law or you're mistaken. I wrote it myself. A 100% fact.

 

[st_sebastian]

Then either there are many people who agree with me and understand consumer law or you're mistaken. I wrote it myself. A 100% fact.

Yeah, in looking at particular sentences and paragraphs, this thread comes up first and not much else is very similar to it except in vocabulary. I'd like to see some examples.

 

[Jhana]

Yeah, in looking at particular sentences and paragraphs, this thread comes up first and not much else is very similar to it except in vocabulary. I'd like to see some examples.

I'm sorry, were you asking me for examples of something, or the woman who said she found this on the internet elsewhere? If you were asking me for examples and not the woman, then examples of what?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

So if someone goes into a knife shop and announce they wish to buy a knife so they can kill the first person they meet as they exit the knife shop, the owner of the knife shop must sell the knife to them or go to prison and face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines plus their legal fees on top of that?

I disagree. I strenuously disagree.

The owner of the knife shop has a human right to the exercise of their moral conscience and freedom of religious expression toward morality in NOT selling the knife to such an individual for the purpose of murdering the first person they see as they exit the shop regardless of whether or not murder is legal or illegal!

There are many examples just last century where it was legal to sell weapons for the specific purpose of murdering innocent people. The first example in the 20th century is the Armenian genocide perpetuated by the Turkish government. It was legal to sell a knife in Turkey to someone who announced they were going to use the knife to murder Armenians. It was legal. Just because a people pass a law stating an immoral behavior is legal, does that make it moral? No, of course not.

What would be immoral would be to force a knife shop owner to sell a knife to a Turk intent on murdering Armenians with it.

The same holds true for the baker. They have a human right and a Constitutional right to NOT be forced to facilitate and promote immoral behavior whether or not that immoral behavior is against the law or not.

The knife customer certainly can buy the knife for any moral purpose and the bakery customer certainly can buy the cake for any moral purpose and this holds true even if the knife customer is a reformed felon ex-murderer and the bakery customer is a practicing homosexual.

This has zero to do with the individual customer and everything to do with NOT persecuting moral people who refuse to participate in the immoral behaviors of others.

Your attempt to correlate forcing someone to participate in immoral behavior or go to prison and bankruptcy court with race is ridiculous.

I've already explained to you clearly that while no business should be allowed to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of that person's race, gender, color, or sexual orientation, a distinction MUST be made between an event and a person simply because forcing someone to participate in the immoral activities of others violates their natural human rights, first and foremost, but also their Constitutional rights and this remains true in reality even if liberals are successful in corrupting and perverting the Constitution through reinterpretation so they can tyrannically persecute moral people and deprive moral people of their human rights and Constitutional rights.

I don't particularly agree with all that you said, but I value the fact that you recognize discrimination solely on personal lifestyle choice is wrong. And I understand that I've made a jump of logic in regards to the difference between refusing to support certain behavior, and discriminating against certain people. But again, people have the right to buy food from a shop, regardless of what they'll use the produce for. And if the food isn't there, the shop owner could have the right to refuse the request to bake more.

However, what I would say is this; the analogy of a drug dealer and a homosexual is not, in my opinion, an exact analogy. Homosexuals aren't doing anything illegal, a drug dealer is. So, promoting drugs would probably land you in prison. Likewise, a person's idea of morality, even a person who thinks they have moral absolutes, is still subjective to belief. So inherently, your idea of morality may differ very much from someone else's definition. And since the constitutional right to religious freedom is so inherently important to you, then I would assume that right extends to people of all belief systems (thus people of different moral perspectives)? Or is it just fundamentalist christians?

The kind of argument you're proposing isn't far away from the days when people wouldn't let black people into schools because the bible hinted at separatism in that respect. What I don't inherently understand is that christians might support, say, a rally for the war in Iraq & Afghanistan or something similar, where people actually get killed, maimed, tortured and all sorts, and yet they balk at the assertion that gay people should have the same rights to buy groceries or baked goods that a non gay person has, regardless of what the groceries are for.

It boggles my mind.

 

[Jhana]

So if someone goes into a knife shop and announce they wish to buy a knife so they can kill the first person they meet as they exit the knife shop, the owner of the knife shop must sell the knife to them or go to prison and face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines plus their legal fees on top of that?

I disagree. I strenuously disagree.

The owner of the knife shop has a human right to the exercise of their moral conscience and freedom of religious expression toward morality in NOT selling the knife to such an individual for the purpose of murdering the first person they see as they exit the shop regardless of whether or not murder is legal or illegal!

There are many examples just last century where it was legal to sell weapons for the specific purpose of murdering innocent people. The first example in the 20th century is the Armenian genocide perpetuated by the Turkish government. It was legal to sell a knife in Turkey to someone who announced they were going to use the knife to murder Armenians. It was legal. Just because a people pass a law stating an immoral behavior is legal, does that make it moral? No, of course not.

What would be immoral would be to force a knife shop owner to sell a knife to a Turk intent on murdering Armenians with it.

The same holds true for the baker. They have a human right and a Constitutional right to NOT be forced to facilitate and promote immoral behavior whether or not that immoral behavior is against the law or not.

The knife customer certainly can buy the knife for any moral purpose and the bakery customer certainly can buy the cake for any moral purpose and this holds true even if the knife customer is a reformed felon ex-murderer and the bakery customer is a practicing homosexual.

This has zero to do with the individual customer and everything to do with NOT persecuting moral people who refuse to participate in the immoral behaviors of others.

Your attempt to correlate forcing someone to participate in immoral behavior or go to prison and bankruptcy court with race is ridiculous.

I've already explained to you clearly that while no business should be allowed to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of that person's race, gender, color, or sexual orientation, a distinction MUST be made between an event and a person simply because forcing someone to participate in the immoral activities of others violates their natural human rights, first and foremost, but also their Constitutional rights and this remains true in reality even if liberals are successful in corrupting and perverting the Constitution through reinterpretation so they can tyrannically persecute moral people and deprive moral people of their human rights and Constitutional rights.

Your sense of proportion is perennially warped. You have to understand what is illegal and what isn't. Some goods have certain conditions that must be met by the buyer in order to be bought. Murder is a purpose for which anyone can refuse sale, since it is 'illegal'.

In your first sentence you said 'if a person buys a knife'. First of all, a knife is not a cookie. In the second part of that sentence you said 'to kill someone'. A homosexual gathering is not a murder.

The first object is a dangerous weapon. The second is a baked good. The first 'act' of use of the object is a murder. The second act of use of the object is to feed people in a social gathering.

You keep talking to be about making faulty comparisons. I'm astounded.

 

[mustaphadrink]

If we both own a clothing business, I'm equally obliged to sell goods to you as much as you are obliged to sell them to a homosexual. Suck it up.

In both countries you are not obliged to sell to anyone except if your reason is discrimination as in I am not going to sell to you because you are black.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I honestly don't have a problem with that in an informal discussion such as this.

Yes if you are in a formal debate, formal discussion, preparing a paper for publication, etc... etc... etc... you cannot plagiarize but when people are just chopping it up in an informal discussion the topic is the focus.

No MLA, APA, or internal referencing is required in my opinion though adding it will strengthen your argument if it comes from reputable sources. I think you would need to reference your data sets, statistics and evidence; however, simply so people can qualify them.

Analyze the argument, the logic employed, the premise, and the evidence the person is employing. That's the important thing.

It's always good practice to reframe someone else's work and give them credit but when you're on the porch chopping it up over a soda you normally don't. I personally view informal discussions in the same light mostly.

Sure, go ahead if you want but I won't hold it against you if you don't. Honestly, I'm interested in what you're saying not where it came from except as it relates to supporting evidence.

This looks like a chopped up piece of information from other sources online, where some words or half sentences have been substituted but i found it in various other places on the internet.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I specifically stated people have a human right and a Constitutional right to NOT be forced to facilitate and promote immoral behavior whether or not that immoral behavior is against the law or not. That WAS the point.

You missed the point focusing instead on analogies. I can use 1,000 analogies. The POINT is that people have a human right and a Constitutional right to NOT be forced to facilitate and promote immoral behavior whether or not that immoral behavior is against the law or not.

Your sense of proportion is perennially warped. You have to understand what is illegal and what isn't. Some goods have certain conditions that must be met by the buyer in order to be bought. Murder is a purpose for which anyone can refuse sale, since it is 'illegal'.

In your first sentence you said 'if a person buys a knife'. First of all, a knife is not a cookie. In the second part of that sentence you said 'to kill someone'. A homosexual gathering is not a murder.

The first object is a dangerous weapon. The second is a baked good. The first 'act' of use of the object is a murder. The second act of use of the object is to feed people in a social gathering.

You keep talking to be about making faulty comparisons. I'm astounded.

 

[Jhana]

In both countries you are not obliged to sell to anyone except if your reason is discrimination as in I am not going to sell to you because you are black.

In the UK, if I walk into a shop and someone refuses to sell me a chocolate bar without a valid reason, I can bring them to court.

Valid reasons not to sell might include;

1. I have no shirt or shoes on.

2. I'm wrecking the shop

3. I'm abusing the staff

4. I'm a known shoplifter

5. I have insufficient money to buy the chocolate bar

6. the shop has no chocolate bars


You get the idea.

If I'm gay and I walk into the shop with my gay friends and ask for eight sausage rolls to take to my LGBT party and teh shopkeeper says;

'no, you're not bringing these sausage rolls to a gay party'.

Then I can take him to court.

The shopkeeper has absolutely no power in the law to tell me I can't bring food to a certain place and eat it with certain people at a certain event. He simply doesn't.

The only people I am aware of who can refuse their material being used for certain events are writers, musicians, composers and the like, who own legal 'moral rights' and copyrights over their work, since their work, by copyright law, is considered to be an extension of their image, and thus any way it is used becomes a personal tie to the author himself.

A shopkeeper is not the author of sausage rolls, nor does a shopkeeper own the moral rights to sausage rolls. In fact, nobody who makes food owns a moral right to food, and food is not considered an extension of image. If food were considered an extension of image, then most of us wouldn't be allowed to make spaghetti bolognese and Mr Dolmio could sue us if we tried.

The idea is absolutely ridiculous, and I've tried to explain it in simpler terms but really this is the bottom line; nobody in US consumer business, particularly shop fronts, and especially to do with food, has any control on how their produce is used once it is sold. As soon as it is sold, it belongs to the buyer, every part of it. There are no copyrights, no moral rights, no monopolies on food. Nobody owns copyright to food. Nobody owns image rights to food.

And similarly, because of the laws of commercial food business, there are only a small number of reasons for which a person can refuse service.

The bottom line is, if I have cookies baked, sitting ready to be sold, and someone comes in and says they're buying cookies and then going to a nudist beach with Anton LaVey to play badminton with the cookies, I still sell the cookies.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence | Crisis Magazine

The U.S. appears to be placing sexual immorality above religious freedom.

I read an article where it said that a U.K. judge said that homosexual rights override freedom of religion.

 

[Jhana]

I specifically stated people have a human right and a Constitutional right to NOT be forced to facilitate and promote immoral behavior whether or not that immoral behavior is against the law or not. That WAS the point.

You missed the point focusing instead on analogies. I can use 1,000 analogies. The POINT is that people have a human right and a Constitutional right to NOT be forced to facilitate and promote immoral behavior whether or not that immoral behavior is against the law or not.

Then they best not get into a business in capitalist consumerism.

 

[Jhana]

Cookies are not facilitating immoral behavior. Cookies are inanimate objects for people to eat Cookies are not promoting immoral behavior, cookies are inanimate objects for people to eat. Cookies have no linkable tie to the maker. Many, many people make cookies. Cookies are not copyrighted.

Immoral behaviour is only black and white to those who view it in black and white terms. Moral belief is subjective to each person. Every person has different moral beliefs. What you're basically saying is that the whole of the US or world must live by the moralities of christians like you, in the USA. And it, frankly, is disturbing that you don't see it.

Everybody who opens a business, MUST obey business law. If you are not willing to OBEY business law, then you should NOT open a business.

What you are saying is that, as the law stands, though it is good enough for almost everyone I know, that you are not satisfied with the current law in business. You want to be able to control how people use the food you sell.

'Oh no, you can't bring that meat pie near a faggy gathering, no, no, get that back here, Jeeves'.

It's preposterous. Ridiculous. Utterly tyrannic.

I pay you for the pie. And I eat the pie whenever I choose, with whomever I choose. That's free commerce.

 

[mustaphadrink]

In the UK, if I walk into a shop and someone refuses to sell me a chocolate bar without a valid reason, I can bring them to court.

No you can't. I have checked the law and it says the seller can sell or not sell to whomever he wants as long as he is not breaking the law as in I don't want to sell to you because you are black.

If a gun shop owner was asked to sell a gun to a minor he can refuse because the law does not allow him to sell guns to minors.

 

[Jhana]

No you can't. I have checked the law and it says the seller can sell or not sell to whomever he wants as long as he is not breaking the law as in I don't want to sell to you because you are black.

If a gun shop owner was asked to sell a gun to a minor he can refuse because the law does not allow him to sell guns to minors.

The key thing in there is 'valid reason'. If there is no valid reason not to sell, then there is no legal reason not to sell.

A gun is not a cookie. A cookie is not a lethal weapon. I don't have to be over 18 to buy a cookie.

But apparently, to the baker in question, I can't be gay. That was the point. This baker has an invisible sign that says 'only straights can buy a cookie from my shop, or some gays can aswell, as long as they don't eat it with other gay people' .

:/

 

[mustaphadrink]

Everybody who opens a business, MUST obey business law. If you are not willing to OBEY business law, then you should NOT open a business.

And business law says that you are not obliged to sell to anyone unless you break the law as in I am not going to sell to you because you are black.