"LGBT RIGHTS"

[mustaphadrink]

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.

Incorrect again. If I put a product in my window and someone comes in and says they would like to buy that product and I say sorry, I am not selling that product today, there is nothing they can do about it.

Strange as it may seem, I KNOW that a gun is not a cookie. Obviously you have not grasped that I am using a different situation to illustrate a point which is in both cases the law was being adhered to.

 

[Jhana]

Incorrect again. If I put a product in my window and someone comes in and says they would like to buy that product and I say sorry, I am not selling that product today, there is nothing they can do about it.

Strange as it may seem, I KNOW that a gun is not a cookie. Obviously you have not grasped that I am using a different situation to illustrate a point which is in both cases the law was being adhered to.

They can in fact say 'im not selling that today' (if it's a menu for instance and there's no soup today), or 'I'm out of that', or 'we don't have that available', or 'my shift's about to end'. You're right. They can do that.

The point was, the person in question said 'I'm not selling you food because you're bringing it to an LGBT gathering'.

 

[mustaphadrink]

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':/

You seem to have an inability to grasp facts so let me enunciate them for you in the language of a child.

The baker was quite prepared to sell his products to anyone homosexual or straight. The problem arose because he was asked to make a cake for a homosexual wedding which according to his christian conscience (freedom of religion) he felt he could not fulfil as it would be considered approval of homosexual weddings.

The baker made it clear that he had no problem selling to the person concerned. The problem was the use of the product. He made a decision according to his conscience which freedom of religion allows him to do not to make a cake for the wedding of two homosexuals.

Using logic here, there probably were 500 bakers that they could have asked to make the cake but they didn't. They preferred to cause trouble for the baker that said no (lawfully) which only goes to show that they are emotionally dysfunctional and out to get anyone who does not bow to their wishes as I am led to believe that bakers and businesses all over America are the recipients of the same sort of treatment by homosexuals.

If there is anything here you don't understand, feel free to say and I will endeavour to use even simpler language.

 

[Jhana]

You seem to have an inability to grasp facts so let me enunciate them for you in the language of a child.

The baker was quite prepared to sell his products to anyone homosexual or straight. The problem arose because he was asked to make a cake for a homosexual wedding which according to his christian conscience (freedom of religion) he felt he could not fulfil as it would be considered approval of homosexual weddings.

The baker made it clear that he had no problem selling to the person concerned. The problem was the use of the product. He made a decision according to his conscience which freedom of religion allows him to do not to make a cake for the wedding of two homosexuals.

Using logic here, there probably were 500 bakers that they could have asked to make the cake but they didn't. They preferred to cause trouble for the baker that said no (lawfully) which only goes to show that they are emotionally dysfunctional and out to get anyone who does not bow to their wishes as I am led to believe that bakers and businesses all over America are the recipients of the same sort of treatment by homosexuals.

If there is anything here you don't understand, feel free to say and I will endeavour to use even simpler language.

This is where you're wrong. the baker doesn't have moral rights on his produce. It can be used in any way the buyer likes, by law. It could be used to smash off a wall or in a pornographic film, as long as it's paid for.

However, where the baker DOES have a legal standing is if his refusal to make the cake was for health issues, or time constraints, or funding issues, or he was understaffed and couldn't meet the deadline, or simply that he didn't need the work and refused to take on the contract because of that.

Any of those reasons would have been valid. But simply because his reason was a discriminatory one (discrimination is treating one person different than another on the basis of sex, gender etc) and he WOULD have baked a caked for a 'straight' wedding, then the baker broke the law.

Religion cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination.

I the baker had simply said 'I don't need the work', or 'I won't meet your date, it's too close', then he'd have been fine.

 

[mustaphadrink]

They can in fact say 'im not selling that today' (if it's a menu for instance and there's no soup today), or 'I'm out of that', or 'we don't have that available', or 'my shift's about to end'. You're right. They can do that.

The point was, the person in question said 'I'm not selling you food because you're bringing it to an LGBT gathering'.

One. You don't put soup in the window of a restaurant as it would contravene health and safety laws.

Two. They did not say that. They said they wanted a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. They went in there with an agenda because I do not go into a baker and order four coffee scrolls and say I want to eat these for my lunch, neither does anyone else.

 

[Jhana]

One. You don't put soup in the window of a restaurant as it would contravene health and safety laws.

Two. They did not say that. They said they wanted a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. They went in there with an agenda because I do not go into a baker and order four coffee scrolls and say I want to eat these for my lunch, neither does anyone else.

Dancing round the legal precedent. If I was getting married I'd certainly tell the baker I was getting married. I'd assume if I was gay and this new law has just come out, I'd be quite excited about that too.

A wedding is not an everyday occurence like a lunch.

 

[mustaphadrink]

This is where you're wrong. the baker doesn't have moral rights on his produce. It can be used in any way the buyer likes, by law. It could be used to smash off a wall or in a pornographic film, as long as it's paid for.

However, where the baker DOES have a legal standing is if his refusal to make the cake was for health issues, or time constraints, or funding issues, or he was understaffed and couldn't meet the deadline, or simply that he didn't need the work and refused to take on the contract because of that.

Any of those reasons would have been valid. But simply because his reason was a discriminatory one (discrimination is treating one person different than another on the basis of sex, gender etc) and he WOULD have baked a caked for a 'straight' wedding, then the baker broke the law.

Religion cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination.

The law states that you are not obliged to sell TO ANYONE and you do not have to give a reason. I know this because I have been a manager of a shop and I have taught consumer law.

Now, let me say again in simple language. The baker did not discriminate against the customer. He discriminated in favour of his christian beliefs which the law allows him to do and felt he could not give his imprimatur to a homosexual wedding. He discriminated against an activity, not a person which the Constitution allows him to do.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Dancing round the legal precedent. If I was getting married I'd certainly tell the baker I was getting married. I'd assume if I was gay and this new law has just come out, I'd be quite excited about that too.

A wedding is not an everyday occurence like a lunch.

One. No, I am just pointing out what the law allows.

Two, The occurrence of something is irrelevant. You only have to shoot someone once to be charged with murder.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Wow there is some extreme mental gymnastics going in here trying to justify prejudice. Even desperate measures of comparing cookies to knives and the comparing of gays to murderers.

Is there any limit to how far you'll go?

 

[Jhana]

The law states that you are not obliged to sell TO ANYONE and you do not have to give a reason. I know this because I have been a manager of a shop and I have taught consumer law.

Now, let me say again in simple language. The baker did not discriminate against the customer. He discriminated in favour of his christian beliefs which the law allows him to do and felt he could not give his imprimatur to a homosexual wedding. He discriminated against an activity, not a person which the Constitution allows him to do.

He broke the law. Christian belief is not law. And any unlawful act can't be negated by religion. He broke the law based on teh premise that his sole reason for not carrying out a service was a discriminatory reason, since, and this is the most important point, he would have baked a cake for a straight couple.

To say that this person can discriminate at will simple because he's christian, is to say that anyone who is religious can use 'moral reasons' to do something illegal. Nobody is allowed to do something that's illegal.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice your religion without being discriminated against. It doesn't give you the right to discriminate against someone else.

 

[Jhana]

One. No, I am just pointing out what the law allows.

Two, The occurrence of something is irrelevant. You only have to shoot someone once to be charged with murder.

Wait ... lemme get this straight ... so the once-in-a-lifetime occurence of a wedding, as opposed to the daily occurence of a lunch, meaning that a wedding will be more exciting than a lunch, is irrelevant because you only have to shoot someone once to be charged with murder?

Well there we have it folks, I don't have an argument that can top that one lol.

 

[Jhana]

I feel like I owe you an apology mustaphadrink. I shouldn't have been as gloating as I was there, it isn't something I respect in others' characters and I'll make a point of not doing it for a second time.

 

[Tintin]

Jhana, you don't seem to realise that the UK, North America and Australia's laws are all informed by the Christian faith. But now that's obviously going the way of the dodos.

 

[Jhana]

Jhana, you don't seem to realise that the UK, North America and Australia's laws are all informed by the Christian faith. But now that's obviously going the way of the dodos.

That's the general myth about it.

The law is not based on the acceptance of all religions as law, but rather that it views all religious beliefs from a neutral perspective and thus religious tenets and laws hold no value in a court of secular law. Each citizen is governed by exactly the same laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. This, in essence, makes every person equally liable to the law. Even should an individual rely totally on religious law, such an individual cannot be immunized from secular law on the basis that they personally hold themselves to a religious law, since such a practice would require every religious person to be held accountable to different degrees, by the law. This practice would be unenforceable, and thus the law of the land is based to take into account premises and principles that apply equally to every person, regardless of their personal beliefs.

To say that religion, Tintin, should inform law, is to say that there should be different laws for every person, since every person holds different beliefs.

There was a system something like this in Roman-occupied Jarusalem. There were Roman laws and Jewish laws.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Wow there is some extreme mental gymnastics going in here trying to justify prejudice. Even desperate measures of comparing cookies to knives and the comparing of gays to murderers.

Is there any limit to how far you'll go?

That is the question you should be asking the homosexual bigots who got all uppity because the baker would not compromise his christian faith.

 

[Deva_1972]

I don't wanna sound ignorant. But yes, in SOME cases this gay thing is a medical issue. Which is understandable. BUT, still the person should not act upon it. The person should try to seek medical or psychological help OR just live with it as his cross. Everyone of us has a different cross in life. I know very few people who are living with this gay cross thing and they just don't marry or act upon their feelings. I pray for them and respect how humble they are.

But when you act like an idiot and decide to be proud of your sin!!!!!!!! and happy with the stupid rights you are getting, then sorry pal, you're totally messed up!!!!!

Exactly, I couldn't agree with you more!

 

[mustaphadrink]

Wait ... lemme get this straight ... so the once-in-a-lifetime occurence of a wedding, as opposed to the daily occurence of a lunch, meaning that a wedding will be more exciting than a lunch, is irrelevant because you only have to shoot someone once to be charged with murder?

Well there we have it folks, I don't have an argument that can top that one lol.

It is a simple case of illustrating the point. Before I retired I taught English to high school kids. Their understanding was varied and some grasped the point easier than others so I used different ways to illustrate what I was saying to allow all of them to grasp the meaning of it.

Generally, the kids enjoyed my classes because I was good at what I did. One thing I did teach them was that sarcasm was the lowest form of wit so if they wanted good marks, to not use it in their essays.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Even should an individual rely totally on religious law, such an individual cannot be immunized from secular law on the basis that they personally hold themselves to a religious law, since such a practice would require every religious person to be held accountable to different degrees, by the law.

I see you reside in the UK so you might be interested to know that the UK is reckoned to be the first western nation that will fall to Islamic Sharia Law. At the last election a Muslim MP said in his maiden speech "At the last election there were two muslims elected to parliament. At this election there were four muslims elected to parliament. The day will come when all members of parliament are muslims."

What does that mean? Secular law goes out the door and religious law becomes the law of the land.

 

[Kerry]

That's the general myth about it.

The law is not based on the acceptance of all religions as law, but rather that it views all religious beliefs from a neutral perspective and thus religious tenets and laws hold no value in a court of secular law. Each citizen is governed by exactly the same laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. This, in essence, makes every person equally liable to the law. Even should an individual rely totally on religious law, such an individual cannot be immunized from secular law on the basis that they personally hold themselves to a religious law, since such a practice would require every religious person to be held accountable to different degrees, by the law. This practice would be unenforceable, and thus the law of the land is based to take into account premises and principles that apply equally to every person, regardless of their personal beliefs.

To say that religion, Tintin, should inform law, is to say that there should be different laws for every person, since every person holds different beliefs.

There was a system something like this in Roman-occupied Jarusalem. There were Roman laws and Jewish laws.

The problem with this theory is that true and just law comes from God. A nation that has a majority of bible believing Christians, has laws that pertain. However, when that nation begins to fall away from the statutes of God, things like homosexuality and child murder become acceptable and even now we are slapping pedophiles on the wrist.

Then that nation begins to fall into judgement and liberties are taken away, economic prosperity begins to diminish (sound familiar). It's the same thing that happened to Israel and Judea. Once the most powerful nation in the world, became dominated by its enemies and morality almost didn't exist. At one point God spoke through his prophet and said that Moses and Elijah were in the land, I would not spare it.

So the remnant of bible believing Christians are reaching out and trying to set things right, because we know whats going to happen if things don't change back to 50 years ago as far as morality and fearing God goes. Rest assured God has destroyed nations and cities. Many say that if God doesn't judge America strongly, then He will have to apologize to Sodom.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I feel like I owe you an apology mustaphadrink. I shouldn't have been as gloating as I was there, it isn't something I respect in others' characters and I'll make a point of not doing it for a second time.

Well, that is nice to hear. However, I am too old and too wise to get upset by it. I usually do not get involved in discussion unless I have overturned every stone to find the facts so I am very secure in what I believe and say because I have studied it countless hours before putting pen to paper or finger to keyboard.

Sometimes I let my impatience at people's sloppiness and lack of objectivity get away from me but I am working on that.