Lesbians and Crossdressers want Weddingdresses

[SonInMe]

.....and how many of these gay customers target christian business to further their agendas?

This wasn't lawn furniture, it was a wedding dress.........that is different.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

But there are scriptures that speak against enabling immorality. And, on a legal note, small business owners do have both protected religious liberties under the Constitution as well as a human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality under natural law.

In fact, the Supreme Court has recently been striking down federal court rulings levied against Christians and some of the Supreme Court's recent rulings are sweeping.

Furthermore, marriage is much more than a mere legal agreement between whatever decides to engage in the practice: it's God's design for humanity.

Of course, the Christian shop owners would sell anyone any of their products for any normative moral purpose whatsoever. They just won't facilitate immorality.

So not only are you wrong and misrepresenting the situation, but you don't even know what you're talking about.

Selling goods to gay people isn't breaking any laws in the bible, and on a legal note, it is not a business owner's place to dictate a customer's private life, nor is what a person decides to do with the produce sold by a business - except in the case of weapons, cigarettes, alcohol or other controlled or dangerous items - ultimately any of the seller's concern. A shop owner who thinks they wield any power to refuse law-abiding citizens because of the personal choices of their private lives is delusionally self important.

The shop owner's attitude is one of much ado about nothing, and since in the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal agreement, not a religious one, and since business is a legislated practice, not a religious one, and since neither gay marriage nor cross-dressing are illegal in the relevant places, the shop owners are on thin ice, legally.

There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest refusing service to gay people will in any way influence their decision to get married or not, nor is there any tangible biblical precedent for refusing someone service. There is also the biblical saying, 'a person cannot serve both money and God', and since money, like business, is a legislated concept wherein certain laws apply, a person cannot harmoniously be bound by the legal obligations of business and simultaneously work to enforce their religious beliefs on customers. It is a conflict of interest to be bound by secular business legislation and simultaneously apply values that lie in breach of many of the business obligations to which one is bound.

One of those obligations is non-discriminatory service and overall acceptance of the legal precedents of business ownership itself.

 

[SonInMe]

I could understand two people of the same sex coming into a christian wedding shop and ordering a dress and the owners saying no.

It would be obvious, their situation and selling a wedding dress to a gay couple by a christian business would be condoning the sin....

and I bet the gay couple picked this business because it was christian. Their agenda is radical.

So, its wrong for a business owner to refuse service because of their religious convictions but it would be right to force them to sell to and promote something their religion calls a sin??

How does that work? Sounds like reversed prejudice forced by law to me....but then and again we have this weird law in the USA. Freedom of religion.

 

[Esanta]

But there are scriptures that speak against enabling immorality. And, on a legal note, small business owners do have both protected religious liberties under the Constitution as well as a human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality under natural law.

In fact, the Supreme Court has recently been striking down federal court rulings levied against Christians and some of the Supreme Court's recent rulings are sweeping.

Furthermore, marriage is much more than a mere legal agreement between whatever decides to engage in the practice: it's God's design for humanity.

Of course, the Christian shop owners would sell anyone any of their products for any normative moral purpose whatsoever. They just won't facilitate immorality.

So not only are you wrong and misrepresenting the situation, but you don't even know what you're talking about.

In the eyes of the law, all major religions are equally valued in that no Muslim would be treated differently than a Christian under it. Would it be morally correct and legally agreeable for a Muslim to refuse wedding services to a once divorced woman on the grounds that remarriage is considered adultery? Of course it wouldn't, and it's the same idea. The bases of the law are not grounded in an anthropomorphic recognition of an ultimate authority with whom the buck stops, they are grounded in a consideration of human empathy, equality and social harmony. Theology is not a necessity for law, nor is law inseparable from morality, which in and of itself most would agree is subjective insofar as different people believe different things about what is 'bad' and what is 'good'. Law must cater to an equilibrium, an equality, and a 'best and fair for all' attitude, not simply pander to Christian sensibilities.

In a world without life, does it matter whether a rock rolls down a hill? Is that good or bad? And in a world of observers without emotion, does it matter if the rock is observed or not observed? Is that good or bad? You see, distinction can only be made between good and bad when come beings who can reason 'does this me help or hinder me?' yet no real distinction can be made between what is good for the being and what is absolutely good, at least not from a purely human standpoint, not unless one coerces another by the citations of their higher moral authority.

Now let's say there are two humans, these are two beings who can work in unison for their common benefit, yet who also must compromise so that the unique desires of each are met. The whole world is filled with people who have unique desires this way; wants, needs, interests and beliefs, and the appeal to the moral absolutes of God in a society wherein many do not believe in God, and wherein many who do believe in him will not agree with your particular interpretations, makes it very convenient for you to be able to say 'but God says we need to do it MY way'. However, I'm grateful legality isn't founded on such a principle. Humans naturally pursue human interests, and the law is a mechanism of compromise between them. Of course, the more rigid American states are yet to grasp this concept, but thankfully, the UK (or most of it) embraces this idea.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're not a constitutional lawyer Esanta. You're not even well read. But you are posting a lot of misinformation and pychobabble.

 

[Agricola]

By allowing Christian shop owners to ban people based on their lifestyle is start of a dangerous slippery slope.

What if a Christian went into a garage run by Muslims and asked to paint a picture of Jesus and verses for Bible on a car and the Muslim refused because Christianity went against his faith and the Quaran ? Can not have it both ways.

 

[kennethcadwell]

By allowing Christian shop owners to ban people based on their lifestyle is start of a dangerous slippery slope.

What if a Christian went into a garage run by Muslims and asked to paint a picture of Jesus and verses for Bible on a car and the Muslim refused because Christianity went against his faith and the Quaran ? Can not have it both ways.

I tend to side with you on this, that it is a slippery slope.

It goes all the way up to our Federal laws to. We as Christians are not to force our ways on others, but yet we should not be forced to follow their ways either.

 

[Oncefallen]

By allowing Christian shop owners to ban people based on their lifestyle is start of a dangerous slippery slope.

What if a Christian went into a garage run by Muslims and asked to paint a picture of Jesus and verses for Bible on a car and the Muslim refused because Christianity went against his faith and the Quaran ? Can not have it both ways.

If this were to happen I would support the Muslim's rights just as vehemently as I would support a Christian's rights. Fundamentally you don't have to agree with someone's political or religious views in order to support their right to have them.

 

[Esanta]

If this were to happen I would support the Muslim's rights just as vehemently as I would support a Christian's rights. Fundamentally you don't have to agree with someone's political or religious views in order to support their right to have them.

Everyone's allowed their religious views, but one shouldn't consider their own views a right to discriminate against those with different views and it seems like you advocate equal rights as long as its not for the gays.

Why should a woman getting remarried have her rights to buy a dress revoked because a Muslim shop owner believes remarriage is adultery and thus unlawful; which is adherence to a religious legal precedent that is not recognized by the country's laws, I might add? Why should a Christian be refused the right to freely buy a dress from a Muslim shop owner because the Christians are going to profess that Jesus is God at their wedding; which Muslims believe is unlawful, a belief in a religious legal precedent not recognized by the country's laws, I might add?

Why should a gay person be refused the right to buy a wedding dress from a store because the Christian believes being gay is unlawful; a belief in a religious legal precedent which is contrary to the actual laws of the country, I might add?

This is exactly why I said 'the bases of the law are not grounded in an anthropomorphic recognition of an ultimate authority with whom the buck stops, they are grounded in a consideration of equality and social harmony''.

If we allow even one person to discriminate and breach free trade laws then we open the floodgates for anybody with a belief to say 'I'm not selling this because these people believe things contrary to my beliefs'. 'I don't want to sell this to a black guy because I believe a black guy marrying a white woman is wrong'. 'I don't want to sell this to an eighteen year old because I don't believe people can be responsible enough to get married until they're 21'. 'I don't want to sell this to a Muslim because I believe Muslims are heretics'. 'I don't want to sell this to a Christian because I believe Christians are heretics'. 'I don't want to sell any of my huge company's products to any gay person because being gay is a willing sin'.

Ergo refusals of service to whole groups of people who rely on shops to buy their goods just like everyone else. Ergo boycotts against people who fall within certain groups. Ergo widespread discrimination against people in certain groups. Ergo stark social inequality directed at people within certain groups. Ergo tribal business practices and oppressive regulations in regards to groups buying goods. Ergo economic issues, etc etc etc.

The right to buy goods is directly related to the freedom of the individual; without the rights to freely buy goods, a person could go as far as to starve, to die of thirst, to fall victim to an untreated illness, to have no clothing, etc etc.

In the UK, shops do not have the right to refuse service to a customer unless on very specific grounds; that customer is physically or verbally abusive, the customer has not enough money to pay, the workload of the tailor or other service provider means they cannot promise a service, the customer is not clothed or is indecently exposed, the goods are age restricted, there is reasonable evidence to suggest the person intends to use goods to detrimental effect, for instance buying aerosols to sniff or a knife to stab someone.

'He's gay' really isn't a valid justification to deny a customer a service here, and for reasons stated above, citizens here have the same rights to buy goods, regardless of their sexuality, religion, race, creed, age or appearance, the exceptions to that being the few reasons stated above.

 

[SonInMe]

By allowing Christian shop owners to ban people based on their lifestyle is start of a dangerous slippery slope.

What if a Christian went into a garage run by Muslims and asked to paint a picture of Jesus and verses for Bible on a car and the Muslim refused because Christianity went against his faith and the Quaran ? Can not have it both ways.

That is why we have freedom of religion laws.

 

[SonInMe]

How is saying you will not make a wedding dress for a gay couple forcing christianity upon them?

Wouldn't it be forcing the gay agenda upon christians to make them make the dress?

I really really do not understand the confusion about this.

Is this the only wedding dress maker in the country....? They have to have this christian business bend over for them to make a dress for a gay marriage???

Come on. Is anyone stupid enough to believe this was not a planned staged event to make christians look bad? How many businesses are christians going to lose because of their faith? It has happened before....

in 1930's Germany.

Liberals.....sigh.

 

[Oncefallen]

Everyone's allowed their religious views, but one shouldn't consider their own views a right to discriminate against those with different views and it seems like you advocate equal rights as long as its not for the gays.

You couldn't be more wrong, I just don't support extra/new rights for gays. If I were to walk into a bakery owned by a gay person and they were to refuse to bake me a cake with an inscription supporting the historical definition of marriage I would walk out the door and find a different bakery.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

As a human being possessing God's revelation: I have a moral responsibility to discriminate against immoral behaviors. For example, if a pedophile comes into a place of business and wants to order a cake for his NAMBA chapter recruitment drive, I'm not going to sell it to him.

I'll happily sell him anything I have for sale for any normatively moral purpose whatsoever but I will not support the immoral activity of pedophilia.

My position is justified both by God's normative morality, the human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality under natural law, and in the nation I live also the constitution which offers protections for religious liberty.

The Christian owned small business wedding company should be able to tell people who want to use their services in the commission of immoral activities that they refuse to without EVER being subject to any civil penalties whatsoever or any criminal justice system for THAT would be a miscarriage of justice. The Christians who own the small business have moral responsibilities, human rights, and religious liberties.

Since Esanta, who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, likes to use the word ergo as if that helps him in some way; I'll throw in a few here for good measure. Ergo, ergo, ergo, and ergo.

The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. It doesn't mean that the government has a right to criminalize Christian small business owners whose religious convictions prevent them from supporting normatively immoral activities engaged in by people who choose to participate in homosexual acts, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... when doing so violates the baker's religious convictions.

They can simply go to a business that doesn't have such religious convictions, do it themselves, or even start a business catering to the immoral demographic they identify with.

It's unfortunate that people like Esanta have arisen that seek to use government to criminalize the moral, persecute the righteous, and enable the immoral and unrighteous. Government was NEVER designed for this purpose.

 

[Esanta]

As a human being possessing God's revelation: I have a moral responsibility to discriminate against immoral behaviors. For example, if a pedophile comes into a place of business and wants to order a cake for his NAMBA chapter recruitment drive, I'm not going to sell it to him.

I'll happily sell him anything I have for sale for any normatively moral purpose whatsoever but I will not support the immoral activity of pedophilia.

My position is justified both by God's normative morality, the human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality under natural law, and in the nation I live also the constitution which offers protections for religious liberty.

The Christian owned small business wedding company should be able to tell people who want to use their services in the commission of immoral activities that they refuse to without EVER being subject to any civil penalties whatsoever or any criminal justice system for THAT would be a miscarriage of justice. The Christians who own the small business have moral responsibilities, human rights, and religious liberties.

Since Esanta, who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, likes to use the word ergo as if that helps him in some way; I'll throw in a few here for good measure. Ergo, ergo, ergo, and ergo.

The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. It doesn't mean that the government has a right to criminalize Christian small business owners whose religious convictions prevent them from supporting normatively immoral activities engaged in by people who choose to participate in homosexual acts, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... when doing so violates the baker's religious convictions.

They can simply go to a business that doesn't have such religious convictions, do it themselves, or even start a business catering to the immoral demographic they identify with.

It's unfortunate that people like Esanta have arisen that seek to use government to criminalize the moral, persecute the righteous, and enable the immoral and unrighteous. Government was NEVER designed for this purpose.

Paedophilia is illegal in all states. Homosexuality isn't. It's a faulty correlation, all of what you're saying.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Paedophilia is illegal in all states. Homosexuality isn't. It's a faulty correlation, all of what you're saying.

I see where ageofknowledge is going with this.

We as believers are not to support others sinful ways. Meaning treating them as acceptable.

We must remember though we are to minister to them, and show them their need for our Lord Jesus and to turn from those ways.

Because remember Jesus said all sins will be forgiven of those who turn from them and come to Him.

( This includes homosexuality, and pedophiles. )

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Non-sequester. It's normatively immoral in every geographical location. My correlation is not dependent on whether enough deceived people, such as yourself, have managed to legalize a specific immoral behavior.

Using your logic, if society legalizes pedophilia then everyone must be deprived of their human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality and religious liberty by a totalitarian government and criminalized for refusing to support pedophilia when a pedophiliac orders them to do so.

Which, of course, is an immoral position for you to take... lol.

Paedophilia is illegal in all states. Homosexuality isn't. It's a faulty correlation, all of what you're saying.

 

[Esanta]

Non-sequester. It's normatively immoral in every geographical location. My correlation is not dependent on whether enough deceived people, such as yourself, have managed to legalize a specific immoral behavior.

Using your logic, if society legalizes pedophilia then everyone must be deprived of their human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality and religious liberty by a totalitarian government and criminalized for refusing to support pedophilia when a pedophiliac orders them to do so.

Which, of course, is an immoral position for you to take... lol.

You assume I'm stupid enough to ever think paedophilia is moral, for a start, so you blatantly misrepresent what I'm saying. You need to seriously wake up and realize that 'subjective morality' is not equatable to 'we all think murder and child-rape is cool', it's more like, 'we're not pig-headed bigots that'd deny consensually gay people the ability to buy goods'.

It's immoral to you, and it's something you can revile because you think you're special. Truth is, you wipe your bottom like everyone else and you're really not as smart as you think.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're stupid enough to think that homosexuality is moral, for a start, so it's no surprise that you blatantly misrepresented what I said which is that anyone (whether or not they choose to engage in immoral behaviors or not) can purchase all of the religious business owner's good and services for any normatively moral purpose whatsoever.

They just can't morally justify using the government as an organ of totalitarian control to deprive them of their religious convictions toward God's normative morality nor should they be able to.

You need to seriously wake up and realize that God's normative morality is 100% objective and 100% real. It is not subjective. You cannot pick and choose which immoral acts you like and which you don't and then morally justify using the government in a totalitarian manner to persecute the righteous for refusing to facilitate the immoral behaviors you like when ordered to do so.

That's totalitarian oppression of the righteous by the wicked and those who choose to engage in it will ultimately be judged by God Himself for it.

As I stated to you before:

What is morally good (ethical) cannot be separated from what is real (metaphysical) and what is true (epistemological).

Don't blame me that you're wrong. That's your fault, not mine. But you can do something about it: you can repent from it. Lord knows you've had plenty of opportunity to.

You assume I'm stupid enough to ever think paedophilia is moral, for a start, so you blatantly misrepresent what I'm saying. You need to seriously wake up and realize that 'subjective morality' is not equatable to 'we all think murder and child-rape is cool', it's more like, 'we're not pig-headed bigots that'd deny consensually gay people the ability to buy goods'.

It's immoral to you, and it's something you can revile because you think you're special. Truth is, you wipe your bottom like everyone else.

 

[Esanta]

You're stupid enough to think that homosexuality is moral, for a start, so it's no surprise that you blatantly misrepresented what I said which is that anyone (whether or not they choose to engage in immoral behaviors or not) can purchase all of the religious business owner's good and services for any normatively moral purpose whatsoever.

They just can't morally justify using the government as an organ of totalitarian control to deprive them of their religious convictions toward God's normative morality nor should they be able to.

You need to seriously wake up and realize that God's normative morality is 100% objective and 100% real. It is not subjective. You cannot pick and choose which immoral acts you like and which you don't and then morally justify using the government in a totalitarian manner to persecute the righteous for refusing to facilitate the immoral behaviors you like when ordered to do so.

That's totalitarian oppression of the righteous by the wicked and those who choose to engage in it will ultimately be judged by God Himself for it.

As I stated to you before:

What is morally good (ethical) cannot be separated from what is real (metaphysical) and what is true (epistemological).

Don't blame me that you're wrong. That's your fault, not mine. But you can do something about it: you can repent from it. Lord knows you've had plenty of opportunity to.

You're that one guy who can't stop reading Kant, aren't you?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I did not invoke nor reference Kant. Here's a better question, why can't you take correction from those who know better than you with respect to your insane false assertions?

You're that one guy who can't stop reading Kant, aren't you?