(04-03-2015 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 02:20 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:07 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would like to provide input into this conversation. I am a Gay Spartan that grew up in a christian church. I think discrimination of any kind is wrong. If you are a licensed business owner, you are obliged to provide services to all customers that come to your business and want your service. If you do not want to abide by the rules or if your religion prevents you from abiding by the rules then revoke your business license and practice your religion as you please. If you want to continue doing business in the public then you must conform to the law and not discriminate against anyone. I have owned a business, I have had customers that i did not want to serve but did what was right.

I don't think anyone coming to buy a cake from a baker comes with the intent of infringing on the bakers religion. I don't think that a customer comes with the idea of changing someones view of homosexuality or any other issue that might have some religious base to it. I think they come to a baker for a cake ....and if the baker does not want to provide the cake to all comers then they should cease doing business in the public sphere.

Go Green!
Go White!
Go State!

Sorry Sparty, but if it's my oven, I should have the right to determine who I bake something for.

I don't want to try to put to fine a point on this. The law that is causing the outrage isn't even necessary IMHO. The Constitution already provides for the free practice of religious beliefs and there are numerous state and federal laws already on the books with regard to business practices, discrimination, etc. However, if I own a bakery or a bed and breakfast, and my understanding of my religion compels me to refuse to bake a wedding cake for same sex couples or to refuse to host a same sex wedding/reception/honeymoon, then I would do so. If the couple wants to sue and claim discrimination, fine. I have held true to my beliefs and the couple would have to prove damages beyond that their feelings were hurt. There are other bakeries and other accommodations. I think it is probably short-sighted on the business owner's part, but it should be his right to conduct business according to his own standards and not those forced upon him. If there are consequences, so be it.

What you are saying is that, if it's your restaurant, you should be allowed to determine who you will allow to eat there. Or if you own an apartment building, you should be allowed to decide who can rent from you. You see where this is going. Now. I will readily admit that there are many people in America who believe exactly that. Many Americans believe they should have the right to refuse to mingle in any way with blacks.

But some Americans have moved past that, and I believe that's a good thing.

All that being said, shouldn't this thread be in the spin room?

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:07 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would like to provide input into this conversation. I am a Gay Spartan that grew up in a christian church. I think discrimination of any kind is wrong. If you are a licensed business owner, you are obliged to provide services to all customers that come to your business and want your service. If you do not want to abide by the rules or if your religion prevents you from abiding by the rules then revoke your business license and practice your religion as you please. If you want to continue doing business in the public then you must conform to the law and not discriminate against anyone. I have owned a business, I have had customers that i did not want to serve but did what was right.

I don't think anyone coming to buy a cake from a baker comes with the intent of infringing on the bakers religion. I don't think that a customer comes with the idea of changing someones view of homosexuality or any other issue that might have some religious base to it. I think they come to a baker for a cake ....and if the baker does not want to provide the cake to all comers then they should cease doing business in the public sphere.

Go Green!
Go White!
Go State!

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:07 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would like to provide input into this conversation. I am a Gay Spartan that grew up in a christian church. I think discrimination of any kind is wrong. If you are a licensed business owner, you are obliged to provide services to all customers that come to your business and want your service. If you do not want to abide by the rules or if your religion prevents you from abiding by the rules then revoke your business license and practice your religion as you please. If you want to continue doing business in the public then you must conform to the law and not discriminate against anyone. I have owned a business, I have had customers that i did not want to serve but did what was right.

I don't think anyone coming to buy a cake from a baker comes with the intent of infringing on the bakers religion. I don't think that a customer comes with the idea of changing someones view of homosexuality or any other issue that might have some religious base to it. I think they come to a baker for a cake ....and if the baker does not want to provide the cake to all comers then they should cease doing business in the public sphere.

Go Green!
Go White!
Go State!

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:07 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would like to provide input into this conversation. I am a Gay Spartan that grew up in a christian church. I think discrimination of any kind is wrong. If you are a licensed business owner, you are obliged to provide services to all customers that come to your business and want your service. If you do not want to abide by the rules or if your religion prevents you from abiding by the rules then revoke your business license and practice your religion as you please. If you want to continue doing business in the public then you must conform to the law and not discriminate against anyone. I have owned a business, I have had customers that i did not want to serve but did what was right.

I don't think anyone coming to buy a cake from a baker comes with the intent of infringing on the bakers religion. I don't think that a customer comes with the idea of changing someones view of homosexuality or any other issue that might have some religious base to it. I think they come to a baker for a cake ....and if the baker does not want to provide the cake to all comers then they should cease doing business in the public sphere.

Go Green!
Go White!
Go State!

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

(04-03-2015 09:39 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

You do know that Christ taught against such cruelty, right?

(04-03-2015 09:39 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

You do know that Christ taught against such cruelty, right?

(04-03-2015 09:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:39 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

You do know that Christ taught against such cruelty, right?

I sure do. My point is the Old Testament fire and brimstone and Leviticus and all that other stuff has no relevance to this issue.

Jesus Wrote:----

(04-03-2015 10:38 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Well, if we're looking at this from just a New Testament I think its important to list all of the things Jesus said about homosexuality, and I quote -

Jesus Wrote:----

(04-03-2015 08:00 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:19 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think if somebody came to a baker and wanted a cake of a picture of the devil made the baker should have the option to not make the cake. If that same person came into the baker and wanted a chocolate cake, that person should be allowed to have a chocolate cake. Same thing with somebody who is gay, not that those things a related. If a baker, pizza joint, etc don't want to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, than they should have that option. IF a gay couple enters the establishment for a regular item, than they should be allowed to have whatever they want. As for tim cook, dude is full of it in regards to his outrage at the Indiana law and his actions in countries that execute gay people. Of course, the larger issue is people are afraid to speak up against such actions since they themselves might be killed. Picking on bible thumpers in small towns is much safer. I do believe the left today is very closed minded to debate + Universities have turned into one party rule where dissent is not allowed.

What if a Christian baker refused a Jewish mans request for the Star of David on a cake, or a Muslim man's request for the Crescent and Star.

Discrimination is discrimination.

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:07 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would like to provide input into this conversation. I am a Gay Spartan that grew up in a christian church. I think discrimination of any kind is wrong. If you are a licensed business owner, you are obliged to provide services to all customers that come to your business and want your service. If you do not want to abide by the rules or if your religion prevents you from abiding by the rules then revoke your business license and practice your religion as you please. If you want to continue doing business in the public then you must conform to the law and not discriminate against anyone. I have owned a business, I have had customers that i did not want to serve but did what was right.

I don't think anyone coming to buy a cake from a baker comes with the intent of infringing on the bakers religion. I don't think that a customer comes with the idea of changing someones view of homosexuality or any other issue that might have some religious base to it. I think they come to a baker for a cake ....and if the baker does not want to provide the cake to all comers then they should cease doing business in the public sphere.

Go Green!
Go White!
Go State!

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

Doesn't the Old Testament (or the "Pentateuch", the first five books of the Hebrew bible), the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh (whose story of the flood was stolen for the Bible) or the Legend of Sargon the Great (whose story of an outcast baby in a reed raft in a river was stolen for the Bible) say that?

Sorry. I get my Bronze Age or earlier epics and books of mythology all mixed up.....

Like you said, I should brush up on my ancient history (or mythology, more to the point).

I wonder what the Lebor Gabála Érenn or the Legend of Cuchulainn may say about these things?

How did the Tuatha Dé Danann feel about wedding cakes for gay couples?

(04-03-2015 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  What you are saying is that, if it's your restaurant, you should be allowed to determine who you will allow to eat there. Or if you own an apartment building, you should be allowed to decide who can rent from you. You see where this is going. Now, I will readily admit that there are many people in America who believe exactly that. Many Americans believe they should have the right to refuse to mingle in any way with blacks.

But some Americans have moved past that, and I believe that's a good thing.

All that being said, shouldn't this thread be in the spin room?

(04-03-2015 11:49 AM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:00 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:19 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think if somebody came to a baker and wanted a cake of a picture of the devil made the baker should have the option to not make the cake. If that same person came into the baker and wanted a chocolate cake, that person should be allowed to have a chocolate cake. Same thing with somebody who is gay, not that those things a related. If a baker, pizza joint, etc don't want to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, than they should have that option. IF a gay couple enters the establishment for a regular item, than they should be allowed to have whatever they want. As for tim cook, dude is full of it in regards to his outrage at the Indiana law and his actions in countries that execute gay people. Of course, the larger issue is people are afraid to speak up against such actions since they themselves might be killed. Picking on bible thumpers in small towns is much safer. I do believe the left today is very closed minded to debate + Universities have turned into one party rule where dissent is not allowed.

What if a Christian baker refused a Jewish mans request for the Star of David on a cake, or a Muslim man's request for the Crescent and Star.

Discrimination is discrimination.

That's just it exactly. A wedding cake is a regular item for a baker to make for anyone that comes to their place of business. Creating a cake is providing a service not participating in a religious event.

(04-03-2015 11:51 AM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

Doesn't the Old Testament (or the "Pentateuch", the first five books of the Hebrew bible), the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh (whose story of the flood was stolen for the Bible) or the Legend of Sargon the Great (whose story of an outcast baby in a reed raft in a river was stolen for the Bible) say that?

Sorry. I get my Bronze Age or earlier epics and books of mythology all mixed up.....

Like you said, I should brush up on my ancient history (or mythology, more to the point).

I wonder what the Lebor Gabála Érenn or the Legend of Cuchulainn may say about these things?

How did the Tuatha Dé Danann feel about wedding cakes for gay couples?

I can't speak for Catholics, but Christians believe that Christ and the New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. So pointing to Old Testament text as prescriptive is incorrect. It is inspired and handed down by God yes. But God also gave his Son Christ to us to fulfill the Old Testament.

What a wonderful message for this Good Friday. All the sins of the Old Testament, all the corruption of this world that has ever been and ever will be has been fulfilled by Christ. His Life was Sacrificed for us on the Cross for all these sins.

This, my brothers and sisters, is a message of LOVE and PEACE.

(04-03-2015 12:02 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 11:49 AM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:00 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:19 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think if somebody came to a baker and wanted a cake of a picture of the devil made the baker should have the option to not make the cake. If that same person came into the baker and wanted a chocolate cake, that person should be allowed to have a chocolate cake. Same thing with somebody who is gay, not that those things a related. If a baker, pizza joint, etc don't want to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, than they should have that option. IF a gay couple enters the establishment for a regular item, than they should be allowed to have whatever they want. As for tim cook, dude is full of it in regards to his outrage at the Indiana law and his actions in countries that execute gay people. Of course, the larger issue is people are afraid to speak up against such actions since they themselves might be killed. Picking on bible thumpers in small towns is much safer. I do believe the left today is very closed minded to debate + Universities have turned into one party rule where dissent is not allowed.

What if a Christian baker refused a Jewish mans request for the Star of David on a cake, or a Muslim man's request for the Crescent and Star.

Discrimination is discrimination.

That's just it exactly. A wedding cake is a regular item for a baker to make for anyone that comes to their place of business. Creating a cake is providing a service not participating in a religious event.

My company makes uniforms, tshirts, etc. but we do not print shirts with obvious sexual or drug connotations. According to some here, our business should be compelled to make them, simply because someone walked in the door and said they wanted them.

(04-03-2015 11:51 AM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

Doesn't the Old Testament (or the "Pentateuch", the first five books of the Hebrew bible), the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh (whose story of the flood was stolen for the Bible) or the Legend of Sargon the Great (whose story of an outcast baby in a reed raft in a river was stolen for the Bible) say that?

Sorry. I get my Bronze Age or earlier epics and books of mythology all mixed up.....

Like you said, I should brush up on my ancient history (or mythology, more to the point).

I wonder what the Lebor Gabála Érenn or the Legend of Cuchulainn may say about these things?

How did the Tuatha Dé Danann feel about wedding cakes for gay couples?

I can't speak for Catholics, but Christians believe that Christ and the New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. So pointing to Old Testament text as prescriptive is incorrect. It is inspired and handed down by God yes. But God also gave his Son Christ to us to fulfill the Old Testament.

What a wonderful message for this Good Friday. All the sins of the Old Testament, all the corruption of this world that has ever been and ever will be has been fulfilled by Christ. His Life was Sacrificed for us on the Cross for all these sins.

This, my brothers and sisters, is a message of LOVE and PEACE.

(04-03-2015 12:00 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  What you are saying is that, if it's your restaurant, you should be allowed to determine who you will allow to eat there. Or if you own an apartment building, you should be allowed to decide who can rent from you. You see where this is going. Now, I will readily admit that there are many people in America who believe exactly that. Many Americans believe they should have the right to refuse to mingle in any way with blacks.

But some Americans have moved past that, and I believe that's a good thing.

All that being said, shouldn't this thread be in the spin room?

No, I stated that there are already laws on the books that prohibit discrimination. However, if a person's beliefs dictate that they should refuse service, then they should do so and accept the consequences. If their religious beliefs demand that they not serve anyone, then yes, they shouldn't serve them. But I know of no legitimate religious principle that would demand such. Same would be true of the other example. In fact, as far as Christianity goes, an argument could be made that they should accept anyone, no matter what differences they have with that person or couple.

Note that I am making no statement about my own beliefs. My argument is twofold -- that there is no need to continually add legislation for things that are already covered under existing law and secondly, that government goes too far when it demands compliance in one's mind, restraining people from acting on the basis of their own conscience. I believe it is oppressive and discriminatory for our government to tell working poor that have no insurance that they must buy health insurance they can't afford or the government will levy fines that they also can't afford. But there is no outrage about that discrimination.

It is beyond absurd for people on either side of the political spectrum to attempt to legislate in regard to belief systems.

And yes, although the MAC action was the reason for the thread, it isn't the discussion anymore and the thread should probably be moved.

(04-03-2015 12:14 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 12:02 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 11:49 AM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:00 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:19 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think if somebody came to a baker and wanted a cake of a picture of the devil made the baker should have the option to not make the cake. If that same person came into the baker and wanted a chocolate cake, that person should be allowed to have a chocolate cake. Same thing with somebody who is gay, not that those things a related. If a baker, pizza joint, etc don't want to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, than they should have that option. IF a gay couple enters the establishment for a regular item, than they should be allowed to have whatever they want. As for tim cook, dude is full of it in regards to his outrage at the Indiana law and his actions in countries that execute gay people. Of course, the larger issue is people are afraid to speak up against such actions since they themselves might be killed. Picking on bible thumpers in small towns is much safer. I do believe the left today is very closed minded to debate + Universities have turned into one party rule where dissent is not allowed.

What if a Christian baker refused a Jewish mans request for the Star of David on a cake, or a Muslim man's request for the Crescent and Star.

Discrimination is discrimination.

That's just it exactly. A wedding cake is a regular item for a baker to make for anyone that comes to their place of business. Creating a cake is providing a service not participating in a religious event.

My company makes uniforms, tshirts, etc. but we do not print shirts with obvious sexual or drug connotations. According to some here, our business should be compelled to make them, simply because someone walked in the door and said they wanted them.

Interesting point about your t-shirt company. I think your business has the right to define what products it makes. I cant come to you and say i want a Tennis Shoe and sue you if you don't provide it to me. I think the same applies to making a profane or sexual t-shirt. However, if i come to you for a t-shirt that you do make and you wont sell it to me because im purple with pink polka dots and worship the great spaghetti monster and procreate assexualy, then that is discrimination. Just like if you make wedding cakes every day at your business and wont sell it to a gay couple because they are gay. You the business man have no control over what the items you sell are used for after you sell it. IF you dont have a man and a man cake topper for the cake then sell the wedding cake you do make to your customers and let them add a man and man cake topper.

(04-03-2015 11:51 AM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:06 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:01 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I honestly can't believe that there are people who have this opinion.

That old book told me women are to never wear pants and must always be submissive to their husbands. How come I can't use the Religious Freedom Act to refuse service to a pant-wearing, outspoken woman?

Oh right...selective discrimination is okay...

You should brush up on your OT history to fully understand Jewish law. For starters, they didn't have pants back then. The book also said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Should we stone adulterers too?

Doesn't the Old Testament (or the "Pentateuch", the first five books of the Hebrew bible), the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh (whose story of the flood was stolen for the Bible) or the Legend of Sargon the Great (whose story of an outcast baby in a reed raft in a river was stolen for the Bible) say that?

Sorry. I get my Bronze Age or earlier epics and books of mythology all mixed up.....

Like you said, I should brush up on my ancient history (or mythology, more to the point).

I wonder what the Lebor Gabála Érenn or the Legend of Cuchulainn may say about these things?

How did the Tuatha Dé Danann feel about wedding cakes for gay couples?

I can't speak for Catholics, but Christians believe that Christ and the New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. So pointing to Old Testament text as prescriptive is incorrect. It is inspired and handed down by God yes. But God also gave his Son Christ to us to fulfill the Old Testament.

What a wonderful message for this Good Friday. All the sins of the Old Testament, all the corruption of this world that has ever been and ever will be has been fulfilled by Christ. His Life was Sacrificed for us on the Cross for all these sins.

This, my brothers and sisters, is a message of LOVE and PEACE.

(04-02-2015 08:09 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:46 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:35 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Well the MAC is another institution I just lost a little bit of respect for. I hate the fact that these laws are necessary, because the 1st amendment should be all that is needed, but we've seen increasing cases of the government making it impossible for people to live their faith and own a business/work in various industries.

Really though, the issue isn't about religion, but ethics. No one should be made by the government to perform service that they find unethical. Now a company can do that on a condition of employment, but no black baker should be made to make a cake for the KKK, no Christian baker should be forced to make a cake for same sex wedding, and no gay baker should be made to make a cake for a West Boro Baptist Church party. None of that should be controversial; sadly it is

You're comparing baking a cake for a same sex couple to baking a cake for the Klu Klux Klan? What a silly argument.

Christianity is clear in its condemnation of marriage involving anyone who has committed adultery, has been divorced, or any marriage involving a woman who is not a virgin, and yet where are the examples of businesses denying goods and services to heterosexual couples guilty of committing these detestable sins? It is impossible to overlook this hypocrisy and take serious any claims of discrimination against same gendered couples in the name of religious freedom. Let's call it what it really is- bigotry cowering behind the shield of religion.

A Buckeye fan on the wrong side of an argument about ethics, why am I not surprised?

Not sure about businesses denying serving goods but there are plenty of churches and pastors who will not perform a marriage ceremony for these folks. This happened to a very good friend of mine. Even though they were both Christians, both attended the same church where they wanted to get married... they had both lost their virginity years before. The pastor wouldn't marry them at their church so they went someplace else.

You could probably find examples of all of the above if you looked hard enough. The difference is that these folks don't wear their past sins as a badge of honor and protest about demand special treatment or gov't intervention.