meazza Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 What if it were a Muslim company that didn't want to cater a wedding because they were serving alcohol? Or they requesting a rum cake and they didn't want to handle the alcohol? Or a Muslim caterer that didn't want to do it because they wanted pork on the menu? They could compromise by putting death to America on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 What if it were a Muslim company that didn't want to cater a wedding because they were serving alcohol? Or they requesting a rum cake and they didn't want to handle the alcohol? Or a Muslim caterer that didn't want to do it because they wanted pork on the menu? Winner. They're discriminating against people who drink alcohol! - Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 What exactly are these laws supposed to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Winner. They're discriminating against people who drink alcohol! - Dorkington This is not a law about gays. They're just the cause du jour. What exactly are these laws supposed to do? Are you being this dense on purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 This is not a law about gays. They're just the cause du jour. Are you being this dense on purpose? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) What exactly are these laws supposed to do? Gee.... you already insisted several times in this thread that you have read the law, and in the economic/jobs thread you made a poor attempt at a point by misrepresenting what the religious liberty law is all about. So, it would be safe to say, that your question was not asked honestly. . Edited April 3, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 What if it were a Muslim company that didn't want to cater a wedding because they were serving alcohol? Or they requesting a rum cake and they didn't want to handle the alcohol? Or a Muslim caterer that didn't want to do it because they wanted pork on the menu? The Muslim company (lol) should not be forced to offer any goods or services that they would not offer to anyone else. Your hypothetical completely misses the mark. The argument is not about forcing companies to change their business. It's about preventing them from discriminating against potential customers based on prejudices, religious or otherwise. What exactly are these laws supposed to do? Appease the Christian voters in Indiana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) The Muslim company (lol) should not be forced to offer any goods or services that they would not offer to anyone else. Your hypothetical completely misses the mark. The argument is not about forcing companies to change their business. It's about preventing them from discriminating against potential customers based on prejudices, religious or otherwise. But the Muslim company would cater the wedding if it wasn't serving alcohol. They are discriminating against alcohol drinkers. Based on the religious beliefs. It's about preventing them from discriminating against potential customers based on prejudices, religious or otherwise. Why? Why do you feel the need to force somebody to do something that goes against their religious beliefs? Why do you feel the need to take away a right that all business owners should have? Edited April 3, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Pizza place doing well. Nice plan PC control freaks. http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 The Muslim company (lol) should not be forced to offer any goods or services that they would not offer to anyone else. Your hypothetical completely misses the mark. The argument is not about forcing companies to change their business. It's about preventing them from discriminating against potential customers based on prejudices, religious or otherwise. Appease the Christian voters in Indiana? Good to see we have a thread about religion so you can participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 The Muslim company (lol) should not be forced to offer any goods or services that they would not offer to anyone else. Your hypothetical completely misses the mark. Fine...Muslim mechanic that won't change the oil in a woman's car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 The Muslim company (lol) should not be forced to offer any goods or services that they would not offer to anyone else. Your hypothetical completely misses the mark. The argument is not about forcing companies to change their business. It's about preventing them from discriminating against potential customers based on prejudices, religious or A gay wedding cake is not a product offered to anyone. There. It's settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Meanwhile 147 Christians in Kenya have been murdered, Iran is on a pathway to nukes and a mysterious flesh eating virus is killing people in Syria supposedly brought on by ISIS and its slaughter of thousands of people combined with its spread by sandflies. First things first though. Let's talk instead about cakes for flakes and rubbers for lesbians. What is the next canard that you libs are going to throw out there to keep the discussion off the serious issues? Well, you can always revisit "the war on women", or is that being saved for Cankle's campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Fine...Muslim mechanic that won't change the oil in a woman's car. And that would not be ok, imo. A gay wedding cake is not a product offered to anyone. There. It's settled. So the wedding cake is only into other wedding cakes? Meanwhile 147 Christians in Kenya have been murdered, Iran is on a pathway to nukes and a mysterious flesh eating virus is killing people in Syria supposedly brought on by ISIS and its slaughter of thousands of people combined with its spread by sandflies. First things first though. Let's talk instead about cakes for flakes and rubbers for lesbians. What is the next canard that you libs are going to throw out there to keep the discussion off the serious issues? Well, you can always revisit "the war on women", or is that being saved for Cankle's campaign? You should start a thread about that! Threads like this should be disallowed because, of course, it's only proper to discuss something if it's the most important thing happening. You people are ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 And that would not be ok, imo. Because...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Because...? Because even whores with herpes should be able to get around. /Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Fity one years later are we are still debating the same things, only this time people don't want to serve the gays and not the blacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Fity one years later are we are still debating the same things, only this time people don't want to serve the gays and not the blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution Almost 240 years later and we are still debating the same thing, only this time people are dishonestly attacking Freedom of Religion (and Association) in America, and using false, simplistic examples like above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Fity one years later are we are still debating the same things, only this time people don't want to serve the gays and not the blacks. Not even close to comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 And that would not be ok, imo. So the wedding cake is only into other wedding cakes? You should start a thread about that! Threads like this should be disallowed because, of course, it's only proper to discuss something if it's the most important thing happening. You people are ridiculous. Me---"have you heard about what looks like a terrible deal with Iran that this administration is proposing"? You---"Indiana just passed a law allowing discrimination against gays" Me---"147 Christians were murdered in Kenya by Muslim terrorists". You---"Sandra Fluke isn't getting free condoms". Me---I've been reading about all of the black on black murders in Chicago. It's of epidemic proportions". You---"Remember that little black boy in Florida named Trayvon who was chased down by a white-hispanic and murdered in cold blood?" Me---"Cankles deliberately broke the law and used her own server in order to hide her communication as SOS". You---"Have you heard about the Repukicans war on women"? I could go on and on but even you should be able to see the pattern here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Fine...Muslim mechanic that won't change the oil in a woman's car.what would a woman do with a car in the kitchen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 what would a woman do with a car in the kitchen? Someone has to buy groceries and take the kids to soccer practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 what would a woman do with a car in the kitchen? Swear that she just had the brakes serviced, and has no idea how it happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 what would a woman do with a car in the kitchen? Swear that she just had the brakes serviced, and has no idea how it happened... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) Baronelle Stutzman is a florist. When a customer asked her to provide services for a same-sex wedding, she referred them to another florist. And for this unconscionable and horrific violation of their human rights minor offense to their feelings, the couple and the state of Washington chose to sue her and take away her business, her life savings, and her home. Because that’s what happens when you have a different opinion on an issue than the ruling elite. A florist loses religious freedom, and much more http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/ FTA: Keep in mind that Stutzman does not refuse service to gay people. Indeed she had been selling flowers to this same gay couple for nine years. She has also employed gay people in her flower shop. She had a friendship with the man suing her and cared for him personally and wished for her relationship with him to continue. She simply could not defy her conscience and lend her creative talent to help celebrate what her faith says she cannot celebrate. She had no idea that staying true to her faith would end up threatening her entire livelihood and savings. That is why RFRA is necessary. RFRA is a shield, not a sword, It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law. . Edited April 4, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Sounds like she's a closet bigot. Too bad she didn't set up a GoFundMe... The Memories Pizza folks ended up with $842k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) It takes a closed-minded moron of epic levels to suggest that a woman who opens her businesd to gays, but sticks to her Christian faith and STILL loses her business...a business that hired gays...is a closeted bigot. You truly are a mindless fool, and I would offer that you are just as bad as any bigot you could conjure in that simple, simple thing you call your mind. Think first, then post, Scooter. Save yourself the embarrassment. Edited April 4, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Wow, the left wing retard brigade really needed something to get worked up about this month, huh? I see so many concerned citizens taking 20 seconds out of their busy life to express their Facebook outrage about Indiana, so I know it must be a critical issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Sounds like she's a closet bigot. Too bad she didn't set up a GoFundMe... The Memories Pizza folks ended up with $842k. Sounds like everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. You know what they call that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Sounds like everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. You know what they call that? Oh, oh me, me Mr Kotter. Ummmm.......a liberal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) Not even close to comparable. Why is it not comparable? Suppose a Mormon doesn't want to serve black people because they are cursed. How is that any different than not wanting to serve a gay person because they are a sinner? It's no different, as you are denying service based on a factor that someone is born with and cannot change. Your flavor of discrimination is slightly different, but it's still discrimination. You don't get to say your discrimination is justified because your religion is from the bronze age and Mormonism is less than 200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution Almost 240 years later and we are still debating the same thing, only this time people are dishonestly attacking Freedom of Religion (and Association) in America, and using false, simplistic examples like above. Ah yes, lets conflate denying an entire group of people basic services with YOU being the oppressed one. hahaha. Edited April 5, 2015 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Ah yes, lets conflate denying an entire group of people basic services with YOU being the oppressed one. hahaha. You still don't seem to comprehend much. The law IS about protecting groups of people, the millions and millions of different religious U.S. citizens who want to practice whatever faith they believe in. It is NOT about gays, but you have demonstrated too much prejudice against people of Faith in your posts for us to expect anything else from you. RFRA is a shield, not a sword, It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Why is it not comparable? Suppose a Mormon doesn't want to serve black people because they are cursed. How is that any different than not wanting to serve a gay person because they are a sinner? It's no different, as you are denying service based on a factor that someone is born with and cannot change. Your flavor of discrimination is slightly different, but it's still discrimination. You don't get to say your discrimination is justified because your religion is from the bronze age and Mormonism is less than 200 years old. Ah yes, lets conflate denying an entire group of people basic services with YOU being the oppressed one. hahaha. The difference is the scope of the "discrimination," idiot. The Blacks were in much more dire need of laws that protected them than the gays. Especially because no one can tell you're gay just by looking at you. Also, because the blacks, on the whole, weren't being discriminated against because of religion. Either way, the blacks would've gotten to where they are post-Civil Rights without any government intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Me---"have you heard about what looks like a terrible deal with Iran that this administration is proposing"? You---"Indiana just passed a law allowing discrimination against gays" Me---"147 Christians were murdered in Kenya by Muslim terrorists". You---"Sandra Fluke isn't getting free condoms". Me---I've been reading about all of the black on black murders in Chicago. It's of epidemic proportions". You---"Remember that little black boy in Florida named Trayvon who was chased down by a white-hispanic and murdered in cold blood?" Me---"Cankles deliberately broke the law and used her own server in order to hide her communication as SOS". You---"Have you heard about the Repukicans war on women"? I could go on and on but even you should be able to see the pattern here. I feel I'm being misquoted. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) Baronelle Stutzman is a florist. When a customer asked her to provide services for a same-sex wedding, she referred them to another florist. And for this unconscionable and horrific violation of their human rights minor offense to their feelings, the couple and the state of Washington chose to sue her and take away her business, her life savings, and her home. Because thats what happens when you have a different opinion on an issue than the ruling elite. A florist loses religious freedom, and much more [url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/]http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/[/ FTA: Keep in mind that Stutzman does not refuse service to gay people. Indeed she had been selling flowers to this same gay couple for nine years. She has also employed gay people in her flower shop. She had a friendship with the man suing her and cared for him personally and wished for her relationship with him to continue. She simply could not defy her conscience and lend her creative talent to help celebrate what her faith says she cannot celebrate. She had no idea that staying true to her faith would end up threatening her entire livelihood and savings. That is why RFRA is necessary. RFRA is a shield, not a sword, It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It cant be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law. . Jesus. - no doubt - would have done the same.... Edited April 6, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Jesus. - no doubt - would have done the same....Jesus would have prayed with them, broke bread with them, stayed in their homes given invitation, even washed their feet; though I doubt he would have proactively participated in their wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Jesus. - no doubt - would have done the same.... Tell us all about Jesus, won't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) I feel I'm being misquoted. Link? www.http/genefrenkleblog.com Edited April 6, 2015 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Tell us all about Jesus, won't you? I did not grow up in a “religious” household – but I have read the New Testament. I am not sure anyone seems qualified to speak for Jesus to be honest with you. Look at the last two Popes – completely different approach and view of what the Catholic Church should be. I cannot fathom – though – how the teachings of Jesus have been leveraged/construed for the advantages of the few – or utilized for the advancement of organized religions. To me – there seems to be a complete disconnect. If Jesus – the son of God – was on this earth – I can’t believe that he would discriminate. I think people views on SSM written into the Bible are 2000 years old – or 1500 – are like many things written in both the old and new testament are not “the word of god” but man’s view of things at the time. If you think the bible is the word of god – then you can’t pick and choose – it’s all or nothing. Look around the world today. The Middle East/Indiana/Africa/9/11 most of the worlds troubles seem to be religiously based – or at least highly leveraged by religion. Did you see 60 minutes last night – Ireland divided by Catholics and Protestants – both Christians – ready to kill each other for in the name of religion? I don’t get it. I do think the Indiana legislation is simply a bone thrown to the religious right to saw off same sex marriage. I think if you want to operate in our society which has decided not to discriminate – play by those rules – start adding religion to government and it’s a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I did not grow up in a religious household but I have read the New Testament. I am not sure anyone seems qualified to speak for Jesus to be honest with you. Look at the last two Popes completely different approach and view of what the Catholic Church should be. I cannot fathom though how the teachings of Jesus have been leveraged/construed for the advantages of the few or utilized for the advancement of organized religions. To me there seems to be a complete disconnect. If Jesus the son of God was on this earth I cant believe that he would discriminate. I think people views on SSM written into the Bible are 2000 years old or 1500 are like many things written in both the old and new testament are not the word of god but mans view of things at the time. If you think the bible is the word of god then you cant pick and choose its all or nothing. Look around the world today. The Middle East/Indiana/Africa/9/11 most of the worlds troubles seem to be religiously based or at least highly leveraged by religion. Did you see 60 minutes last night Ireland divided by Catholics and Protestants both Christians ready to kill each other for in the name of religion? I dont get it. I do think the Indiana legislation is simply a bone thrown to the religious right to saw off same sex marriage. I think if you want to operate in our society which has decided not to discriminate play by those rules start adding religion to government and its a mess. The problem with your argument is that our society ALSO decided to not persecute someone for their religious beliefs. So, what this whole argument boils down to is one group of people believing in needing legislation to protect discriminated groups and the other believing in the need to preserve the rights of business owners. It's really not even religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts