LookingForAnswers Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2014 They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. In some of the cases, they have been forced by the court to bake a cake. Then they probably shouldn't have violated the rights granted to the plaintiffs by the state. See my post at the top of page 6. and it seems that Arizona is rectifying a bad law. What's wrong with that? From my post earlier;The rulings aren't just about weddings cakes and wedding photos. If the courts in the cases I brought up said it was fine for someone to refuse service based on sexual orientation for wedding photos and wedding cake, it would mean that someone could refuse service based on sexual orientation for literally any service or product, whether that is a cake, a photo, an apartment/house rental/purchase, a car, car repairs... Literally, just about anything. The law in Arizona doesn't make a distinction between wedding cakes/photos, and every other product/service. So long as it "violated the sincerely held religious beliefs" of the person, they could deny just about any service or product. It allows discrimination on a civil rights era level. They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. In some of the cases, they have been forced by the court to bake a cake. Then they probably shouldn't have violated the rights granted to the plaintiffs by the state. See my post at the top of page 6. What is the protection to businesses being targeted by gays who wish to shut them down for being Christian? Could you be more specific? Are you referring to the court cases I linked, or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,800 Content Per Day: 6.17 Reputation: 11,247 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? There is no protection for a Christian in the law any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,800 Content Per Day: 6.17 Reputation: 11,247 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. In some of the cases, they have been forced by the court to bake a cake. Then they probably shouldn't have violated the rights granted to the plaintiffs by the state. See my post at the top of page 6. and it seems that Arizona is rectifying a bad law. What's wrong with that? From my post earlier;The rulings aren't just about weddings cakes and wedding photos. If the courts in the cases I brought up said it was fine for someone to refuse service based on sexual orientation for wedding photos and wedding cake, it would mean that someone could refuse service based on sexual orientation for literally any service or product, whether that is a cake, a photo, an apartment/house rental/purchase, a car, car repairs... Literally, just about anything. The law in Arizona doesn't make a distinction between wedding cakes/photos, and every other product/service. So long as it "violated the sincerely held religious beliefs" of the person, they could deny just about any service or product. It allows discrimination on a civil rights era level. They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. In some of the cases, they have been forced by the court to bake a cake. Then they probably shouldn't have violated the rights granted to the plaintiffs by the state. See my post at the top of page 6. What is the protection to businesses being targeted by gays who wish to shut them down for being Christian? Could you be more specific? Are you referring to the court cases I linked, or something else? I linked to one case, but there are many many more out there on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,800 Content Per Day: 6.17 Reputation: 11,247 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 This will help explain the bill. http://www.abc15.com/news/state/understanding-sb-1062-7-things-you-need-to-know-about-arizonas-controversial-bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2014 They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. In some of the cases, they have been forced by the court to bake a cake. Then they probably shouldn't have violated the rights granted to the plaintiffs by the state. See my post at the top of page 6. and it seems that Arizona is rectifying a bad law. What's wrong with that? From my post earlier;The rulings aren't just about weddings cakes and wedding photos. If the courts in the cases I brought up said it was fine for someone to refuse service based on sexual orientation for wedding photos and wedding cake, it would mean that someone could refuse service based on sexual orientation for literally any service or product, whether that is a cake, a photo, an apartment/house rental/purchase, a car, car repairs... Literally, just about anything. The law in Arizona doesn't make a distinction between wedding cakes/photos, and every other product/service. So long as it "violated the sincerely held religious beliefs" of the person, they could deny just about any service or product. It allows discrimination on a civil rights era level. They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. In some of the cases, they have been forced by the court to bake a cake. Then they probably shouldn't have violated the rights granted to the plaintiffs by the state. See my post at the top of page 6. What is the protection to businesses being targeted by gays who wish to shut them down for being Christian? Could you be more specific? Are you referring to the court cases I linked, or something else? I linked to one case, but there are many many more out there on the internet. Regarding your link and comment, gay people have the right to sue, the right to freedom of speech, the right to protest, and under many state laws (especially the states where these cases got lost by the business in question) the right to equal access to services. The business(es) involved do not have some superior set of rights that nullify the rights granted by The Constitution and state laws to the people that sued, spoke their minds, and protested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 24, 2014 You are creating a false dichotomy between using laws to force behavior and not telling people to sin no more. What method did Jesus use? Did he use laws to force behavior changes? No, LFA, I am not creating a false dichotomy about laws. Please don't assume my intentions. I am asking you two questions. 1. You said that Jesus was providing us an example of how you act. If this is what you believe, are you, like Him, telling anyone, "Go and sin no more"? 2. What do you believe about sin, and Jesus going to the cross for our sin? Well, your silence certainly says a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 thats funny because your advocating making a law to force behavior change looking. the people at the bakery arnt in congress demanding they outlaw gay marriage. they just refused to bake them a cake. Thats all that bakery did. yet your supporting the government FORCING them to bake the gay couple a cake? so what your saying is your in favor of laws only if they benefit gays, who cares if they trample on christians rights? The states involved in the court cases have laws against discrimination regarding providing services. The rulings aren't just about weddings cakes and wedding photos. If the courts in the cases I brought up said it was fine for someone to refuse service based on sexual orientation for wedding photos and wedding cake, it would mean that someone could refuse service based on sexual orientation for literally any service or product, whether that is a cake, a photo, an apartment/house rental/purchase, a car, car repairs... Literally, just about anything. The states upheld the law that states that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. In a phrase, your rights stop where another person's rights begins. They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services. The laws that were upheld in those court cases are the same ones that protect your right to not be discriminated against as a Christian, if you wanted to purchase something. There are no consitutionally protected right for simply being gay There are American civil rights for gays and for normal people, but gays do not have speical rights or minority rights or anything based on the way they have sex. In Jewish law, it is forbidden to sell ceratain religious items to nonJews. A Jewish bookstore owner cannot sell tefillin (phylacteries) or tzitziot to Gentiles. Gentiles can avail themselves of other goods and services in a Jewish bookstore, but there are services for which a Gentile can be denied in that bookstore due to the religious convictions of the Jewish bookstore owner. It does not violate the freedom of the nonJew that he is denied the right to buy those items he is not supposed to own according to Jewish law. I have never heard of Gentile complain that they were discriminated against because there was a something they were not allowed to purchase. But this mirrors the exact same scenario. As with the photographer and the bakery. The Jewish bookstore owner isn't a racist and he is not infringing on rights of the Gentile. He is simply following his religious convinctions. The same applies. The bakery and photographer were following their religious convictions and those freedoms are not cancled out by the fact that someone is gay. Furthermore, there are churches who do not allow homosexuals to be members of their congregations, do not perform civil unions for gays, do not accept gays to be ministers in their congregations. Churches are doing nothing different than the Christian business owners are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? There is no protection for a Christian in the law any more. As long as the Christian follows the law there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? There is no protection for a Christian in the law any more. As long as the Christian follows the law there is. A Chrisitan is not obligated under God to obey the law when the law forces him to do something that contradicts his faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts