• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
ADigitalArtist said:
I got married by a judge with no spiritual component involved whatsoever. If people are looking for that, they should be able to. If people dont want to be married by hardcore religious folks, they should have options. This is a way that provides options.
Click to expand...
Sure. But the judge isn’t pretending to be a spiritual authority, either. Any public servant can officiate. That’s fine. I’m not arguing for purely religious marriage. All I’m saying is that these pretend “ordinations” are disengenuous because the “ministers” are likely not fit to carry out all the parameters of the office.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
dianaiad said:
Y'know what? None of the people suing here are worried about the Better Business Bureau. The businesses involved are worried about fines, confiscation of property and having to close their businesses because they have a religious objection to an event.
Click to expand...
They don’t object to “an event.” They do wedding cakes all the time. What they’re objecting to is the people involved in the event.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ADigitalArtist said:
No, they are correct. Pedophilia is not the same thing as child molestation. Pedophilia describes the desire, child molestation describes the action. Being a pedophile, which is a mental state, is not illegal.
The big difference between LGBT and @leroy example is that acting on pedophelia has tangible harms to society and LGBT doesn't (specifically child endangerment, child abuse and erosion of informed consent) Like race, sex, national origin and religion, LGBT or discriminated against for no ethical reason to hold up in a court of law. Hence why those became protected classes. You should no more be able to say no no gays or no trans as no blacks or no atheists.
Click to expand...
But that is not what he is asking for.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dianaiad said:
the First Amendment does not protect BELIEFS. Read it carefully. It protects the FREE EXERCISE of those beliefs.

If a baker feels that he cannot, in good conscience, bake a cake for a specific wedding, then he is not abrogating anybody's rights. He is not forcing anybody to do anything against their beliefs. At most he is refusing to allow someone to force him to do something against his beliefs.

If his choice is...do the wedding or cease to do business with anybody, then that is forcing him to do the wedding; abrogating his religious rights.

That gay couple has a choice; they can get their cake elsewhere. Or not have one. Or make one themselves. It's the same choice I would have if I wanted a bakery to make a cake that is artistically repugnant to the owner, and he refuses out of sheer aesthetic disgust. THAT would be acceptable...

but refusing to bake a cake because doing so would violate his religious principles, a right guaranteed to him by the constitution?

I don't get this argument at all. It scares me, frankly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you misunderstand that amendment. A person's rights are no longer guaranteed once their actions affect others. He opened a business to the public, that means he must serve the public.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dianaiad said:
I don't recall saying that there was anything wrong with a gay couple raising a child.
Click to expand...

You seemed to think for some strange reason that there is a difference.

They can do that now, but not without considerable outside aid, and that outside aid will be required no matter how far advanced the technology gets.

And no, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, either.
Click to expand...

Not quite yet. Two guys cannot have their "own" child, nor can two women. But the ability to remove the DNA from ova and spermatazoid and planting them within an egg with the DNA removed is quickly approaching.
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
InChrist said:
.. All I know is that God is Love and He knows each of us better than we know ourselves and desires a real, loving relationship. I do realize you don't agree.
Click to expand...

If your god was all that loving? Why did it create a special torture-pit in case anyone doesn't love him back?

hmmmm? That is inconsistent.
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
The way to see it is that Xy is multifaceted. Some of us celebrate the diversity of the facets. Then there are those who, for various reasons, fear the diversity.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I just wish those who cannot accept the slightest variance from what they personally insist must be "true", would be less vocal, and less insistent on creating laws based in their personal wishes as to what their "god" supposedly "tells" them to do...
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
dianaiad said:
Oh, don't be silly. Weddings are religious in nature. Anybody who doesn't think so has his/her head so far up his/her politically correct armpit that they can't see anything but the need to shave.
Click to expand...

False on so many levels. It is true that some weddings are religious. But by no means are all of them.

And? Even the religious ones require government license to be legitimate. That whole license thing you so conveniently ignored.

Moreover? As far as the legality of weddings are concerned, that license is all you need for most states -- the ceremony is purely symbolic.

Finally? Weddings and the entire idea of them, was created long-long LONG before yours or any other modern religion was invented by men.

Weddings are much older than religion-- so that fact alone makes your statement pretty much false across the board...
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
Sure. But the judge isn’t pretending to be a spiritual authority, either. Any public servant can officiate. That’s fine. I’m not arguing for purely religious marriage. All I’m saying is that these pretend “ordinations” are disengenuous because the “ministers” are likely not fit to carry out all the parameters of the office.
Click to expand...

Well, I have met too many religions "ministers" that were far less qualified than your average dog, to do actual ministering activities. Yet? These dangerously inept people were ministers at churches....

I don't think the on-line minister papers is diluting anything that was not already grossly abused by people who should have no business trying to "help" people in the first place.
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
dianaiad said:
Thank you for proving my point. In order to officiate, your friend had to become ordained in some way, by some group.

A religious one.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. In most states? All you need is a marriage license. That's it-- the secular judge or court clerk gets the job done.

You could not possibly be more wrong in this case; beside the fact that marriage was created long-long-LONG before the first religion was coined by the first con man who wanted more than his share of the hunt...
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
sojourner said:
Sure. But the judge isn’t pretending to be a spiritual authority, either. Any public servant can officiate. That’s fine. I’m not arguing for purely religious marriage. All I’m saying is that these pretend “ordinations” are disengenuous because the “ministers” are likely not fit to carry out all the parameters of the office.
Click to expand...
Different religions will have different views on what that office entails. Why should one view dictate all?
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
dianaiad said:
Y'know what? None of the people suing here are worried about the Better Business Bureau. The businesses involved are worried about fines, confiscation of property and having to close their businesses because they have a religious objection to an event.
Click to expand...
The bbb handles discrimination disputes and passes them on to legal departments and puts in contact with people like the ACLU as well as handling various guideline checks but in any case, a religious objection is not grounds for discrimination. And I've fired people, personally, for not providing service for someone because they had religious tattooing they objected to. Specifically they objected to having to touch a pentacle. Not doing so would have been legitimate grounds for suit on the patiant's part.
 
kiwimac

kiwimac

Brother Napalm of God's Love
Bob the Unbeliever said:
Torture is immoral. Regardless of the motive-- and for a god? There would be so very many alternatives than torture.

Your god is still immoral. Sorry. And anything but good or loving. The opposite, actually...
Click to expand...

You are another fundamentalist insisting that your interpretation of a scripture is the authoritative one. Had you actually done any research you would have found that Christians have disagreed with one another about this from the very beginning of the church. Perhaps you should take the opportunity to educate yourself?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
kiwimac said:
You are another fundamentalist insisting that your interpretation of a scripture is the authoritative one. Had you actually done any research you would have found that Christians have disagreed with one another about this from the very beginning of the church. Perhaps you should take the opportunity to educate yourself?
Click to expand...
His response was to one particular Christian. Atheists can see that different Christians worship different "gods". His god is evil. That is a shorthand way of saying "the version of god that he believes in is evil". It is not a statement that all Christians worship an evil god. I often use the same argument, pointing out how the version of god that a specific Christian believes in is evil. I have never made that claim for all Christians.

A little charity would have helped you to understand his point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top