It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Rosha
ketsuko
reply to post by Rosha
Actually, I wasn't comparing gay people to pedophiles, you made that link.
I was coming up with a situation, child marriage, that occurs in many cultures and that would be uncomfortable for many of us to have to participate in the same way that it is uncomfortable for Christians to be forced to participate in a homosexual ceremony. A child marriage would be difficult for many of us because we believe it to be morally wrong much the same way that Christians still believe gay marriage to be morally wrong.
You made the link dont cop out now.
Does Westborough stand and speak for all Christendom? No? In the same light, there are those people who would abuse Sharia and any other law they could to rape children. It does not make it culturally accepted, only culturally endured.
Ro
Ro
Rosha
HUMBLEONE
...because... sexuality and cake don't go together.
lol speak for yourself
jimmyx
absolutely...they have no right to refuse care if they operate as a business...abortion is legal, and we do not live under catholic proclamations, and our constitution does not answer to the catholics...if they do not want to adhere to our laws, get out of the hospital business...but they won't, you know why?...it makes them money
HUMBLEONE
ketsuko
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
Why would the homosexuals be so mean and hurtful as to demand that the Christians participate in a ceremony that does against their beliefs and violates their conscience?
No one batted an eye when the gay bar owners stopped hosting bachelorette parties because they felt it was hurtful to them.
They just want some cake dude. Are these "Christian" bachelorette parties? Bottom line, in the words of the late, great Rodney King, "can't we just all get along"?
beezzer
reply to post by theantediluvian
This is ONLY about religious freedoms.
Ones that were denied.
Their religious freedoms would not have stopped their wedding. They (the bakery) only wished NOT to participate in the wedding.
Are you comparing a reluctance to participate with honour killings?
These Islamic honour killing are actions that directly impact another individual. Apples/oranges and a weak strawman argument.
Are you comparing a reluctance to participate with honour killings?
HUMBLEONE
I guess she could sit at the front of the bus? unless it was maybe a "christian" bus, then maybe she couldn't eat cake in the front of the bus? Lets move all the friggin cake eaters to the back of the bus okay?
beezzer
KingIcarus
beezzer
Let me turn this around for those who are for this.
When would any of you, defend the religious rights of someone?
What would it take for any of you to defend the religious rights of a person?
I'd defend the religious rights of an individual to the hilt, within the law - bearing in mind the law is pretty free and easy for individuals. I'm not religious myself, but I respect faith.
But when operating as a business dealing with the general public, I'd advise the individual to be careful what they choose to do if they feel unable to provide certain services during the general remit of their work.
There's two seperate groups of rights at work here.
Can you point out for me where an individual loses rights when he/she creates a business?
ketsuko
Oh, I see. You think that Islam is the only culture that does it? You are very wrong. Fact is that it happens in far more places than it doesn't, and that those cultures still allow it to happen speaks to it being culturally accepted. If it were not acceptable, it wouldn't happen or there would be wider movements to stop it than there are.
Maybe, instead of spending all your time and energy here, you could do some real good elsewhere in the world.
Lets' get back to the issue.
Would you feel comfortable being forced to participate in a child marriage because you think it's morally wrong? If not, then why do you think Christians feel comfortable being forced to participate in ceremonies they think is morally wrong?
And why do you think it's any more right to force them to do it because you sympathize with homosexuals but not with those who practice child marriage? Either way, it equates to forcing your beliefs on others.
Rosha
Yes, lets get back to the issue. The crux of this issue is:
Not once anywhere were this store owners ever asked to PARTICIPATE in anyway, at the gay wedding. Not once. They were asked to make a cake. They, are cake makers. Right? The rest, is their PERSONAL bias and in the case of buy and sell in an free and open market that is irrelevant as are the private sexual choices of their clients. It's just none of their business. Their business is CAKE.
beezzer
Rosha
Yes, lets get back to the issue. The crux of this issue is:
Not once anywhere were this store owners ever asked to PARTICIPATE in anyway, at the gay wedding. Not once. They were asked to make a cake. They, are cake makers. Right? The rest, is their PERSONAL bias and in the case of buy and sell in an free and open market that is irrelevant as are the private sexual choices of their clients. It's just none of their business. Their business is CAKE.
The cake they were asked to make was for a ceremony that they didn't approve of, based on their religious beliefs.
Judgment against them, is in effect, a ruling that negates their personal religious beliefs.
You should celebrate. Their beliefs were marginalized and the gay couple won!
beezzer
reply to post by Rosha
Their religious beliefs have been marginalized and they are now second class citizens that will be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.
We have a new sub-class of people, based on this ruling.
They are those that have religious beliefs yet are unable to express them.
Rosha
beezzer
reply to post by Rosha
Their religious beliefs have been marginalized and they are now second class citizens that will be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.
We have a new sub-class of people, based on this ruling.
They are those that have religious beliefs yet are unable to express them.
Ah so are you saying they are now reaping some of the prejudice religious groups have been sowing for the past 150 or so years and are miffed as its affect is not quite as 'godly' as they thought it was? Dare I say it if this is the case - Let them eat cake?
I personally dont think there is any marginalization of anything in this case except over weaned ego's and public discrimination against people who are different to you. Should have white only shopkeepers in the 60's have been allowed to say white only too after non segregation laws were introduced? Most of them were also "conscientious objectors" and Christian.
If their faith was dependent on whether or not they allowed a gay person to buy a cake they have bigger problems imo.
Ro
beezzer
reply to post by Rosha
When someone is forced by the state to provide a service that is against their beliefs, then the state is imposing restrictions to their beliefs.