danivon wrote:An apology would be nice, if you could stop rationalising your mendacity for long enough to notice what you are doing.

I'll review it and see if I'm doing what you think. However, you are no stranger to cheap shots and playing games.

I believe that they should not be projecting their 'conscience' on to other people. But this does not equate to the things you have accused me of.

Now then, let's try and look at it the other way, shall we?

A homosexual couple decides to get married. They go in to a baker. They tell the baker they want him to make a cake for their wedding, complete with groom/groom decorations and a "Congratulations Adam and Jeff" inscription. He demurs, saying he is a Christian and cannot make their cake as he believes that would be participating in a sinful activity, violating his conscience. He recommends another baker and says he will contact the guy and make sure he takes good care of them.

The couple says their consciences are just fine and note the law is on their side. They tell the baker he ought to reconsider--or suffer the consequences.

How is this not the majority forcing their "conscience" on this baker? This is fine, but him acting on his conscience is wrong?

Should a Christian architect be forced to design a whorehouse in Nevada? After all, it's legal. What right does he have to force his conscience on the investors?

Danivon wrote:And you top it all off by calling me a bigot who wants to stomp out all religions.

I looked. I didn't call you a bigot.

I did say you want to stomp out religion. So far, you've done nothing to prove that wrong. You basically don't mind religion as long as no one takes it seriously. That's not the life Jesus calls His followers to.

Doctor Fate wrote:Of course you think it's reasonable. Religion must be stomped out.

This is nothing less than an assault on the First Amendment. As a person who is bigoted against Christianity, I'm not surprised you favor it.

As you can see, DF has acknowledged the first part of the excerpt I am referring to. But clearly, saying someone is 'bigoted against' something is exactly the same as calling them a bigot. By the definition of both 'bigot' and 'bigoted'.

I have defended the rights of kosher deli owners to not be made to sell non-kosher food. So by what cause does DF think he has the right to say I want to stomp out religion?

This is why I will not address the mendacious little berk directly on this thread again. If he wants to spread that to other threads, then fine. Persona non Grata. Fed up of feeding the bloody troll.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Of course you think it's reasonable. Religion must be stomped out.

This is nothing less than an assault on the First Amendment. As a person who is bigoted against Christianity, I'm not surprised you favor it.

As you can see, DF has acknowledged the first part of the excerpt I am referring to. But clearly, saying someone is 'bigoted against' something is exactly the same as calling them a bigot. By the definition of both 'bigot' and 'bigoted'.

I have defended the rights of kosher deli owners to not be made to sell non-kosher food. So by what cause does DF think he has the right to say I want to stomp out religion?

This is why I will not address the mendacious little berk directly on this thread again. If he wants to spread that to other threads, then fine. Persona non Grata. Fed up of feeding the bloody troll.

Get off your low horse.

Can someone lie, be called out on it, and yet not be called a "liar?" We do that all the time--say someone has committed an act with accusing them of being the noun form, which is perceived as being a personal insult.

I did not call you a bigot. I said what you were advocating was "bigoted." Note the difference and get real.

Should a Christian architect be forced to design a whorehouse in Nevada? After all, it's legal. What right does he have to force his conscience on the investors?

The answer to this question, as it is to pretty much every one of the silly hypotheticals that people have raised here, is no. It falls into the same category as the doctor who refuses to carry out abortions. The christian architect is refusing to build whorehouses for any client so this is non-discriminatory.

Honestly, I'm sure you do actually understand this distinction, you're a clever man. Why do you persist in pretending not to ?

Sassenach wrote:

Should a Christian architect be forced to design a whorehouse in Nevada? After all, it's legal. What right does he have to force his conscience on the investors?

The answer to this question, as it is to pretty much every one of the silly hypotheticals that people have raised here, is no. It falls into the same category as the doctor who refuses to carry out abortions. The christian architect is refusing to build whorehouses for any client so this is non-discriminatory.

Honestly, I'm sure you do actually understand this distinction, you're a clever man. Why do you persist in pretending not to ?

Because you want to make this about the "who" when it's about "what." Specifically, this is discrimination against an activity, not people.

Is there an indication that bakers and florists are refusing to serve homosexuals in situations other than for homosexual weddings?

Again, this has already been covered. We 'discriminate' in all walks of life all the time. Some forms of discrimination are significantly worse than others. Discriminating against an activity, ie a choice that somebody has made, is qualitatively different to discriminating against an individual based solely on some aspect of what they are which is beyond their control.

I'd even go so far as to say that your hypothetical christian architect would be within his rights to refuse to do any kind of business with whores or their clients if he wanted to. He'd be discriminating against them of course, but in my opinion this would be within acceptable parameters. If the whores were to refuse service to christians it would be a different matter because this would constitute discrimination on religious grounds, but if they were to do that it would be very bad for business...

Sassenach wrote:Again, this has already been covered. We 'discriminate' in all walks of life all the time. Some forms of discrimination are significantly worse than others. Discriminating against an activity, ie a choice that somebody has made, is qualitatively different to discriminating against an individual based solely on some aspect of what they are which is beyond their control.

I'd even go so far as to say that your hypothetical christian architect would be within his rights to refuse to do any kind of business with whores or their clients if he wanted to. He'd be discriminating against them of course, but in my opinion this would be within acceptable parameters. If the whores were to refuse service to christians it would be a different matter because this would constitute discrimination on religious grounds, but if they were to do that it would be very bad for business...

These businessmen are not discriminating against homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in a ceremony. Period.

They provide services for weddings unless the customers who are getting married are gay. That seems to me like they're discriminating against gay people.

Sassenach wrote:They provide services for weddings unless the customers who are getting married are gay. That seems to me like they're discriminating against gay people.

They serve gays too, with one exception: weddings. It's the event.

There are biblical verses that could be interpreted as not allowing inter-racial marriage. If the baker could refuse to bake a cake for use in a gay wedding why couldn't a baker refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial marriage, if he believes his religion forbids it?

freeman3 wrote:There are biblical verses that could be interpreted as not allowing inter-racial marriage. If the baker could refuse to bake a cake for use in a gay wedding why couldn't a baker refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial marriage, if he believes his religion forbids it?

Cite the verses. I'll prove they don't mean that.

The NT teaches equality of races.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:There are biblical verses that could be interpreted as not allowing inter-racial marriage. If the baker could refuse to bake a cake for use in a gay wedding why couldn't a baker refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial marriage, if he believes his religion forbids it?

Cite the verses. I'll prove they don't mean that.

The NT teaches equality of races.

As many ignorant people can interpret the Bible to say whatever they want. That being said, I am fairly Freeman is speaking of the admonitions of to the Israelites to not marry other nations for fear of idolatry.

bbauska wrote:As many ignorant people can interpret the Bible to say whatever they want. That being said, I am fairly Freeman is speaking of the admonitions of to the Israelites to not marry other nations for fear of idolatry.

If he is, that would be as applicable as the prohibition of wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, or the boundaries of the 12 tribes.

You set yourself a tall task since I said some biblical verses could be used to justify a ban on inter-racial basis not that you or other mainstream Christians currently interpret them that way. First, since Martin Luther no one man has been able to say what the Bible is or is not. Moreover, we know that some Christians have used the Bible to justify a ban on inter-racial marriage and they did so in the United States of America. I think the following legal brief summarizes the history fairly well.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Howa ... _Brief.pdf