[Victoribus Spolia]

I'm sorry perhaps I should not have said anything, but that really irked me.

I appreciate your irritation nonetheless and find the whole thing quite amusing.

He was refuted before and knows he would be refuted again.

His refusal is no skin off my back.

I have made my case on this thread regarding the Constitutional issues and regarding my actual ethical position.

[Pants-of-dog]

Refusal to be a party to sin or celebration of the same isn’t discrimination, and belief that homosexuality is sinful is not homophobic.

If it excludes LGBT people from being treated equally, then it is discrimination.

And the belief that homosexuality is sinful is a basis for prejudice against homosexuals.

And having the government demand that you — a private individual — operate your business in a way that violates your conscience is oppression.

No. If this were the case, forcing racist people to serve blacks is oppression. Since this is not the case, it is not oppression.

In this case, the Christophobes on the commission did serious damage to the baker’s business.

Please provide evidence that the commission ruled against Philips because of their hatred or aversion to Christianity.

—————————

Its interesting you are all over this thread claiming people don't understand yet clearly it is you who do not understand. If you actually read what I post it's simple. Your point is just your feelings (as much as you display here on POFO your disdain for using them in arguments) it has nothing to do with the constitution. You are just parroting these feelings as if you know the heart mind and sole of the person who disagrees with you. @Beren has been pretty spot on in regarding the individual baker. The constitution protects the minority however it doesn't give them majority power.

Do you have an argument or point in all this?

[Finfinder]

—————————



Do you have an argument or point in all this?

LOL I know its not in the nature of your debating skills but when you have nothing to say maybe you shouldn't say anything at all. #deliberatelyobtusewhenowned

[blackjack21]

As long as we agree that there is no rational reason for discrimination against gays.

As a group, homosexuals demand that other people have positive feelings for them, wish to compel people into commerce with them, and demonstrate an oppressive nature to use the state to force people to interact with them. Homosexuals also seem to be generally hostile to most of the major religions, because those religions condemn homosexuality--most fervently male homosexuals. So there are plenty of rational reasons people do not want to be interacting with homosexuals.

[Godstud]

As a group, homosexuals demand that other people have positive feelings for them, wish to compel people into commerce with them, and demonstrate an oppressive nature to use the state to force people to interact with them.

No, that's simply what you feel, but not actually factual. You don't have members of gay communities walking into the churches looking for trouble. Your statement lacks inherent logic.

As a group, homosexuals demand that other people have positive feelings for them, wish to compel people into commerce with them, and demonstrate an oppressive nature to use the state to force people to interact with them.

More feelings and no facts. You are generalizing based on a single incident, and how you feel homosexuals are thinking, without actual knowledge. One incident is not representative of a whole.

Why shouldn't homosexuals expect the same services as anyone else?

If this couple was black, and it was against his religion to serve them, would there be all this defense of it?

So there are plenty of rational reasons people do not want to be interacting with homosexuals.

Yes, but they are based on feelings and homophobia, which are both irrational and illogical.

[maz]

I had been looking for the exact statements (not quotes from articles) made by the state and the Colorado Human Rights commission that violated Mr. Phillips 1st amendment rights but could not find them.

I did find a number of very interesting YouTube videos.

This one called it six months in advance - Jack Phillips Will Win Before SCOTUS in Masterpiece Cakeshop Because It's Not 'Gay Discrimination'

[blackjack21]

This one called it six months in advance - Jack Phillips Will Win Before SCOTUS in Masterpiece Cakeshop Because It's Not 'Gay Discrimination'

It's also another one of Justice Kennedy's fucked up rulings. He has clearly lost his marbles and needs to step down. Kennedy is now claiming there is some sort of "feelings of the government official" rule in the constitution that clearly isn't there. The man obviously has dementia.

[Ter]

It is basicslly saying that your angry feels about gay marriage are fine because you also have happy feels about a story about a Jewish carpenter.

This must be the only thread in Pofo that does not smear Jews, so please, POD, keep the Jews out of this !

[Pants-of-dog]

This must be the only thread in Pofo that does not smear Jews, so please, POD, keep the Jews out of this !

No problem!

[Paddy14]

This must be the only thread in Pofo that does not smear Jews, so please, POD, keep the Jews out of this !

I haven't seen any threads dissing Jewish people - but we should not have threads dissing any religions or minorities - not just Jews. People don't have control over where they are born or who their parents are, and their religious beliefs should be their business, to be respected (as long as they don't bring them into the conversation).

[Doug64]

A fine example of the attitude that lost the case for Colorado, 7-2. Also, Mormons would have no problem selling a coke to anyone.

And the belief that homosexuality is sinful is a basis for prejudice against homosexuals.

It can be, the Westboro church is a perfect example. But not always, or even I suspect most of the time.

No. If this were the case, forcing racist people to serve blacks is oppression. Since this is not the case, it is not oppression.

Except that I don't know of a single religion that forbids people to serve Blacks, so it isn't a matter of conscience.

Please provide evidence that the commission ruled against Philips because of their hatred or aversion to Christianity.

Check out Kennedy's opinion.

[Pants-of-dog]

It can be, the Westboro church is a perfect example. But not always, or even I suspect most of the time.

As much as I would love an easy target for this discussion, I think we can agree that the WBC is a special case and does not represent most Christians, and it does not even represent most Christians opposed to same sex marriage.

I was thinking about the Christian Identity movement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Except that I don't know of a single religion that forbids people to serve Blacks, so it isn't a matter of conscience.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/1-i ... tion#52522

One in 10 Americans believe small business owners should be free to refuse to serve or do business with African-Americans on religious grounds, according to a new poll.

A survey released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute finds that strong majorities of Americans reject the idea that businesses should be legally allowed to refuse to serve either African-American, Jewish, gays and lesbians, or atheists, but a small portion of the country still believes you should be able to.

Among the four groups, the survey found the least support for refusing service to African-Americans, but the most for discriminating against gay or lesbian individuals.

Asked if it should be legal to refuse to do business with members of the LGBT community on religious grounds, 16% said yes and 80% said no. Similarly, 15% said it should be legal to refuse service to atheists, with 81% saying it shouldn’t be. The polling found slightly less support for religious beliefs being sufficient to allow a small business owner to refuse to business with Jewish people, 12% said yes and 85% said no. And when it came to African-Americans, 10% said they supported the legal right to refuse service and 87% said they did not. PRRI conducted the survey of more than 1,000 adults via telephone, including cell phone users, and results have a margin of error of 3.1%.

While the practice is far less common, many churches used religious arguments for denying equality to blacks.

The LDS church banned blacks from holding several offices, including priesthood, until 1978. To their credit, they repudiated this in 1978 and explicitly denounced racism and their previous policy in 2013.

Slaveholders used religious arguments, as did segregationists.

All this to say that sincerely held religious convictions have been used as justifications for discrimination in the past, and they are still being used that way today.

Check out Kennedy's opinion.

Can you please provide a link to a searchable version of this? Thank you.

[Doug64]

As much as I would love an easy target for this discussion, I think we can agree that the WBC is a special case and does not represent most Christians, and it does not even represent most Christians opposed to same sex marriage.

I was thinking about the Christian Identity movement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

I would say that these people are no more representative of even most Christians opposed to same sex marriage than the WBC. But While I didn't have time for a thorough read through your link, I didn't see anything in my skim through where these people believe that their racism requires them to not even buy from or sell to the "lower" races.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/1-in-10-americans-still-support-discrimination#52522

One in 10 Americans believe small business owners should be free to refuse to serve or do business with African-Americans on religious grounds, according to a new poll.

A survey released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute finds that strong majorities of Americans reject the idea that businesses should be legally allowed to refuse to serve either African-American, Jewish, gays and lesbians, or atheists, but a small portion of the country still believes you should be able to.

Among the four groups, the survey found the least support for refusing service to African-Americans, but the most for discriminating against gay or lesbian individuals.

Asked if it should be legal to refuse to do business with members of the LGBT community on religious grounds, 16% said yes and 80% said no. Similarly, 15% said it should be legal to refuse service to atheists, with 81% saying it shouldn’t be. The polling found slightly less support for religious beliefs being sufficient to allow a small business owner to refuse to business with Jewish people, 12% said yes and 85% said no. And when it came to African-Americans, 10% said they supported the legal right to refuse service and 87% said they did not. PRRI conducted the survey of more than 1,000 adults via telephone, including cell phone users, and results have a margin of error of 3.1%.

While the practice is far less common, many churches used religious arguments for denying equality to blacks.

The LDS church banned blacks from holding several offices, including priesthood, until 1978. To their credit, they repudiated this in 1978 and explicitly denounced racism and their previous policy in 2013.

Slaveholders used religious arguments, as did segregationists.

All this to say that sincerely held religious convictions have been used as justifications for discrimination in the past, and they are still being used that way today.

Again, you're conflating discrimination aimed at a particular group and refusal to endorse a particular event or activity. It was the Colorado commission's refusal to separate the two in this case while making that distinction in other cases that led to Colorado losing the case.

Also, racial discrimination in religious participation doesn't necessarily mandate discrimination in civil society. Here's the earliest Mormon statement on Black equality that I am aware of, in 1958:

“No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ They should be equal in the matter of education. They should not be barred from obtaining knowledge and becoming proficient in any field of science, art or mechanical occupation. They should be free to choose any kind of employment, to go into business in any field they may choose and to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source. In their defense of these privileges the members of the Church will stand.”

And then this in 1963:

“During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

“We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

“We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

“We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.”

Can you please provide a link to a searchable version of this? Thank you.

I'm afraid not, the link I provided is all I have.

[One Degree]

Not only was the survey Pod linked to obviously intended to show discrimination, it failed to show the race of the respondents. Also a survey with a 3% inaccuracy that shows 10% in favor of something out of only a 1000 respondents is pretty useless. I wonder why they did not do a similar survey on Black religionists for comparison? To do one without the other is unduly prejudicial.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would say that these people are no more representative of even most Christians opposed to same sex marriage than the WBC. But While I didn't have time for a thorough read through your link, I didn't see anything in my skim through where these people believe that their racism requires them to not even buy from or sell to the "lower" races.

They want to ethnically cleanse the USA. Why would they bother talking about serving them coffees?

Again, you're conflating discrimination aimed at a particular group and refusal to endorse a particular event or activity. It was the Colorado commission's refusal to separate the two in this case while making that distinction in other cases that led to Colorado losing the case.

Also, racial discrimination in religious participation doesn't necessarily mandate discrimination in civil society. Here's the earliest Mormon statement on Black equality that I am aware of, in 1958:

“No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ They should be equal in the matter of education. They should not be barred from obtaining knowledge and becoming proficient in any field of science, art or mechanical occupation. They should be free to choose any kind of employment, to go into business in any field they may choose and to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source. In their defense of these privileges the members of the Church will stand.”

And then this in 1963:

“During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

“We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

“We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

“We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.”

This does not contradict the fact that religious beliefs have been used to rationalise discrimination, and this is still going on.

I'm afraid not, the link I provided is all I have.

Can you please repost that link? Thanks.

[Heisenberg]

The "Christian Identity" movement, like the Westboro Baptist Church, is a small movement of fringe extremists. The ADL says it has 25-50,000 members, and I think we can probably safely assume it's on the lower end of that range (if it's even that high - there is no source for this figure on the ADL's site).

Furthermore, the Southern Poverty Law Center says in its profile of them that "Although nominally Christian, it owes little to even the most conservative of American Protestants."

Invoking the group in this discussion is a bit like saying the Islamic State represents Muslim deli owners.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one is saying they are representative of all Christians.

The points are as follows:
Sincerely held religious beliefs are used as a justification for discrimination.
Religiously inspired homophobia is a thing.
The reverse (i.e. gay inspired Christophobia) is not a thing.

The existence of Christian identity groups is just the most obvious example of this.

[Heisenberg]

Given that, according to both the ADL and the SPLC, "Christian Identity" is essentially a neo-Nazi movement that has co-opted Christian imagery, I would not use it as an example of "sincerely held religious beliefs".

[Doug64]

They want to ethnically cleanse the USA. Why would they bother talking about serving them coffees?

In that case, your example fails, since it would mean they couldn’t argue in court that their religion requires them to refuse to sell to the “inferior” races. So if you are going to argue against my point, please provide an example that actually applies.

Can you please repost that link? Thanks.

The decision can be found here.

Invoking the group in this discussion is a bit like saying the Islamic State represents Muslim deli owners.

To be fair to Pants-of-dog, I did state that I don’t know of any religion that required its adherents to have no commercial contact with those it considers inferior so any example, however minor, would prove me wrong. Mind, from the link he gave his given example fails.

[maz]

No one is saying they are representative of all Christians.

The points are as follows:
Sincerely held religious beliefs are used as a justification for discrimination.
Religiously inspired homophobia is a thing.
The reverse (i.e. gay inspired Christophobia) is not a thing.

The existence of Christian identity groups is just the most obvious example of this.

You cherry-picked a random ideology that represents probably even less than the total US population of transgendered persons to support your argument?

Your comparison is false. No power structure in the US, whether it be an NGO, corporation, local, state or federal legal system supports anything relating to Christian Identity. Conversely, you have nearly every NGO, corporation, local, state or federal legal system supporting LGBT movements.

We literally have a court case that documents exactly what you say doesn't exist (gay inspired Christophobia), where homosexual groups targeted Christians, and the courts siding with the homosexuals and violating the Christian's first amendment.