[Pants-of-dog]

So you agree that this is a feature of some conservative Abrahamic individuals and congregations.

[colliric]

So you agree that this is a feature of some conservative Abrahamic individuals and congregations.

It's also in the Holy Bible(including The Torah + Tanakh) & The Koran.... Both books teach Homosexuality is an abomination and supporting it could end you up in Hell.

People are free to believe whatever Religion they want to. You have not got the right to force them to bake a cake for you just because you don't like their opinion on Homosexuality and homosexuals and where they might end up if they deal with such people. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

You have the right to choose to use alternative services.

Political correctness is pure evil.

[Hong Wu]

Homosexuality is also considered bad in Hinduism, practically all practicing Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Baha'is...

[Pants-of-dog]

It's also in the Holy Bible(including The Torah + Tanakh) & The Koran.... Both books teach Homosexuality is an abomination and supporting it could end you up in Hell.

Yes, thank you for clarifying that.

It seems logical to think I already knew that when I claimed that these religions have a religious basis for their homophobia.

People are free to believe whatever Religion they want to. You have not got the right to force them to bake a cake for you just because you don't like their opinion on Homosexuality and homosexuals and where they might end up if they deal with such people. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

People are not free to believe whatever they want in terms of religion. I am not free to believe in human sacrifice and go around killing people for god. That would be murder even if I held sincere religious beliefs about human sacrifice.

We also do not allow honour killings, for example.

Nor do we allow people to refuse service to blacks if they happen to have sincere religious beliefs about not associating with black people.

So, yes, we do place limits on religious freedom. Specifically, we do so when it can be shown that allowing this religious liberty impedes others in the free practice of their rights.

This seems to be the case here.

You have the right to choose to use alternative services.

Yes, but that does not mean that the vendor has the right to discriminate against you.

Political correctness is pure evil.

If you feel that being respectful to others whatever their race, religion, socio-economic background, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. is pure evil, feel free.

I was taught it was simply polite.

[Sivad]

Do you agree or disagree with my claim that many conservative Christians and many conservative Muslims both have prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals for religious reasons?

That's the problem with forcing Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes, it runs right smack into the Free Exercise Clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


And if that weren't enough, it's also unconstitutional to compel expressive conduct(symbolic speech) and creating the symbolic centerpiece of the wedding ceremony definitely qualifies as expressive conduct.

[Hong Wu]

The oppression card has become such an important part of the current meta that the SCOTUS has had to declare that both gays and Christians get to be oppressed. Watching people clamor about who gets to be the biggest loser is pretty strange.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's the problem with forcing Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes, it runs right smack into the Free Exercise Clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So if I believed in a religion that required human sacrifice, it would be unconstitutional to not let me kill people?

[Hong Wu]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018 ... urt-not-b/

Fresh from winning his Supreme Court case, Colorado has taken action against the baker for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a sex change operation and the baker has sued the state.

My reading of the allegedly tepid win for the baker was that the Supreme Court was saying "knock it off" and Colorado has responded by doubling down, the SCOTUS won't be pleased if this makes it back to them.

[Rich]

It is the destroying of potential persons which is logically the same as destroying actual persons.

So yes it is murder, which is a very good reason.

By that definition, I could ask any woman I met to have sex with me. If she refused she would be guilty of murder and liable to the death penalty. Any man with a pretty wife that tried to prevent me from meeting her, would also be guilty of murder and could be executed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

By that definition, I could ask any woman I met to have sex with me. If she refused she would be guilty of murder and liable to the death penalty. Any man with a pretty wife that tried to prevent me from meeting her, would also be guilty of murder and could be executed.

Technically you can't upset the 1:1 sex ratio either as that would create more potential-person destruction and not less.

Thus, the most efficient guarantee of potential persons being actualized is strict monogamy with no intentional pregnancy prevention practiced within the union.

Feel free to respond to my ethical argument as presented in full here:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174126&start=40