Why would they choose to control it? Do you choose to control your hetero desires?
I’m not actually a Christian, so I’ll leave it to others here to point out how disgusting that statement is.
Would you please stop conflating anti-gay bigotry with Christianity? There is absolutely no bar to being an observant, devout Christian, and supporting LGBT equality, and your continued confusion of the two does a massive disservice to the Christian faith.
You’re confusing your specific flavor of Christianity with ALL of Christianity. Like many religious people, you appear to believe your specific flavor of your religion is the only true version of that religion. But there are many Christians who feel differently. You can choose any beliefs you want, as can they. And when your beliefs lead you to say things many of us see as terribly hateful and morally reprehensible, you’re likely to be criticized for it.
They would need to pose that question to God, would they not? I’m not aware of any scripture that says two people of the same sex can’t marry. As a point of contrast, adultery is explicitly forbidden, and yet rare is the church that doesn’t officiate second marriages. Interesting how that works.
Keep in mind, though, that what happens in a church is different from a commercial establishment like a bakery, which is licensed by the State to serve the public. No one cares about discrimination by churches.
At the point they decide to go into business, selling goods and services to the public, using the infrastructure that taxpayers have funded?
No where in the Bible does it say that making a wedding cake for gay people will send you to Hell.
But let me now call attention to how the trivial issue of wedding cakes, in all its trivial glory, is now being portrayed as though people’s eternal souls are at stake. This is what I’m talking about as distracting. There is no proper sense of proportion or groundedness.
Well, of course the Lord didn’t say anything to condemn homosexual behavior, it was the First Century C.E. Didn’t exist yet, it was still a thousand years before the French invented oral sex!
I would recommend Christians please stop conflating anti-gay bigotry with Christianity. It is kind of hard to do when actual policymakers and ordained religious leadership point to their own holy book to emphasize the passages against gays as a doctrinal requirement. You might as well add the words “God hates fags” to the Niscene Creed.
Second, I thought the whole point of religion was to prescribe proper behavior and morality. I find it utterly bizarre that the all-powerful author of the universe can’t write a set of instructions clear enough for his worshippers to comprehend and agree upon, as opposed to fragmenting into mutually hostile splinters.
It doesn’t fucking matter what you “believe.”
The state of the research is such that you might as well be saying you don’t “believe” in dinosaurs or the heliocentric solar system.
And now we have to resort to the power of the state to drag bigots like you, kicking and screaming, into the modern world, to prevent you from hurting anyone with your ignorance.
This is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Which is perfectly fine, and even encouraged. But like I was saying, the more classical conservative view would be that in general, it’s none of the government’s business- business owners should be free to sell (or not) to anyone they choose for whatever reasons they choose, and the same goes for consumers w.r.t. purchasing stuff. Whether or not that’s a successful strategy for the business owner is left up to the market. Of course, things like protected classes are well within the purview of government, even in a conservative viewpoint, but that’s more in the vein of protecting from the tyranny of the majority, not trying to legislate public opinion or morality.
The big thing in the cake case is really the question of whether or not someone can be compelled to do something that’s contrary to their religious beliefs in the name of anti-discrimination. And the Supreme Court ruled that the answer is no. The whole thing hinges on the religious aspects more than anything else; in Colorado, LGBTQ folks are a protected class, but the 1st Amendment trumps that. Had it been any other reason, it would have been a slam dunk in the Colorado courts. And, in other states it would not have been, as LGBTQ people aren’t a Federal protected class, nor are they one in all other states.
It was my understanding that the SCOTUS ruling had more to with Colorado officials’ hostility to the baker’s beliefs than any constitutional matter of religious belief vs anti-discrimination.
You want to use the state to “drag” kicking and screaming people?
Sounds like a Great Leap Forward for progress.
Yes, but it is your side that brought suit over the cake.
But it is your side that committed the act that required a lawsuit. That’s like saying the person pressing charges against the person that harmed them is the actual cause of the issue.
So you think not getting a cake requires a lawsuit? That’s fine, but I disagree as a conservative believer in civil society.
The poster I was responding to was saying we are making a big deal over a cake. No. Turning down a cake job is a small deal. A lawsuit is a big deal.
The idea that a person not entering into a contract means the person is harming the offerer of the contract is ridiculous.
I guess you feel compelled to accept offers for LOW, LOW, LOW PRICES for used cars whenever you hear them on the radio.
If someone with a public business discriminated against me by denying me service because of who I am then that is certainly grounds for a lawsuit. As a liberal believer in civil society this is something that is very clear. I think it’s important that everyone has access to public accommodations regardless of who they are or who they love. Segregation is bad, as we’ve seen many times in human history.
Before you say that “but they would have made them any other cake so it wasn’t because of who they were” I would submit that they then were discriminating against the fiance because of who the fiance is. There’s no way to get away from the fact that they were told a publicly available service was not available to them because of who they are. If you don’t think that’s lawsuit worthy then I don’t understand what you want America to be.
I know you don’t understand. Studies show that liberals don’t understand conservative viewpoints as well as conservatives understand liberal viewpoints, and it is clear you haven’t been exposed to even the broad strokes of the conservative argument.
I don’t care about the details of the cake deal. I don’t care if it was because they were gay or because they wanted a gay-themed cake. That is irrelevant. My wish is for people to engage in voluntary action. No person should compel another to action if there has been no contract express or implied.
The key point is that it is your side that is hyperventilating over cake. Not mine. We understand cake is cake.
And we understand that discrimination is discrimination, and that your side will never stop trying to push the idea that everyone should be free to discriminate freely against anyone they wish for whatever reason. I happen to think equal access to public accommodations is important. If you or someone you love was the one being discriminated against I have a feeling you’d change your opinion, I find that usually conservatives can only understand when something actually happens to them otherwise there’s no ability to empathize or realize that today it’s just these other people that aren’t like me, but tomorrow it could be me.
This ridiculous Facebook-style phrasing is also meant to blur reality. They were denied service because of “Who they are”? What does that phrase even mean?
Are you saying they are born gay? So the argument is that you can’t discriminate against someone over something they can’t control in their genetics or upbringing?
I guess I am discriminated against when I am not crowned “World’s Strongest Man” because i was not born with the body structure.
Which word are you having trouble with? Who? They? Are? I can’t help unless I know where you are getting stuck.
Maybe one day you’ll be discriminated against and then you’ll get it. Until then there’s probably no way to get through.
No you don’t understand discrimination at all. You speak the word as if a wedding vowel and should leave it in your back pages.
Everyone discriminates. It is impossible to live in a society where you don’t discriminate unless you live up in the hills where you never meet a stranger. You are liable to get got out here, perhaps you are familiar with getting got? Discrimination is most necessary in lower class environments. Surprise surprise, discrimination is also more obvious in the lower classes. That is why liberals hate Trumpists so much. They hate the lower classes.
Do you walk into a store and stand confused about who works there? No? You discriminate. Good job.
Do you look at two applicants for a job with utter ambivalence? No? You discriminate good job.
If someone approaches me on the streets of Baltimore, you bet I’m discriminating like a motherfucker. Whether I am in an area of white or black or Hispanic poverty. Discrimination is a survival tool. Shoes, clothing, hair cleanliness, dialect. Indeed you only complain when the discrimination is about whatever arbitrary class you’ve decided to paternalize over. Sure you can pretend not to ever discriminate, but in reality if liberals never discriminated, they’d be out here looking like some social Mister Magoos. I don’t see too many social Mister Magoos, so I assume liberals are more often than not discriminating like everyone else. You blend in until you talk politics, which is when you get the quizzical stares.
I’m sorry but anyone who is around members of society knows this. People of all races know this. People of all genders know this. People of all skin colors know this. People of all languages know this. Conservatives know this. Even liberals sometimes know this when they are not engaging in political discussion.