You can do anything you want as long as there's a doily in between, right?

victor809 wrote:

dude... it may be a religious ceremony, but it isn't HER religion. Her religion doesn't allow gay marriage. Therefore it is defacto some other religion's ceremony. Does she provide flowers to jewish weddings?

I don't like laws either. I don't like the gov't telling business owners what to do.
But, on the other hand, these people are making zero sense, and they appear to be specifically choosing what services they want to perform not based on whether it violates their religion (they aren't getting gay married) but to make a stand about how they feel the customer's sexual orientation should be viewed legally (ie, not allowed to get married legally).

victor809 wrote:

Victor, you're close to troll territory.

On the one hand, you say you are against government telling you what to do. If you really believe that, then you should have no concern if someone is against the government defining for them what their religion does or does not mean to them.

Then in the same sentence you pass judgement upon someone's belief.

Pot meet kettle.

If on the other hand it's your purpose to pizz off a handful of regulars, pass me the popcorn first.

Abrignac wrote:

Ok, so this "Religious Liberty" thing has been rattling around in my head a little bit. Mainly because there are things I find disagreeable on both sides.

But here's the problem I keep getting stuck against, something that I can't wrap my head around.

Lets say you're a sandwich shop owner... and you're a Mormon. You do not believe in drinking beer, or drinking caffeine, all that dumb stuff Mormons believe. If you're asked to cater an event in which things are going on which are against your belief... are your religious liberties actually being violated? Does being in a room where someone is drinking beer actually cause you to go to hell? Is being in a room where someone else is drinking coffee actually a sin in those religious tracts? If one can be in a room where people are drinking beer, drinking coffee, not having multiple wives... then why can't one be in a room where people are getting gay married?

This is what keeps sticking. No one in any of this has asked a florist, or a baker or a candlestick maker to get gay married. They just have to be in the same room as something occurring which is theoretically something they believe is against their religion. People do that all the time... but because gay marriage is some sort of LEGAL hot button issue (note, a LEGAL term is not a religious tract...these are two separate ideas), people seem to be focused on this.

So exactly what are "religious liberty" laws supposed to protect a person from? Their religious beliefs aren't being violated.

The only instance where I can see a person's religious beliefs actually being violated might be if you ask a Hindi to butcher a cow for you or something. But hey... I'm willing to at least hear what the biddies here want to say.

victor809 wrote:

Anthony... first, I didn't pass judgement on someone's belief. I am totally willing to pass judgement on a person's belief, in fact, I pass judgment on most religious beliefs.

victor809 wrote:

But that particular sentence was passing judgement on the logic (or lack of logic) a person was using when applying their beliefs.

victor809 wrote:

Ie... her supplying flowers for a gay wedding isn't any more/less against her belief than her supplying flowers to a Mormon wedding or non-denominational wedding (wouldn't it be against gods will to have people legally married without a priest and then go fornicating?)

victor809 wrote:

second, to some extent the dichotomy is part of the post. This discussion needs to be MUCH more nuanced than simply screaming "discrimination!" or "kidnapping!"... but I didn't actually expect that part to work. :)

victor809 wrote:

Tony where are you forced to have religion?

Are Athiests non existent? If so explain Victor.

And please read a history book.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Victor, please don't tell me this isn't an effort to pose rhetorical questions, then argue with people when the offer an opinion. It is what it is. But, nonetheless it still has entertainment value.



Wait.....



You did pass judgement.



2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.



To some extent, it would seem to me that you have perched yourself on a small outcropping and are hanging by your toenails.

At the end of the day, your position is to marginalize her individual personal belief system for what you believe is the greater good. That is your right. But, your rights end where her's begins.

Abrignac wrote:

I was forced into taking religion classes in high school, but they wouldn't let me take home economics.

tonygraz wrote:

I was forced into taking religion classes in high school, but they wouldn't let me take home economics.

tonygraz wrote:

Ok Anthony... I looked up thessalonians. You quoted the end of it, but the problem is the beginning of it doesn't say anything about gays, gay marriage, straight marriage, the 10 commandments... in fact, the most it admonishes against is idleness. You can't simply take a single passage and think it applies across an entire book... if we did that we could probably piece together crap to make Mein Kampf talk about loving jews, or the communist manifesto support private ownership.

victor809 wrote:

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

So, 'I don't want to', won't work ehh...?? 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

Really? Here's how I read you argument. You seem to want dismiss the validity of any notion that believers should be able to disassociate from non-believers.

The Bible is many things to many people. To some it is a fictional account of history. To others it is the "Good Book" which guides ones behavior.

I suggest that those who fall into the "Good Book' category take the Bible into it's totality. Therefore, it seems



tells them to withdraw from sinners.

And


specifies a very specific sin.


Therein lies the quandary.

There can be no argument that the freedom to practice one's religion is absolute and free from state intervention. The SCOTUS has made that abundantly clear. What is not so clear is what defines a religious practice.

On the other hand, other than to provoke an argument, why do you care?

Abrignac wrote:

...people see weddings as a RELIGIOUS ceremony entering a covenent with God.