Victor, you are arguing simply for argument's sake and are completely missing the point.

You are trying to apply the scientific process to a completely unprovable point. You are looking for rationality where none exists. Since you know none exists you assume the premise is false. That's what scientists do.

Religion is the complete opposite. There is no tangible proof of a higher being. People of faith, be it Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc... have faith that the teachings are true. But, at the end of the day it's entirely subjective and people will believe what they have faith in.

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:

victor809 wrote: ".... And by that logic I would expect that the same florist then denies service to any jewish weddings, muslim weddings, atheist weddings etc? I mean, not believing in your christian god (or believing in a different god altogether) one of the big daddy sins there isn't it? "

No. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the same God. They disagree in the details of worship, belief in Christ as the messiah, etc... As for athiests, well that is an opportunity to testify.

And as someone else already stated, if a sinner comes in, announces his sin and is asking to make a purchase in support of said sin, then a morally inclined person would refuse service. This is akin to actual law. For example of guilt by association: Many times you have seen a person convicted of murder who's only role was being there when it happened and keeping the secret. Likewise, the driver in a bank heist is guilty of the heist as much as the people who entered the vault. The person hiring the hit man is also guilty of murder, etc...

To bring it back to retail: Selling a firearm to a person that states they plan to use it in the commission of a crime, is a crime in itself and that seller could be held as accessory to the crime in a real court of law.

demandred wrote:

Personal experience close to your LDS example: When one of my sons was getting married I spoke with a friend a knew that has a catering business about doing the rehearsal party. Right up front she asked if there would be alcohol served. Since the answer was yes, she declined the job. She explained her husband was a strict baptist and dealing with alcohol was a problem. My response was OK, I understand and I found another company to do the job.

Protection should go to all, if an atheist baker didn't want to make a confirmation cake they shouldn't have to make one.

Gene363 wrote:

Maybe you can still sue them. (but that would be more than a little gay)

HockeyDad wrote:

Yes Frank is like a Summerbreeze.....

Frank I can't pass up a feminine hygiene joke sorry.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Just as long as you do not smell like gefilte fish.

Speyside wrote:

or an atheist not being comfortable delivering sandwiches to an orgy in a retirement home. I.

themunmypaw wrote: