Why we'll never bake your fake wedding cake PT. II

Simple solution. Tell the one's baking the cake to stop sinning and never sin again. Oh wait, they can't, according to the belief we are all born sinners and will die sinners. Hypocrisy can be considered a sin, since God and Jesus do NOT like hypocrisy.

 

It seems you don't know the difference between having a belief and acting on said belief in an illegal manner.
Have all the stupid beliefs you want, act on as many as you want. Just don't break the law.

edit - or break the law and suffer the consequences.

 

Don't you remember when I said there are many reasons not the least of which is propagation of the society? Remember when I said it was important for woman and children to have stability in the family ect. Lots and lots of reasons.

You contradict yourself when you say one thing then immediately express the opposite thing. It's in the previous posts, I'll let others judge.

 

Well I'll just let that anti-religious anti-Christian rant stand on it's own.

 

The First Amendment ensures people's right to freedom of religion. If you want to criminalize religion, people will break the law.

 

I am not anti christian. Happen to be one. Just about everyone I know is one.
But you have to let it stand. There is not 1 thing I said that you can refute or deny.

 

I don't want to criminalize religion. Don't even know how you comprehended such a thing from my post.

The law also is very clear on discrimination. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate for many things, sexual preference is one of them. If you can't uphold the law and run a business then perhaps one should not be in business.

 

Sorry, I thought you were defending the pro-gay marriage, pro-homosexual agenda.

 

And no contract is required -- only a willing vagina.

Again, consenting adults are already able to contract with one another. So why do we need a special contract we call marriage? That is the question. And I'm getting tired of asking it.

But I have not done that. You are only trying to claim that I have to discredit me because that's all you have. You have no actual argument. All you can do is duck questions and "pretend" that you've answered them by making up an answer to your own version of a question that conveniently fits your position.

My position is consistent now; it has been consistent for the five years I have been posting on this board; and it will be consistent in the future. That you are unable to make the distinction does not constitute a contradiction on my part.

 

Oh I don't know, I thought that you were insinuating that Christians would be breaking the law by not serving cakes to homosexuals for their weddings.

So in your mind, sexual preference trumps freedom of religion? And Christians should not own businesses?

 

I am. And any other situation where a sinner thinks they can tell other sinners they are worse then some other sinner. To do so is blatant hypocrisy.

Also, I haven't been to church in a few years. So I am not actively involved in christianity at present. To much dogma with associated with religions.

 

So I just gave two of maybe thousands of reasons and you are still asking the same questions?

I am convinced that your agenda to destroy marriage matches well with the homosexual's agenda.

I'm done commenting on you antithetical opinions.

 

If they refuse to bake the cake because of the discrimination laws they are breaking the law. If they, ahem, lie, and say they are to busy, they would not be breaking the law.

In my mind, and the law's I think, discrimination laws trump acting on a religious belief. Anyone is still fully free to be any religion they like and believe anything they want.

 

Well just so you know that if you do attend church they will let you know about homosexuality and sin.

 

Just so you know, I know that we all sin everyday, thought, words, and/or deeds. We will never be able to not. Until the day our bodies decay in the ground.

Just so you know, if one can't remove the plank from one's own eye, Jesus isn't to favorable to those type.

 

That's interesting. Can I assume your church tells you that homosexuality is a sin? My church tells me homosexuality is not a sin. Does your church tell you that divorce is a sin? I suspect that if I refused to bake cakes for adulterers (those that are marrying for a second time) I wouldn't be in business very long.

I don't have time to explain anti-discrimination laws and the history behind them but I suggest you do a bit of reading. Discover why they were incorporated into modern law. You are free to practice your religion, however, as a business owner, you cannot discriminate against a protected class.

 

Well that's the whole debate right there. So what do we do to that Neanderthal Christian who won't obey the law?

[video=youtube;NHWoozicPbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWoozicPbk[/video]

 

Same as any other person who breaks the law. I see no reason for any different treatment.
If someone discriminates because of skin color, same treatment.

 

you can not come up with one single reason why we need government marriage. Why are you so in love with government?

 

It's for the children of course - except children of same sex couples, they don't count...
Also no one procreates outside of marriage so we have to reward the behavior.

 

Which were all refuted, or were strawmen.

My words were misrepresented.

This is a Strawman. You can believe anything you want. You just can't discriminate.

 

Nobody is criminalizing religion. BUT, your beliefs don't mean you can break the law. Discrimination is against the law.

 

Did any of those bakers bake cakes, including wedding cakes, for any other person who they could or should (according to their religion) see as sinners, if so then they are being hypocritical and discriminating based on orientation, which is illegal for-for profit businesses.

Those bakers are free to discriminate against those with whom they associate in their private lives, they are not free to do so when they operate a for profit business.

 

I don't want the feds in it. I don't like the state in it either. It seems the only reason the feds involved themselves is because Nanny states want to tell others what they can and can't do. So it's just switching one Nanny for another.

 

Well they shouldn't get any special protection from lawsuits or media, that would be special rights, and you are against those right?