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

They are forced to condone the behavior and the act of legitimizing their bond because you said they must comply or be accused of discrimination.

I do not know of anyone protesting the sale of good cuts of beef and pork to be cooked at a big party where sinning will take place. Do you? I would say that your mind is strange in that you come up with yet another strawman argument. In fact, the baker for instance would have no problem with selling homosexuals doughnuts or a birthday cake, so it is not the fact that they are being discriminated because they are homosexuals.

This is why you don't deserve an answer. Because I was right when I predicted:

You have proved me right. You don't see Christians being forced to do anything, even when you are calling for them to be forced to produce a cake.

You also are playing the strawman argument game. I never said sexual orientation is a behavior. Homosexual sex is a behavior.

I never stated what he implied I stated. I never said sexual orientation is a behavior.

I do see things from the perspective of homosexuals. They are envious and desperately wish to gain acceptance as heterosexuals do. They feel their behavior is every bit as natural as heterosexual behavior. Consequently, they feel victimized by those who don't accept their behavior and feel they are the targets of discrimination. I could go on explaining the perspective of the other side, but you will just come up with more strawman arguments and ignore the arguments I've presented as if they were never presented. Like I said, that is your shtick.

 

When you're discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, the difference doesn't matter.

 

If a representative from MS-13 came in and wanted you make a cake congratulating someone on joining the gang, would you make the cake? What if it was for their first kill?

 

Then you agree there isn't an issue then. Because that's what's being asked.

Nope. Homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex. If you never have sex, you are still a homosexual if you're attracted to the same sex.

You. You're upset that baking a cake violates your religious freedom. I want to know how.

To not offer service, because they are gay, is discrimination.

Baking a cake isn't participation a wedding.

So?

But it is, that's the point. They are not asked to officiate the wedding. They were asked to bake a cake and sell it. Can't refuse because of religious beliefs.

your explanations have been shown to be in error.

- - - Updated - - -

How does baking a cake do that?

 

stand for something or kneel for everything

 

What a trite non-answer.

 

I said baking a cake is not a sin. I didn't say there isn't an issue. Obviously there is an issue. The issue is baking a cake for a gay wedding. That is a service they do not offer.

Fine. An attraction to the same sex isn't a physical trait. I don't know someone's sexual orientation by looking at them.

I never said baking a cake violates my religious freedom.

Gay people are free to buy goods from the bakery.

Baking a wedding cake is.

So baking a cake for a same sex couple goes against their religious beliefs.

They just did refuse because of religious beliefs. That's the point. They can refuse because it is a service they do not offer. Nobody said they were being asked to officiate the wedding. They are being asked to participate in it.

Or it is beyond your comprehension. It's been explained in the simplest of terms. There is no way that they will participate in your wedding by baking a wedding cake because it is a service they do not offer because it goes against their religious beliefs.

Oh for Heaven's sake!

 

Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Spilling seed is a sin. Divorce is a sin. Not worshipping the Christian God is a sin. And you are correct to say. " it is stupid to say Christians all of a sudden became intolerant ". Christians have always been intolerant.

 

THey bake wedding cakes. If the refuse to,do,so because the couple is gay, that is against the law.

Ok

Then there isn't an issue.

Obviously not, hence the thread.

It isn't. No more so than selling the groom a pair of socks that he will wear to the wedding.

How does baking a cake violate their beliefs?

And they can't do that, because it's discrimination.

It is a service they offer. They bake cakes. What the buyer does with it is irrelevant.

They aren't. They're asked to bake a cake. Like the lady at Sears isn't participating for selling the groom a pair of dress socks.

Nope. You've been shown to definitely be in error.

And shown to be in error.

First, it's not my wedding. I'm already married, and not gay. Second, of course they will bake the cake, if they want to remain open and in business. Public accommodation laws.

I know. It's just a cake. It violates nothing.

 

And this sums up the argument for forcing Christians to give up their religious belief using the force of law and the power of government.

Basically it goes like this, "NA - AH!"

It's just childish nay-saying.

You don't get to decide for others what their religious beliefs are. You can't use the law to force them to follow your religious beliefs.

 

I don't see things that don't exist.

When did I call for them to be forced to produce a cake?

No You didn't. You may have ment that but you didn't say it.

It's up to you too make yourself clear.

I am sorry but you don't. I am a homosexual and I don't care about being accepted, I don't feel victimized. So you lied when you say you saw the perspective of homosexuals.

This is the worst hypocrisy I've seen from you. Because I know my perspective better than you you claim I am making strawman fallacies? Do you even know what a strawman fallacy is? You aren't using the word properly.

Perhaps you whine and cry about me ignoring arguments you never made or you lie completely about my position, or you pretend you know my perspective because you feel personal attacks and childish accusations will deflect me from the fact that you have no logically reasoned position. Just like every other poster that holds your position, you rely on made up arguments, strawman fallacy and lies.

Seems when I corner you, you resort to these poor debate tactics.

Don't bother responding. I know you are just going to carry on about me ignoring your incorrect statements and falsely accusing me of fallacies you can't explain or don't really understand.

Dishonesty is the only way you can defend your position, because it's illogical. You proved it in this post.

 

What religious belief is given up by baking a cake?

Because you keep repeating the same inane and erroneous bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

I'm of course not trying to do any such thing.

This is called irony.

 

This is what the thread is about and you are arguing in favor of the force people to produce a cake side.

I clearly did not say that sexual orientation is a behavior. Because people feel it necessary to parse words in order to create strawman arguments, there will be occasions when the arguments become muddled in syntax.

By no means did I intend to make it personal. You might not feel the same as other homosexuals who do care about being accepted and feel victimized.

If you want to end the discussion then by all means don't bother responding. It won't hurt my feelings.

 

If anything is inane and erroneous bull(*)(*)(*)(*), it's the repeating of the same strawman argument that baking a cake is against a religious belief.

Why is it ironic? I don't see anyone trying to force homosexuals to believe in Christianity using the force of law.

 

If baking the cake doesn't violate a religious belief then you have no argument. Which is the point.

Nobody is forcing Christians to believe something either.

 

Well if there is no argument then there is no point of contention and they should leave the baker alone.

Except they must believe that homosexual behavior is something they must condone.

 

No problem, as long as the baker bakes the cake he isn't breaking the law.

why are you incapable of discussing this without making (*)(*)(*)(*) up?

 

Oops! There's that point of contention again. You can't have it both ways. You can't say we are not using the force of law to get people to accept our beliefs while at the same time say someone is breaking the law for not believing what you believe.

 

Point out the post where I said people should be forced to produce a cake? I'm arguing from a different position. You just pigeon hole anybody that doesn't agree with you. After you carrying on about me not seeing other perspectives, I can't take you seriously. That is the definition if hypocrisy.

I clearly did not say that people should be forced to make a cake. More hypocrisy.

You don't know what a strawman fallacy means. Just admit it or look it up. Ignorantly posting the same thing only serves to make you appear so. But I will educate you. The fallacy you are attempting to accuse me of is ambiguity in language. I didn't misrepresent anything. But insist you know what you are talking about and I'll continue laughing at you.

Your intentions are irrelevant your actions made it personal as I will point out below.

Here is where you make it personal. You don't know how other people feel. And the blatant hypocrisy of somebody who whined and cried about people not seeing the other perspective and pulling this dime store clairvoyant act is simply hilarious. Well done completely discrediting yourself.

What discussion? The one where you yell me how I feel or you tell homosexuals how they feel and then get your feathers ruffled because nobody can see your false victimhood? That isn't a discussion, that's an immature fit being thrown.

 

Talk about a strawman fallacy. (have you looked it up yet?)

Beliefs don't come into this conversation. The baker discriminated against somebody. If your religion says you can't sell goods and services to people, your religion forbids you to own a business. Not the government and not any gay boogeyman. They are free to belong to any religion they wish, they are free to exercise it if they wish.

This religious crap is a smoke screen. What I have actually read is that the gay couple wanted something lewd and a baker refused. I think he was in his right to do so regardless of religion. You and others have muddied this with subterfuge to grand stand on some political bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Well I won't attempt to create a strawman for whatever your position is then, but if you aren't in favor of forcing a person to bake a cake, and you aren't in favor of the baker's right to refuse, what is your position then? Perhaps it is you who lacks clarity.

My assumptions on how other people feel is based on the arguments being presented. If some people who wish to force people to bake cakes based on a public accommodations are claiming discrimination, then I have to assume that they feel discrimination is the cause. We must recognize that in this situation, both sides are feeling discriminated against, and that those feelings are valid. The question is, is it necessary to compel one side to accommodate the other using the force of law?

 

And we are back to what religious belief does baking a cake violate?

 

How is it the main point of the thread is a strawman fallacy? This case is well publicized and there is no disputing the facts of the case on either side:

Whether it is a baker or a florist or a photographer, there are cases like this popping up all over the country.

 

No that was settled. We are back to the main point of forcing someone to bake a cake.

 

Well this is a lie because you did just that and I'll point it out.

I am not

Here is where I am pointing out your dishonesty. I never said anything that could even be misconstrued as this. You completely made this up.

Wow, now that is a discussion question. Perhaps I was rash in writing you off as a partisan hack. My position is that the baker should be allowed to refuse service because it's his business. Even if he is atheist. The need to hide behind big mama religion's apron seems like political partisan hackery after thought to me.

Because you missed the bus completely in order to jam everybody into a left wing right wing narrative? How about just read what I posted and drop the political whoring for a moment. See if you leave the need to twist everything into a this side and that side battle, you might be able to see the forest for the trees.

But I may be wrong, and I invite you in the spirit of discussion to point out where I made my position unclear.

It's more based on your emotional state and I'll explain.

Well you seem to have a wish to be understood, that is an emotional need. You want your position validated. For what it's worth I don't have a problem with people using religion to justify their aversion to homosexuality. I just think it's hypocritical.