Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Alright, then let me be clearer. The gay baker specifically refuses service on the basis of the customer's membership of an anti-gay hate group. Analyse THAT!

Sure, if the anti gay hate group customer happened to be black and the gay baker denied service on the basis of race! Is this what you mean? Surely you could've easily assumed that I meant my above scenario!

 

Simple: the hater is not in a protected group, and rightfully so, so **** him.

 

Sure - that's what we've been talking about.

Just check out any of the three top "cake" cases.

They all use religion as a reason to discriminate. And, if that isn't a weird way of justifying discrimination I don't know what is.

 

(I may not be tracking your posts well, so ...)

In response to that last sentence I'd point out that the Arizona religious exemption law I referred to involved exemption not just from public accommodation law, but employment law, land use regulation, noise, parking, and other issues in residential areas, etc., etc.

I'd suggest reading that law. It's startling!

These cake laws have made significant progress toward allowing discrimination against same sex couples in the courts. The one out of CA is especially crazy in its logic.

These "cake" cases are specific in that they address same sex marriage. But, the logic employed to justify discrimination is exactly the same as would be used in other cases.

As I pointed out before, if the baker doesn't have to bake them a cake, does the honeymoon resort have to book them a room?

 

There are also the issues of the design of the cake, delivery (which is often offered as a service), etc.

I think that baker would lose the argument as long as there weren't other elements. If the cake contained specific elements deemed by the courts to be "speech" (such as writing, or the required presence of the baker at the event, or whatever) it appears that the SCOTUS would say the baker wouldn't have to do that.

At a normal wedding, the baker is anonymous - the "speech" is that of the married couple who are assumed to have specified the design of the cake.

On the other hand, if the cake would be easily recognized by the audience as that of a specific baker (such that the cake would be clearly identified as his work - like Picasso decorated your cake) then the cake would be considered the speech of the baker - and thus the baker could decline because it is his speech. (Coming from the oral argument of the Colorado case before the SCOTUS.)

 

Hasn't this thread been resolved already?
The OP question appears to have been answered by two claimed Christians, one of whom also claimed to be liberal and another who claimed to not be liberal.
The purpose of thread titles is to indicate what is being discussed within. Perhaps a little moderation would be greatly helpful in producing some resolution, or at least show where none can be found.

 

Who is the other one?

Moderation from a moderator?

 

I assume that you're more honest with your family and friends than strangers and people you know very little about, so I would guess that you're more liberal than conservative.

 

Isn't being "completely against fascism and totalitarianism" the opposite of fascism and totalitarianism?

 

The one who perhaps isn't a Christian, but as a Liberal admitted being free to be one.
That suffices to say that you need not be both, but can be if you wish.


Moderation from a moderator?[/QUOTE]
As well as self.

 

What has honesty to do with being liberal or conservative?
I would admit that I allow emotion to be more a factor in decisions relating to family and friends than I do with strangers. So you might deduce that I am more liberal with family and friends and more conservative with strangers, while at the same time my life style is quite conservative.

 

Nothing, its just that you made the distinction of being different around family and friends than you are around others. That would tell me that you're not being entirely yourself around people who aren't your family and friends. Or I suppose it could work the other way around, that some people are less honest with their family and friends, particularly if they are a Trump supporter! Some people might not openly support Trump around their family and friends out of fear of losing them!

Are you linking "emotion" to being liberal?

 

Were you actually thinking that it was possible that you DO need to be a liberal to be a Christian?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you think would be achieved.

 

And if not?

 

I didn't say that at all. If you don't understand what I said, don't apply your own interpretation, ask questions.

I think it is a much more fitting word than honesty.
Personally, I define liberal and conservative simply as wasteful and frugal.

 

What do you mean "tracking" my posts?

Sure, but I don't understand why the more essential service is the one with the exemption, meanwhile, an individual employed by a bakery CANNOT refuse to provide service in many cases, even when such service is perceived by the employee as going against their religious conviction. Is this exemption only in certain states? I'd be surprised if it applied to California for example.

These efforts to remove civil rights - Are they restricted to Civil Rights for LGBTQ people?

Which one out of CA?

 

I had never given it a thought.

 

Yes, but are you linking it be being liberal?

Didn't you use them to describe yourself?

 

Weird to them?

 

Probably nothing more than discussing disagreements on the threads topic.

 

Didn't I say it would be "more fitting"?

I did.

 

Isn't that happening already?

 

Well how would it be more fitting?

 

Not always on the threads topic.