Jeb Bush Says Christian Business Owners Can Refuse To Serve Gay Weddings

No, no they can't. What we are mainly talking about is catering. No one should have to serve people whose lifestyle choice are anathema to them? Should a Jewish caterer have to serve a Nazi rally? And African American caterer a Klan rally?

 

......

There is no problem with what I wrote: there isn't anyone stopping you at any Church, Synagogue, or any place of worship from freely exercising your religion. Just keep it out of government is what Amendment 1 is saying....

 

Did you just try to argue that private businesses are the government?

 

That is essentially what he offered to do, the gays refused and stormed out of the bakery. The gays were offended that the baker would not accept their lifestyle, not that he would not bake a cake. The cake was just the means to exact retribution on the baker.

Many Christians view Halloween as a pagan or at least sinful day, with its roots in celebrating faeries, ghosts, and the dead. Later it took on aspects of witchcraft.

Many churches no longer celebrate Halloween but have Spring Festivals or Harvest Festivals in which Christian appropriate costumes can be worn if desired. By far the biggest activity in my area is a "pumpkin patch" festival open every Saturday in October, run by a church and held on a church members farm, with an animal petting area, horse rides, games, and of course candy and snacks.

I know very few people who celebrate Halloween by dressing their children in scary costumes and going door to door.

If the baker does not know about the adultery, then it does not matter. That's a key piece of the situation, the gays came in and announced their intent to sin and demanded the baker support their sin. If an adulterer announces his sin and asks the baker to support the sin, then the baker should refuse.

Assuming the baker knows about the adultery, if the wife is not the adulterer, does not know about the adultery, is not positively supporting the adultery, then I think the baker would work for her. If she knew about the adultery and was trying to save her marriage, then I think the baker would definitely help her.

 

Of course they can. It's their business -- they should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason they see fit.

 

Great, then you agree its OK that no law be made to prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as the religious activity is not performed as a function of the govt (a govt religion). That's means its OK for the baker to refuse to serve a gay wedding.

 

Not what I asked. What religious belief does baking a cake violate?

 

You're right, businesses these days should serve everyone because that is in the best interest for their profit. However, claiming religion is not a dangerous precedent because they are referring to specific guidance from the Bible that acting upon homosexual temptations. What Christian, Muslim, and other religions do not want to do is be forced, as in unwillingly, be apart of a ceremony that they do not agree with. Forcing someone to do something has another name, and it is called bullying.

 

It's not about baking, it's about homosexuality.

 

As I can read the Bible as well as anyone, I do have a say in the matter. If someone is going to cite religion as a basis for behavior, that behavior must be religious in naure, not personal. That some people won't serve gays but have no issue serving other sinners, it's obvious that this behavior is personal, not religious.

 

You can't be more wrong.

 

Okie-doke. Lemme know when you have something to add. On second thought, never mind. Carry on.

I'll never understand the attraction of participating in a discussion forum just to say, "I'm right. You're wrong."

 

Sure. But I wouldn't want to validate your misconception that you get to decide what other people are allowed to believe about their own religion.

 

What did Hillary say on the topic? Oh yeah she is still hiding.

 

A person withholding something is not forcing anything.

The constitution protects this right.

Discrimination is a basic human right which certain laws violate.

Jeb is correct on this but does not go far enough.

There is nothing In The constitution banning private discrimination. Try reading it.

 

After being a life- long Democrat, since Carter ,I’ll be voting Republican for several reasons such as the disproportionate proliferation of HOMOsexual TV programs and movies and the GUN GRAB ATTEMPTS by the Democratic Party. But , this next reason really burns me up ! Recently, an openly HOMOsexual teacher in EFLAND , N.C. a few days ago read the book,” KING AND KING “, TO HIS 3RD GRADE CLASS. It’s the story of two HOMIsexual PRINCES getting married and it shows them kissing. People this is beyond the pale. The rampant proliferation of this kind of behavior is what we can expect if we continue to let the 2% TAIL OF THE HOMOsexual POPULATION continue to WAG THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The REPUBLICAN PARTY is our last hope in maintaining some kind of MORAL COMPASS AND TRADTIONAL FAMILY VALUES that are the foundation of this Country . Voting in a another Democratic president will give them the opportunity to appoint 3-4 new Liberal Supreme Court Justices giving the Court a LIBERAL MAJORITY FOR GENERATIONS. Meaning we can expect more of this. The following is the Genesis of a Lawsuit filed in 2006 against the reading of the HOMOsexula Book.”KING AND KING” TO 7 YEAR OLDS IN A CLASSROOM.

Funny how you can’t read the bible in a classroom .but you can PROMOTE HOMOsexual MARRIAGE TO 2ND AND 3RD GRADERS !!!!

In 2006 Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker filed a federal lawsuit against the school district of Estabrook Elementary School, which their second graders attended in Lexington, Massachusetts. The Wirthlins' son's teacher had read King & King aloud to the class as part of an educational unit on weddings. Parents countered that the school's job was to teach about the world and that Massachusetts sanctioned same-sex marriage The plaintiffs claimed that using the book in school constituted sex education without parental notification, which would be a violation of their civil rights and state law. Robin Wirthlin appeared on CNN, saying
“ We felt like seven years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes. My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my seven-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be. Let us know and let us excuse our child from the discussion. ”

HERE’S WHAT THE LIBERAL JUDGES RULED: IF THIS IS THE KIND OF RULINGS YOU WANT , ELECT ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT

The judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. The Wirthlins and the Parkers appealed the decision; a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the school. Judge Sandra Lynch, writing for the court, rejected the plaintiff's argument that their religious beliefs were being singled out as well as their argument that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated, writing, "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights." The
court also ruled that the parents' substantive due process rights were not violated, as these rights did not legally give them the degree of control they sought over the curriculum.

 

Disagree.

I am pro-gay-marriage, because IMO it's a 14th Amendment issue.

However the idea of forcing a business to engage in a particular kind of commerce is a non-starter.

A sign saying "we do not cater gay weddings" is the legal equivalent of "shirt and shoes required" - in other words, the business can refuse service to whomever it wishes for whatever reason it wishes. It may not "discriminate against the individual on the basis of his or her sexual orientation", but that's something entirely different from having a policy that says "we don't cater gay weddings".

 

So a business can not have the right to refuse service.

 

How is baking a cake about sexuality? Please stop dodging and answer the question. What religious belief is violated by baking a cake?

- - - Updated - - -

Where in your religion is it stated baking a cake violates your beliefs?

 

Nonsense. If you cater weddings and only refuse gay weddings, it's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It isn't anything like" shirt and shoes required". It's more like "shirts and shoes required, if you're gay".

 

It's not about baking a cake, it's about homosexuality which is a sin.

 

He should have learned what happens when you become a pandering fool from Romney. You can't please the right and also win national elections.

 

This is a valid point, but I'm not sure how it works out legally. If the business provides services for straight weddings, they may be required to serve gay weddings.

 

So you would support the KKK demanding black photographers at the next KKK shindig?