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

Whenever we allow government to "do" something for us, we give up yet another shred of our precious liberty. Agree with you 100%.

 

No I am suggesting equality under the law. The reason I am suggesting this is because THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. The law is applied equally to all citizens regardless of the type of plumbing you have between your legs. There is a reason Lady Justice wears that blindfold. She's not even supposed to look at a citizen so she remains impartial in her deliberations.



As to your second point, of course the progressive income tax is unconstitutional. It is a prima facie violation of equal protection.

Now, are you ever going to open that can of worms?

 

As the OP of the original I would have prefered to let that thread die a natural death but if you want to revive it then let's start from the beginning and then you can tell me where you disagree with me from the previous thread:

 

I disagree that government should be involved in marriage in any way.

 

I will again ask what religious belief baking a cake violates?

And your religious beliefs don't allow you to discriminate.

 

I'm less concerned with a religious belief and more concerned with government compelling a citizen to perform a service or provide a product said citizen does not want to provide.

 

Good idea. Just ban all marriages. That's an excellent idea. That will really help woman and children when families break up. Who needs marriage anyway? It's just a piece of paper.

 

You do know that homosexuality is a sin, right? So you can't force people to participate in a ceremony they consider an endorsement of sinful behavior. Baking a cake is not sinful. That is a strawman argument. Participation in activities that condone sinful behavior violates their religious beliefs.

Our religion allows us to not associate with unrepentant sinners. Everyone discriminates with regard to whom they wish to associate.

 

What religious belief is violated by baking a cake and selling it?

Baking a cake isn't participation. Now, if you were a photographer that would be a different issue. You would be present at the wedding and an active participant. Not the case with baking a cake.

as an individual absolutely. But if you operate a business and are subject to public accommodation laws, your beliefs don't permit you to discriminate.

 

Free men can arrange their affairs in a manner that suits them without needless government intervention. In the eyes of the legal institution, marriage is exactly just a piece of paper -- a piece of paper that specifies ownership of assets and liabilities. It is nothing more than a simple civil contract. Consenting adults can already enter simple civil contracts. There is no need to create a special kind of contract called "marriage."

 

So your argument is too much government so you want government to stop gay people from getting married legally. Wow

 

By owning a business you do not surrender your first amendment rights to freedom of religion. Now I've directly told you why it violates religious liberty and you continue to just ignore the point and insist it is not so. That is not up to you to determine. It is up to each individual to determine for themselves what their faith will allow. But being the obstinate intrusive pro-government fascists that the liberals are, they must use the force of government and the power of the state to impose their beliefs on others and strip them of their religious liberty all so as not to offend homosexuals' need to be treated like normal people. Pathetic.

 

I'm sure that is the intent of the homosexuals. I for one don't feel the need to give in to the 2% just to spare their feelings.

 

Which isn't happening. You are free to still believe anything you want.

I demonstrate WHY it isn't so.

Actually no. Your faith doesn't trump the law, or the rights of others.

I find this hilarious, because you want to use the force of government to enforce your religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and deny the civil rights of gays.

Hypocrit.

 

As long as it doesn't offend you.

And now you decide what people are allowed to believe.

And now you endorse using the force of law to make religious beliefs illegal.

I want to use the force of government to respect religious freedom as it is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment. You don't get to have a civil right based on you personal behavior whether it's picking your nose, homosexuality, bestiality or pedophilia.

Me? You are the one trying to take rights away from people that is in the constitution in the name of constitutional rights.

 

No. There is no right to not be offended. You just can't discriminate.

Please stop posting stupid (*)(*)(*)(*). Nobody is telling you what to believe.

Please stop posting stupid (*)(*)(*)(*). Nobody is making beliefs illegal.

Which hasn't changed. Your beliefs are just as protected as they've always been.

Have you even read the constitution?

What rights are being taken away from you?

 

Why do we need a special kind of contract called "marriage" when consenting adults can already enter contracts to arrange their affairs in a manner they see fit?

- - - Updated - - -

What? That's not even close to what I said. Where in the hell did you come up with that steaming pile of nonsense?

 

I made my points over several times. You know my views and the evidence for it. Your own words are my evidence.

Trying to be coy by saying nobody is taking away rights while in the same breath screaming that you don't have a right to a
religious belief if you view it as discriminatory against gays takes quite a bit of mental and verbal gymnastics.

 

Compelling a proprietor to provide a service in no way infringes on his religious liberty. That said, no proprietor should be compelled to provide a nonessential good or service to anyone for any reason he sees fit.

 

The do already enter into contracts and it is already called marriage. We don't need a "special kind of contract" for gays.

- - - Updated - - -

K so you're on the fence on that one?

 

As before you're intentionally ducking my question. What are you you afraid of? Just answer my simple question.

What in my reply "no proprietor should be compelled" would indicate I am on the fence?

 

I did answer the question.

Your waffling.

You only said that after you said this:

 

No, you have ducked the question since we began this discussion two days ago.

No waffling at all. I don't know how I can state it any plainer -- nobody should be legally compelled to provide nonessential services to anyone they don't want to for any reason they see fit.

That is my premise. As a corollary, I happen to disagree that such obligation constitutes an infringement on religious liberty. The infringement is on the right of free association and the right to engage in commerce.

Do you see these are two separate issues. And my view on both has been consistent throughout.

 

I've answer the question. And you waffled again just now. You are contradicting yourself.

 

Repeating a lie over and over does not make it the truth. I asked you why we should have a special kind of contract called "marriage" when we already have contracts that consenting adults can freely enter. A very specific question... You have refused to answer me. And I know why. I don't blame you -- you actually have no argument and you know it.

How am I contradicting myself? Do you even know what that means? Do you know what it means to waffle? I don't think you do, because if you did you'd know how stupid you look when you accuse someone of waffling when they are CLEARLY NOT WAFFLING.