Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

That is correct. Consider the following:A mixed-race couple enters your bakery. As the proprietor, you are against mixed-race marriages. You refuse to bake them a cake for their mixed-race marriage but indicate to them they are welcome to buy other baked goods.Discrimination or not? I think most would agree that this would be classified as discrimination. You are refusing a service to individuals that you would otherwise provide in another context. This was discussed earlier. You are actually free to refuse in this case because the cake contains a phrase you consider to be derogatory, and you can make the refusal on those grounds. This is not discrimination against any class of individual in that context, but a refusal of service based on the symbolism or imagery being asked for. It is the functional equivalent of refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. In this circumstance, you are refusing in totality; i.e. if a bunch of crazy white frat boys wanted a cake that said 'Off Whitey' on it, as some kind of sick joke, you could ALSO refuse that service.The crux of the argument is the manner in which the service is distributed. Unless there are already laws in place to dictate otherwise, you cannot and should not refuse service to one set of individuals that you would otherwise provide to another set of individuals.Make sense now?

Actually, that is BS. It IS the persons you are objecting to and their lifestyle because your frame of reference is their sexual orientation. That is discrimination, pure and simple. And here comes the martyr syndrome again.No Faith, you cannot leverage religious beliefs as a grounds for refusing to cater to and function in our secular society. Pure and simple. You are beholden to the same laws that prevent Muslims from not hiring women or from southern white land owners who say they can keep slaves because god says it's fine in copious places in your Bible. Or for that matter, from stoning gays for laying together. You know, doing what your 'God's Law' says you should do.Incidentally, your best frame of reference for a 'Tyrannical Fascist State' would be Christian Germany of the 1930s and 1940s. Food for thought....

That is what the SECULAR state says. The ultra-theocratic religious state that you want to live in would adhere to god's law in totality and have the homosexuals killed. Now wouldn't it?Leviticus 20:13

quote:

---

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

---

Ahhhh, what a panacea that world would be.On the upside, if we were strict adherents to 'god's law' we could also invoke the following:Timothy 2:12

quote:

---

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

---

At least, in that case, we would not have to deal with your infernal babble on a daily basis. There is no Scotsman like a TRUE Scotsman!Alex, I would like Logical Fallacies for $400 please.

Since you continue to go on and on about 'God's Law' as it is revealed in your Bible, then what I want you to do Faith is itemize exactly which verses you are referring to when you are making your statements. So please, enlighten us with regards to which Bible versus are making explicit statements about gays getting married.We're waiting.Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed typo

Ok, let us take a look at this in totality, shall we?The verses you referenced were as follows: And: (From Message 54)Your assertion is essentially the following: the Bible is stipulating particular rules and laws within its pages and by having secular laws trump your religious laws you are, in fact, being persecuted for your beliefs. Is that correct?Ok then, let us continue.As I mentioned in a previous post, your Bible also states the following in regards to homosexuality itself: This is a direct verse from your Bible stipulating that a particular practice is not in accordance with god's law and also provides instructions on how it should be dealt with.So now, let me posit the following scenario:You own a bakery shop and a homosexual couple comes in and asks you, the proprietor, to bake them a cake for their wedding. You refuse and then take out a shotgun and kill both of them on the spot.The police arrive. You explain that two homosexuals entered your establishment, asked for specific services, and you responded by refusing them service AND killing them as is explicitly instructed in your holy book.Now Faith, will your defense statement hold up in court? And if not, why?

You are the Bible literalist Faith. Not me. You are the one that insists that it is the inerrant word of god. Not me. As such, you are beholden to what it says in totality. As you have stated yourself numerous times in this forum.Also, one of the quotes you referenced is from Genesis. i.e. from the Book of Torah which was the foundation of the laws for the Israelites. If those laws no longer apply, you cannot then reference passages from that portion of your book, now can you? Otherwise, you are essentially Cherry Picking, now aren't you?

Looks like the Arkansas governor is refusing to sign the religious freedom law on his desk until it undergoes revisions:Arkansas governor signs amended 'religious freedom' measure | CNN PoliticsExcerpt: Stupid question: but if the federal law already exists, what is the purpose of creating a state law that essentially mirrors exactly what the federal law says? Isn't that redundant?