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

No, because the con did not give deliberate offence to you personally inside your business. In NoNukes case the sob did just that. It is a personal thing, he, you. No class, no group, not even a specific attribute. Given the established history of offence by this one shithead, NoNukes has every right to deny that worm access to the property let alone service from his business.Though the fucker may try, I doubt that any court in the realm would even consider allowing a discrimination suit to proceed on these facts.Trying to justify this jerk's right to service by saying you cannot discriminate against a person based on what you think he might do, is a fallacious claim. The opposite is the very reason your ex-con friend is required to stay more than 500 feet away from any schoolyard. Edited by AZPaul3, : I really wanted to.

I'm with you 100% Faith, this illustration should help the god-damn heathens imagine a world of godly goodness, peace, and love . . .

It's a complete non-issue.There are 320m people in the USA, a few are crazy fundamental Christians like Faith, a few of those may make wedding cakes for a living and a few of those may be asked by a gay couple crazy, stupid or determined enough to make a point to bake them a cake with a marzipan couple indulging in anal pleasures.A few of those crazy fundies may even be crazy enough to say that they can't make a cake for queers rather than say that their order book is full and they recommend Mrs Queerlover down the road instead.It's all a nonsense, there's plenty of scope for the crazy fundies to live comfortably within the laws of the land so long as they don't feel the need to martyr themselves. Some of them do, so society will happily accept their Darwinian sacrifice.

Remember, there have recently been FOUR cases of Christian businesses in four different states being sued for refusing to cater to gay weddings. One was fined by the state.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you refuse to provide wedding cakes for Jewish weddings, but you provide them for Christian weddings. That's discrimination. Even if you can prove that you would serve birthday cakes to Jews.For instance, if you think that Jews are an inferior race based on some Nazi social darwinism type ideas - and you cannot condone them getting married and therefore propagating their filthy genes...
would this be acceptable to you?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The Bible is the standard. There is no Biblical basis for discriminating against persons in business but there is a Biblical basis for refusing to do anything to validate a violation of God's marriage ordinance.

That's your view. But Muslims have different views on what is the standard. As do atheists. Despite your wishes for a theocracy (of your preferred variety), that's unlikely to happen in the US any time soon (cynical comments aside). Since it is unconstitutional to favour Christianity or even 'people of the book(s)', there is nothing that can be done. If changing your theological view is not possible, either stop providing wedding related services or accept the court costs/fines/other punitive measures.I'm interested in what the Biblical basis is, though. I asked earlier, could you help me out?

'Anal pleasures' is as much enjoyed by heterosexuals as it is homosexuals. While sexuality active homosexual/bisexual men do as a population engage in it most frequently - the number of heterosexual women who have engaged in it is not far off (although a same sex male couple that does it probably does it more regularly). Add in lesbians (who very rarely engage in it) and the figures aren't quite as different as you might expect. Thus associating gay men with anal sex is verging on being an unfair association. Oral sex and mutual masturbation are much more common. I'd give you ahem, hard numbers, but I can't find any right now - just references to them made in scholarly texts that don't obviously cite sources, and I don't have the time to go on a hunt.Anyway, not really on topic, but I felt it needed saying.Incidentally - the baker could refuse to create such a cake as long as they don't specifically create explicit cakes as their business model.Here's an interesting example of a non-human product that engages in discrimination (race). Not sure where we should fall on that one. Could it be said to be racist neglect (ie., absence of black models used during testing?)?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So what that different people have different standards? I'm talking about why Christians will refuse to do this.Here's your biblical standard:1. Homosexuality is by secular standards an aberration, and by Biblical standards a sin, it is not a normal class of human beings.2. Marriage is a "creation ordinance", established at the Creation, between a man and a woman: Jesus quotes Genesis in Matthew 19 and Mark 10: But it isn't for you to decide how we read the Bible or what our conscience tells us we must do to please God.Your opinion is disgustingly intolerant and discriminatory.ABE: And by the way there is now a fifth case of a Christian refusing a service for a gay wedding, this time in California, a woman named Zimmerman with an online business. She hasn't been sued. But the point is that this is not some negligible issue, it's going to continue to grow.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but surprisingly it isn't just about the Christians. I'm including other religions who may have their own conflicts with equal rights legislation and the like as a result of their religious teachings. I get that it's a sin. What has that got to do with 'normal classes'? I've already covered Mark 10. Matthew 19 can be dealt with the same way. Genesis 2 is a 'just-so' story explaining heterosexuals.So far, even if I accept the argument you are trying to make, all you have done is say that God only joins together heterosexual marriages. Really this seems to be an argument that gays can marry multiple times.But what about the service part? I don't remember Jesus refusing sinners. Luke 7:

quote:

---

And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner. {Parable} .... then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.

---

Or are you guys holier than Jesus now? I guess the alternative is that you are the modern day Pharisees. I'm not telling you how to read the Bible or about your conscience. I am just trying to understand your position and those like you as to what parts of the Bible instruct you to refuse service to certain sinners, but not to others. Which one? The one where I think Christians should be treated equally to atheists and Muslims? The one where I think heterosexuals should be treated equally to homosexuals? The one where I think all races should be treated with equal dignity? Or that physical disability should not be something treated with disdain? I expect so. I think there were quite a few cases in the early days of the initial Civil Rights act as racists stubbornly dug their heals in and tried all manner of tactics to discriminate against black people. It's still happening, unfortunately, but I think to a lesser degree.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You should try paying attention Faith. If a person cannot serve wedding cakes to jews or homosexuals or French people - they should stop serving wedding cakes to everyone else. To do otherwise is immoral and can result in civil or even criminal proceedings. Even if we only look at it from a fairness perspective - ie., other businesses are having to adapt their policies and behaviours to comply, why should another business be exempt from providing equal enjoyment of services because the owners can't in good conscience do so?If you can't use lethal force because of conscientious reasons, don't become an infantryman and try and get out of your duties because of your personal reading of the Bible or Koran.You want to open a public library? You can't deny women access to feminist literature while allowing men to access it, even if you think women are evil and those texts will radicalise them. If you have such feelings, you don't belong in the public library game.This is not the same as forbidding people to enter into business, its just mandating they do so while playing by the same rules as others. I don't want to start a weapons manufacturing business, becoming a charlatan preacher or psychic or start a gay reversion therapy business. All on grounds of conscience. I can still start a business selling ribbons or arts and crafts materials if I like. But if I can't sell waterpaints to autistic people for some conscientious reason, then the latter business is not one I should be entering, and if I'm in the business already I should just stop selling waterpaints entirely.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, and True Christian^TM bakers actually could bake cakes for them.If a Christian who is opposed to gay marriage knows in their heart that they're not personally endorsing God's approval of the ceremony, because its obviously not recognized anyways, then they could just make the damned cake for the sake of the business. Its really not that big of a deal.And if it really came down to it, they could just make up some other reason why the were unable to bake the cake. A white lie, again, for the sake of the business. Again, not that big of a deal.That it has resorted to what it has, I'm betting ulterior motives.

Sure, and I've heard Steven Fry make those points several times. He apparently has never had anal sex, although..... well, never mind.But I intended the remark as an example only, not as a full description of the unique activities of the entire gay sexual repertoire. (Even though such a description would set Faith's hair alight in righteous indignation and would be worth doing for that alone.)

The 'no shirt, no shoes' actually is in the health code.Different issue.

I understand. And although the example I'm about to give is, I feel, more inappropriate I think it illustrates the reason I thought it prudent to provide that perspective.

quote:

---

...a few of those may make wedding cakes for a living and a few of those may be asked by a black couple crazy, stupid or determined enough to make a point to bake them a cake with a marzipan couple sharing fried chicken.

---