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

Then be reassured: As long as you don't venture forth from EvC and like environs you shouldn't have to worry.

Being right-wing, of course I'm up on the Communist agenda to subvert American culture, which was later continued by Cultural Marxism as Political Correctness. I can't expect you to see it my way, you probably share many Communist objectives and rationales, I hope from falling for their deceitful propaganda since I'd rather not think you or anybody else here is really committed to their destructive aims, but would reject them if you became aware of the big picture.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Probably not most people, but Christians I know do. But as I said we don't judge sin and sinners as individuals, pastors may preach against it, we may warn about it in general AS sin, and in some cases a church may be called on to discipline individuals for their sin. But unbelievers never. This is not about personal sin. NOT. Personal sin is none of our business. This is about being put in the position of denying our conscience in a matter God has clearly defined as against His purposes for marriage, and again, redefining a sin as not a sin. The culture is doing these things, but Christians cannot without putting ourselves at odds with God.I don't think gluttony has been redefined but even if it were true, as long as they don't make laws forcing me to agree with them or lose my business this is a nonissue. Society is overrun with sins of all kinds these days thanks to political correctness, and Christians see this as a great danger to society, and to individuals as well, but as long as we're not required to pledge allegiance to sin as normal and denied the right to call it sin this is unrelated to what we are talking about here. We don't care about sin? Perhaps not as much as we should, I'll give you that, the church has been sorely undermined these days along with the culture, but the issue here, again, is forcing us to treat sin as not-sin and to violate a clear command of God, which is something else. That does seem to be how a lot of you read this, so we can insist vehemently that it's not true and you'll still suspect it is and even punish us for your suspicion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But why do Christian bakers not refuse to serve fat people, as a matter of conscience ? Why do they not refuse to take out business loans, as a matter of conscience ?What is it about homosexuality, that makes it such a special sin in your eyes, that it's the only one that raises difficulties of conscience ?

Again I don't get why you all can't get this, when I've said it so many times and just said it again above. Okay, another time:WE DON'T JUDGE PEOPLE"S SINS. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SIN.\And taking out a loan is not a sin.Also, homsexuality is NOT "a special sin."Not a special sin,not a special sin.If you try to force us to deny that any other sin is sin or require us to perform some service that celebrates it, Christians will have the SAME difficulties of conscience we have with gay weddings. Being asked to provide a service in honor of abortion would cause the same crisis of conscience as gay weddings do.But nobody is doing that. What they are doing is insisting that we treat homosexuality and ONLY homosexuality as not a sin, but even that isn't what is being imposed on businesses that cater to weddings: we are being forced to serve a wedding of homosexuals or suffer incredibly punitive consequences, when that would require us to disobey God. We are given the choice of disobeying God or obeying God and being driven out of business. SOCIETY is requiring this of us, we aren't choosing it.I don't know how to say it any more clearly.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Way back in this discussion you stated this as your rationale: Seeing as you agree that gluttony is a sin, providing cakes for someone to commit gluttony, is doing something that supports a sin. this is not true.

When I said it "supports sin" in context that clearly meant "treats it as not a sin." That's all I've ever meant.

Of course you don't........ Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

So, treating gluttony as not a sin, (i.e. enabling someone to practice gluttony by supplying them with cakes) should hold the same conflict for a christian as does supplying someone with a cake to enable them to celebrate their gay wedding.you're running out of legs to stand on...

How does providing a gay wedding cake disobey your god? You're a biblican so for you the literal bible rules. Your bible says don't be a faggot. You are not being a faggot by selling a cake, are you? Do you think that in selling a cake the stench of queer surrounds you, infects you? Do you believe selling a cake makes you gay in your gods eyes?The only other stricture your god seems to want when it comes to gay is that you should kill them. Is that your complaint here? That, in secular society, you're not allowed to murder queers so, to compensate, you deny them cake?The problem is that your god is said to not like gays so you go along and also don't like gays. Don't give us this bullshit about how it's not the sinner but the sin. If it was only the sin that was at issue for your sick religion then you would not have that part in your book about killing the sinner. Your christian history would not be so grossly covered in the blood of the sinner.What this comes down to is that your christian baker, in fear of what she thinks your god will do to her, does not want to serve gays because they are gay. No other reason.Because in your view of god he appears to be a hateful frightful bloody bigot your brand of christian is hateful fearful bloody bigotry. This, society will no longer tolerate.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Well Muslims would say its a sin if a woman does not wear a burka, so should there be a law that mandates all women to wear burkas. No thats why successful countries have separation of religion and state. So laws are written on what society needs not what religion dictates. And one of the things society needs is a free market, excluding 10% of the population from that market is not a free market.

So why didn't you just say no that you do not understand what Communism is, and you have no what reasonable rationale you had for bringing it up in the first place, instead of launching into personal attacks.The term Cultural Marxism is one of those words used almost exclusively by wingnuts. Pat Buchanan must be one of your heroes.You really shoul understand what you are talking about before you start.

You miss my point though. You are saying that people have the right to sin - fair enough.However, you are also saying that you want Christians to have the right to refuse service if it celebrates a sin.By providing a cake to a glutton, however, you are facilitating a sin - you are enabling that sin. And by the same measure, by taking out a loan, a Christian is facilitating - indeed actively participating in the actual commission of a sin.These are on the face of it, demonstrably more egregious acts of sin-encouragement than baking a cake, for use in part of a ceremony, which celebrates a partnership, which includes elements of behaviour, which you hold sinful.And yet no-one has an issue of conscience in relation to facilitating gluttony or usury.You say the sin of homosexuality isn't special, but you must be blind not to see that the reaction of some fundamentalists to it is extremely special.

agreed, and I don't think anyone would like it if this were applied to other scenarios, such as the selling food to the glutton or ... guns ... because selling a product is not participating in what that product is used for: If we wanted to take it to the most reductionist ridiculous level we would ask: does the person who sells shoes to a murderer participate in murder?So when you glean out all these other applications of the purported reasons for the law what are you left with?Prejudice. Pure and simple prejudice.Now you might argue that it is not the product so much as it is knowledge of what it is going to be used for: the shoes aren't (normally) being used as a murder weapon (although they can be thrown at presidents), and guns can be used for other purposes. The seller doesn't necessarily know it is going to be used for murder ... unless the purchaser tells him.If the purchaser tells the gun seller that he is going to "murder his boss" then the seller has a clear cause to refuse to sell the gun -- and he has cause to notify the police.But if the purchaser tells the shoe seller that he is going to "murder his boss" then the seller does not have a clear cause to refuse to sell the shoes -- but still has cause to notify the police.Likewise if the purchaser of a cake tells the cake seller that he is going to "murder his boss" then the seller does not have a clear cause to refuse to sell the cake -- but still has cause to notify the police.You can replace "murder his boss" with "rob a store" or "kill his neighbors cat" with the same results.In these cases the seller has knowledge that the gun purchaser is going to use the gun to commit a crime, and thus he has a public safety cause and a cause not to aid and abet a crime for refusal of service.Public safety is not involved with selling shoes or cakes; aiding and abetting a crime is not involved with selling shoes or cakes.Now posit that the announced purpose is "to celebrate a gay wedding" in a state where gay marriage is legal:Does the gun seller refuse to sell the gun (to be used to shoot blanks in the air at the reception after the wedding is completed)?Does the shoe salesman refuse to sell the shoes (to dance at the reception after the wedding is completed)?Does the cake salesman refuse to sell the cake (to be cut at the reception after the wedding is completed)?Enjoy

I understand that the language can be ambiguous so that "supporting" sin can mean "enabling" sin in some contexts, but that is not how I used the term "support." "Enabling" or "facilitating" sin is not what I'm talking about.A bakery that refuses to provide a service for a gay wedding usually directs the customer to another bakery that would provide it, thus "enabling" the sin. Enabling sin is simply not what I'm talking about. In fact in too many cases a concern about someone else's sin is simply nosiness and an interference with their personal liberty. I might refuse to sell cigarettes because I don't want to contribute to a person's health problems, but it isn't my business to try to keep them from getting cigarettes somewhere else.Same with homosexuality, it's not the Christian's business to tell them how to live. But it IS the Christian's business not to participate personally in the sin and it is disobedience to God in supporting the general idea of gay weddings that the Christian is refusing, not the right of homosexuals to live as they desire as long as they don't demand that I join in their sin. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.