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

I don't participate in a murder by legitimately selling someone a gun which I regard as useful for self-protection. I would be guilty of participating in a murder, however, if I knew the gun was to be used for murder.

How is this different from selling a fat guy three scoops of Rock Road ice cream? You've been asked that question several times, and your response each time has failed the coherence test.

I think the incoherence is on the side of those who would prosecute a business for selling a fat guy ice cream but would also prosecute a business for NOT selling a wedding cake for a gay wedding. This is about the right to act on one's OWN conscience, not your conscience and not the state's conscience. Christian objection to gay marriage is firmly grounded in the Christian's Bible-taught conscience against disobeying God. Selling a fat guy ice cream is not MY business, it's his business. I might as well not sell him a cheeseburger for the same reason. It's not my business and God doesn't require it of me. YOU would,obviously, but God doesn't. Under some circumstances it could become my business, but as a general rule it isn't, whereas gay marriage is ALWAYS disobedience to God and ALWAYS my business -- in the contexts we are discussing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Exactly. And similarly, what your customer does with a wedding cake is also none of your business. It's the customer's business. The difference between the ice cream and the cake is simply that you feel the need to butt in where you don't belong in the case of the cake.

Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

​

― Robert A. Heinlein

Under this definition, butting one's nose into other peoples' business, when it is none of your business, would be a sin.To put it another way, you are not responsible for the actions of other people. But you are responsible for your own actions, and when you do things that hurt other people unnecessarily you are the one who is sinning.Let any real or imagined deities take care of their own affairs. If they are as powerful, all-knowing, etc. etc. as they are described to be they surely don't need your help.

NO. The difference between the ice cream and the wedding cake is that the cake is special-ordered for a specific wedding and the custom designer IS forced therefore to participate in that specific event. If the customer just picked a generic fancy cake out of the display case, THEN there would be no problem.And again you are trying to dictate that the baker follow YOUR conscience rather than his own. Some religious freedom.

And you too like so many here think you have the right to define another person's conscience.

No. Not at all. If a person cannot serve the public, and all that it means to be a business open to the public, because of their religious beliefs then they have every right to not be in that business. No one is forcing anyone to open their doors to the public for business.

And the ice cream is specially ordered to feed the gluttonous appetite of the sinner.

But you aren't addressing the bedrock of my point - which is why homosexuality raises objections which gluttony and usury don't.In no case is the Christian being invited to participate in what they see as the sin. The homosexual or the glutton is free to do as they wish in relation to homosexual sex or eating a load of pies.But I see no valid reason for a Christian baker to say "I won't bake a cake for your homosexual marriage, but I will sell a dozen cakes to that morbidly obese guy who's about to commit gluttony." If anything, the baker is supporting the gluttony more than the homosexual activity. How can you reasonably distinguish between the two, and say that it is only in relation to homosexuality that there's any issue of conscience ? In both cases the baker can ask the customer to go elsewhere, thereby enabling the sin - but in relation to gluttony, no-one ever does.How does this distinction work, which you're seeking to draw between supporting and enabling ?

That's not a difference. The ice cream was special ordered for immediate consumption by a glutton and by your definition you have agreed without force to participate in that specific act of consumption.You are correct in that I cannot dictate to you what your conscience says. But I can point out that your conscious explanation for your behavior is irrational.

Society has a right to define how another person can act on his conscience.

Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. We will not celebrate the travesty of a homosexual "marriage."

Yeah, I get that's what you think. What I don't get is why you aren't so fussed about other sins. Why is homosexuality so darned high on your outrage meter, compared to gluttony or usury or coveting thy neighbour's wife and stuff ? Why are there no fundamentalist rallies against the obese being able to celebrate their gluttony - in public, no less. Why no kids wearing "God hates userers" t-shirts ? Why no Christian demands for the banks to cease trading ? Why no Christian hotel owners demanding to see marriage certificates, before allowing lust-filled couples to rent a room ?In a thousand ways, on a thousand days, Christians the world over facilitate, support, encourage, enable and actively participate in what they see as sins. Why is it that the only thing that gets them so fired up, is a couple of dudes loving each other ? (A couple of attractive women is fine, if they do it on film).