sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Everything you say will come true, because the bible says it will. God said, in the end he would cut the days short, for even the very elect would be deceived.
The Bible says God will end the world because you are potentially gay and might need a gay wedding cake one day?
Wow, that's very specific.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
And yes, much of it is a choice
So, as a potential gay man, how would you feel about being discriminated against due to your potential gayness?
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Actually they were doing them a favor--the fact that they served them graciously was favor enough.
Ah, so if they WERE doing them a favor (which we all they they weren't), they were simply hypocrites where were willing to sacrifice morals for money when it suited them?
Yeah, that doesn't deserve protection and doesn't help your case.
The law doesn't say you have to be nice when dealing with customers.
Correct and utterly irrelevant in every way.
But either way, this couple did what was best for the agenda--they cried "victim" and sued. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!
The world never gets better without those wronged doing something about it.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
I don't see this as a civil rights issue, more like a moral wrong issue. The only real hate in this situation is what was exhibited by the gay couple demanding this Baker cater a function that totally goes against his conscience.
Being gay isn't a choice, being black isn't a choice. How is it NOT a civil rights issue? How is it not rooted in hate when the basis for the discrimination is a book that says to kill gay people?
Unless, of course, you think being gay IS a choice, which means all you need is to meet the right guy.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
One involves simple race, and the other involves action. If the Baker had refused to serve gay people, then it would be a closed case, but this Baker did not refuse to serve the people, it has already been proven that they were served graciously all along, however they did not want to be a part of a ceremony that went totally against their moral conscience.
First, it's not gracious to accept money in exchange for a service.They weren't doing the gay couple a favor. They were happy to do it, the reason they were in business in the first place to to accept money for weddings.
Your argument falls flat, could they also decide to not serve a wedding of a mix-heritage couple? If not, why not? How is that different? What if the couple getting married were Hindu or Muslim or JW?
How is it moral to serve some occasions for a gay couple (who you know are doing acts you don't approve of) vs. getting marries, where those same acts will occur?
If being black isn't a choice and being gay isn't a choice, what is the difference?
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
One small, but very vocal sector of society is causing all this ruckus. It is one thing to to ensure equal treatment of people, but to elevate one segment of society to an untouchable class is totally agregious.
Or egregious, as the case may be. Regardless, rights for all means ALL. Hypocritical faux religiosity doesn't give people the right to accept public infrastructure and support and then arbitrarily decide to which part of the public they serve.
The only people who are sued are born again bible believing christians.
The issue at stake in the cake bakery is not the fact that they refused to serve gays, it is they refused to participate in a service that goes against their moral conscience. There are some businesses (fewer nowadays) that aren't willing to sacrifice their convictions for a quick buck, and this baker was one of them.
Sure they are, because they don't actually believe the Bible, they believe the parts that already agrees with them. Until they refuse to serve fornicators, people that follow another religion or start avoiding shellfish and pork, well, they don't REALLY follow the Bible and don't get to decide to make up rules it never touches on, for instance, it never says "thou shalt be free to take the icky gay money except for when it's a wedding".
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Not present, couldn't be found ... He/she/it ...
Ah, so not present like a student absent from class, existing, possibly with naughty bits implying a gender, then?
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
I agree with you. I was playing the devil's advocate here. But fact is, millions of people assign spirit power to objects, animals, other people. To them, that deity is real.
So what? It's NOT real and I fail to see how that in any way helps your case of absentheism.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
By the way, who is "we"?
Everyone, including you.
