Quote# 133587

That’s funny- nightclubs and bars are allowed to bar members of the public and even toss them out using bouncers. And they are allowed to - required to- discriminate based on age. Health insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on all kinds of reasons. Theme parks are allowed to discriminate based on height. Airlines based on weight. Beauty contests based on beauty. The military likewise discriminates for various reasons. Universities discriminate against Asians.

In this case we have government discriminating against people based on their religion and government establishing religion of its own [liberal secularism] that it forces onto others by placing itself as the ultimate authority on what the religious beliefs and practices of business owners shall be: “She said, “the printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs’ independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives.”

Here the judge has left the confines of law to enter the confines of theology. She is, by asserting her own beliefs about what does and does not constitute a religion, establishing the Church of Judge Karen Mullins. She thinks religion is just going to church, singing hymns, and expressing beliefs, but not in actually PRACTICING those beliefs.

She is asserting that a religion may not define as sin anything the state or mere judge defines as permissible and the faithful must perform any act the state permits merely because another person requests it, putting the faith or lack thereof of a third party ahead of the faith of the business owner. Now, it’s one thing for a government to prohibit a religious practice deemed harmful to other individual’s inalienable rights [those rights upon which government is not allowed to infringe ] but quite another for a government to require the religious to commit a sin by active participation in or by facilitating others in sinning so others’ feelings won’t be hurt.

The judge is also failing to recognize that in some protestant churches, whatever vocation we find ourselves in is not merely a job but an act of faith done foremost for the glory of God. Some may, with clean consciences, decide that by doing excellent work for everyone they are witnessing, but the consciences of others just as cleanly may lead them to conclude they would be aiding others in sin and thus they refuse this work. The judge is putting her conscience ahead of all others.

She is forcing a provider of nonessential services to abandon their faith and join her newly fabricated cult or face persecution. She’s also defining what does not constitute a sin by declaring that anything government declares is legal cannot be a sin.

piasa, Free Republic 13 Comments [10/29/2017 3:49:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Kanna

If you have a business of serving the public, that sort of goes with the territory. Public is public. It isn't up to a service provider to approve or disapprove of one's customers. Let's use an example of discrimination: if you go to buy a pair of shoes and the sales clerk knows that you cheated on your husband or on your income tax, or knows that you perform anti-social acts such as burning leaves when your city ordinance prohibits it or blowing all the driveway snow out in the street so that it endangers others just for your convenience, or knows that you spread scurrilous and untrue rumors on Facebook, or ...oh, I dunno...maybe knows you discriminate against others in your printing business - would you like to spend half an hour trying on shoes then be told "I'm sorry, we don't do business with people like you"?

If you can't do your job with tolerance and integrity, you need to find some other line of work. Period.

10/29/2017 4:25:19 PM

Keith

"That’s funny- nightclubs and bars are allowed to bar members of the public and even toss them out using bouncers."
If they're drunk or being belligerent, sure. They can't bounce people for having the wrong color skin. So, not quite the 'discrimination' you're going for.

"And they are allowed to - required to- discriminate based on age."
As long as they treat all under-age citizens the same. If they let under-age whites drink while barring underage blacks, they're not allowed to do that.

"Health insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on all kinds of reasons."
Yeah, reasons. Reasons that will affect their profits. And aren't applied differently for different protected groups. They cannot supply insurance for, say, all white cancer patients, while denying Asians with cancer.

"Theme parks are allowed to discriminate based on height."
Now you're just fucking making shit up. Barring someone for being too short for the safety measures to work properly is not discriminating against them. They put the lines at the front of specific rides where the safety measures apply.
If they put a height line at the front gate, 'you must be THIS TALL to enter Giggle Galaxy,' the lawsuits would be fast and furious. And they'd be successful lawsuits, too.

"Airlines based on weight. Beauty contests based on beauty. The military likewise discriminates for various reasons."
Uh huh. Lying for Jesus is still lying, you know.

10/29/2017 5:06:42 PM

Bedhead

Someone doesn't understand sin is a Christian concept and thinks it applies to everyone because it applies to them. Get off your high horse, you ass, you and your religion aren't the only things that exist in this world.

10/29/2017 5:53:45 PM

rubber chicken

You seem to be defining your Religion by what it is in opposition to. Perhaps you should go back and re-read your big book of words.

10/29/2017 7:44:54 PM

Zinnia

There's a difference between "because clear, non-arbitrary standards" and "because unrealistic stereotypes". Too bad you can't tell the difference.

10/29/2017 8:11:38 PM

The Angry Dybbuk

She is forcing a provider of nonessential services to abandon their faith and join her newly fabricated cult or face persecution. She’s also defining what does not constitute a sin by declaring that anything government declares is legal cannot be a sin.


Wow - an OP that is complete bullshit throughout but manages to overtop even itself by the end.

Notes to the OP:

Access a dictionary. Among the words you don't understand are...

...religion
...secular
...discrimination
...(and, most especially) persecution.

Keep in whatever passes for your mind that the business license by which you legally operate, and the legal tender you accept in trade for your services, are both maintained by the government - a large tree with many branches, all of which ideally exist to nourish the people who water it through taxation. That government doesn't just serve a special subset of the population. It is not the gatekeeper designated to protect your feelings or to affirm your personal faith. The US First Amendment made it clear from the outset that the role of government does not involve either helping or harming citizens based on religion. (And no, secular humanism – whatever you think that extremely broad term means – is not a religion.

If your "faith" were worth even shit, you wouldn't cry and complain that the laws won't cater to your desire to disobey the very entity which has licensed you to do business. The Bible even expresses that people should heed the law of the land insofar as they're able. I find it impossible to believe that homosexual weddings are such a shock to your religious conscience that being “forced” to do your job is an imposition and yet you likely make cakes / print invitations (etc.) for divorcees, adulterers, and other persons deemed by your religion as being unfit to marry. But whereas you'd take the dirty lucre of a serial adulterer who keeps trading his wives in for younger models every decade or so...at least he isn't pledging his true devotion to one other man ‘til death parts them (‘cause THAT would be wrong).

Beyond that, being "forced" to print same-sex wedding invites or make cakes or cater such events isn’t persecution...not unless the government and the law demand you use your own damned blood for ink.

Know how I know you have never experienced persecution? Because you think that word is in any way related to this situation.

Now I suppose you'll need extra hands to help with the hordes of homosexuals descending on your business to demand service from you at gun-point...you human colostomy bag.

Setting aside all the other bullshit in the OP - including that WTF-weird claim universities discriminate against Asians - it's the histrionic abuse of the term "persecution" that pisses me off to no end.

No, you idiot, having to ply your trade for people you personally don't like is an everyday part of doing business for every single business owner in existence; it's not persecution.

Having to dig your own grave before being shot is persecution.

Being raped while soldiers torch your house is persecution.

Having the government declare that you, by virtue of your race, are only 3/5ths of a person is persecution.

Being denied a business license merely because you're Christian, mild as that is compared to the other examples, could rightly be called persecution.

If the government were to declare your religion illegal and punishable by anything from fines to penal servitude to execution - that is persecution.

What Christians in North Korea endure is persecution. What Jews endured under Soviet rule was persecution.

Not only could I go on with this, but I can describe, in detail, horrific acts and forms of cruelty that are beyond the pale - all, persecution.

But having, for example, to print invitations that read in part, "Adam X and Steve Y would like to invite you to a celebration of their union," is not persecution; it's your fucking job. Don't like it? Two choices (beyond simply quitting):

1) If you're going to discriminate by denying service to those classes of people forbidden to marry within your religion, then create a fucking questionnaire to ensure you're only serving people as perfect as you. (That should be good for business.)

2) Grow up.

10/29/2017 9:39:28 PM

Phil O'macedon

And if your deeply held religious beliefs include " I don't want to serve niggers.." that should be fine by your yardstick, no?

10/29/2017 10:09:11 PM

Malingspann

"it’s one thing for a government to prohibit a religious practice deemed harmful to other individual’s inalienable rights [those rights upon which government is not allowed to infringe ] but quite another for a government to require the religious to commit a sin by active participation in or by facilitating others in sinning so others’ feelings won’t be hurt."

"Some may, with clean consciences, decide that by doing excellent work for everyone they are witnessing, but the consciences of others just as cleanly may lead them to conclude they would be aiding others in sin and thus they refuse this work."

Examples of shoving your religion down the throats of others.

10/30/2017 3:15:35 AM

conscience

This fundie lacks all kinds of awareness and shows it.

10/30/2017 3:21:22 AM

Churchy LaFemme

So if I walk in to a printer and ask for invitations to be printed for the upcoming nuptials of Pat Jones and Leslie Smith, I'd better be prepared to prove their genders before the order is accepted? Birth certificates might not work, since one or both of them might be transgender.

The "faith of the business owner" is completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with how the business operates. You'd be incensed if a Muslim shop owner refused to serve women not wearing burqas, but it's perfectly acceptable for Christians to refuse to serve gays.

10/30/2017 5:28:30 AM

Hasher

For fuck's sake! Are we still on about this wedding cake? Surely the wedding has already happened. Let it go!

10/30/2017 5:51:34 AM



"People I hate are allowed to think they're actually entitled to being treated like humans! HORROR AND SCANDAL."

11/2/2017 1:48:28 PM

Anon-e-moose

Kim Il-Davis set the legal precedent. Also, fundie Christain bakers in Northern Ireland.

Ain't that a pisser, piasa?!

I suggest you crack open your Bible to Romans 13:1-5. Ain't your 'God' a pisser, eh piasa II...?!

Certainly pissing all over your bigotry chips. >:D

11/2/2017 4:27:15 PM

1 | top: comments page