09-04-2013, 12:07 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
09-04-2013, 12:20 AM
- Join Date
- May 2008
But if we're talking about people who truly have religious convictions against it, then I think people need to back off. People fought for gay rights with the promise that it wouldn't be forced upon others in any way.
Same thing for if a bakery didn't want to do a cake for a couple on their second marriage or a couple who was "unequally yoked." And why would you want certain people making your cake, anyway? If I was part of a group of people that the business didn't want to do business, then I wouldn't want to do business with them. You just got through saying that you live in a town full of people who would do business with you. Why not do business with them?
I live in a town where a doctor's office turned somebody away for service because they dressed up as the opposite gender. He had a thyroid problem which could have endangered his health, but these "Christians" turned him away. Well, he got a doctor with the office up the street. And then it's rumored that a person got fired for being gay at the Burger King years ago. One uphill battle I've been fighting the past year is the concept that the guaaaaays are going to force their way into our lives, teach it to our children, and cause people to marry/screw animals. This is already an uphill battle where I live without having to explain some people threatening some bakers.
09-04-2013, 12:24 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
It's not as if two lesbians walked in to get a birthday cake. Unless the bakery is run by Jehova Witnesses, it would certainly have supplied a birthday cake.
The owners were practicing their faith by turning down a cake for a ceremony in which they did not believe in the same way that the photographers were practicing their faith by turning down the opportunity to photograph a gay wedding. Those photographers may have photographed gay individuals and they might have even photographed a gay birthday party or two. Neither business refused to serve gay people strictly because they were gay. THAT would be discrimination.
But choosing not to make a cake or take photographs because the ceremony involved is against your moral principles is NOT discrimination. It is the free exercise of religion.
Theologically, making money photographing a ceremony that is against God's law is ill gotten gains. (Where your treasure is, your heart shall be.) Your time and energy should not be going towards supporting an institution you think is evil.
Let's take it one step further:
Suppose, for example, that some devil-worshiping cult wanted a photographer to take pictures of a black mass. Should these Christians be required by law to take these photos or else be sued? To a Christian, this is imperiling your very soul. Forcing Christians to do actions that go against everything they believe in or else be sued is denying them (and ultimately everyone else) their First Amendment rights.
09-04-2013, 10:10 AM
Several years ago, an illustration rep approached me to do a piece for PETA. I could've really used the money, but I talked it over with Mrs. O, and I turned down the commission. Now, by your logic, PETA should have been able to harrass and attack me until I knuckled under and did their bidding, or until I was out of business. This is the problem with your position. It embraces mob rule, so long as it's your mob making the rules. Using social conventions as the arbiter of right and wrong can backfire badly on you, since only a few years ago, it was socially unacceptable to even be closeted. The pendulum swings both ways, and a decade from now, you could find yourself on the other side of society's tolerance line, and the rights that you have denied to others today will be rights that you will have no claim on then.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|