Ariz. gov. vetoes religious rights bill

[InTheLight]

Muslims object to doing things for reliogious reason, also Jews, why not us also then?

So now you are in support of Sharia Law? Rabbinical law? Do you see the slippery slope and backlash the AZ law could create?

Freedom of religion allows us to decide wether to do business or not, correct?

Not necessarily, It can, but need not. Freedom of conscience does, though.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are absolutely correct. This just flies in the face of understanding that we are still in the world. If businesses decided that they no longer wanted to do business with churches or evangelicals because of our stances, would we view the bill the same way?

If your favorite restaurant put up a sign saying "we no longer serve evangelical Christians because of how they treat some of our other customers" what would we think?

Again, the bill didi NOT say that we can refuse dinner to gays, but that we can refuse to open our building to be used for their wedding!

 

[Yeshua1]

So now you are in support of Sharia Law? Rabbinical law? Do you see the slippery slope and backlash the AZ law could create?



Not necessarily, It can, but need not. Freedom of conscience does, though.

Are Muslims forced to cater jewish weddings?

Do the KK get forced to publish NAACP materials on their printing presses?

 

[InTheLight]

Are Muslims forced to cater jewish weddings?

I doubt it. I imagine they would simply refuse to cater the wedding. WHICH IS WHAT THESE OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DONE. No reasoning need be given.

Do the KK get forced to publish NAACP materials on their printing presses?

No, but they can force cities to allow them to march and hold rallies in the streets.

 

[Zaac]

So you do justify homosexuality then still?

Man go on somewhere with your lies and stick to the subject of THIS thread. :laugh:

 

[annsni]

That isn't true. Anyone can refuse service to anyone, it's been part of the law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ever see one of these signs?

That's all you have to do. The bakery, the photographer, and anyone else who has been sued by gays because they were refused services made the mistake of telling them it was because there were gay. That's begging for a lawsuit. And they got one.

I stand by my previous comments. We don't want to be accused, as Christians, of codifying discrimination, and that's what this bill and the one Kansas voted down last week would have done. We already have the right to refuse service. We just don't want to say why. Give them a couple names and move on. We aren't going to convince them of the wrongness of their lifestyle, and by saying, "I'm a Christian and your lifestyle goes against my religious beliefs," you get what you ask for.

This debate is getting ridiculous. Supporting Jim Crow laws against gays?? And what does that make us? Certainly not "good witnesses for Christ," not even close.

But think through this practically: A guy comes in and asks for you to make a wedding cake for him. He is alone so you say "Sure!" and you pull out the form. As you're planning the cake, he tells you that he wants a topper with two men on it. Now you need to decide. Do you continue working with this man, knowing now that the cake will be for a gay wedding or do you say, "I'm sorry but I can't provide you a cake." If you decide to not provide the cake, it's clear why you can't - because you were fine with providing the cake just a few minutes ago.

Yes, you can choose to not serve anyone but they also now have the right to bring you to court. Even if you didn't say a word, it will come out in court that you chose to not provide the service specifically because it was a gay wedding. Now you're toast.

 

[Zaac]

Again, the bill didi NOT say that we can refuse dinner to gays, but that we can refuse to open our building to be used for their wedding!

Making controversy for the sake of controversy. Use of our buildings is already limited to church members.

 

[Zaac]

Muslims object to doing things for reliogious reason, also Jews, why not us also then?

Freedom of religion allows us to decide wether to do business or not, correct?

So again, if we've already got this freedom, what's the point of an additional law other than to stir the pot against this one group?

 

[Zaac]

But think through this practically: A guy comes in and asks for you to make a wedding cake for him. He is alone so you say "Sure!" and you pull out the form. As you're planning the cake, he tells you that he wants a topper with two men on it. Now you need to decide. Do you continue working with this man, knowing now that the cake will be for a gay wedding or do you say, "I'm sorry but I can't provide you a cake." If you decide to not provide the cake, it's clear why you can't - because you were fine with providing the cake just a few minutes ago.

Yes, you can choose to not serve anyone but they also now have the right to bring you to court. Even if you didn't say a word, it will come out in court that you chose to not provide the service specifically because it was a gay wedding. Now you're toast.

I still don't see the big deal for not selling a cake. When Jesus fed the four and five thousand, for sure there were some there still in unforgiven sin as a number was added to the Church that day. Was Jesus feeding these people an endorsement of their sin?

He witnessed Himself by loving those people where they were.

Give the folks the cake and love on them. Open rather than slam shut the door for softening their hearts.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But think through this practically: A guy comes in and asks for you to make a wedding cake for him. He is alone so you say "Sure!" and you pull out the form. As you're planning the cake, he tells you that he wants a topper with two men on it. Now you need to decide. Do you continue working with this man, knowing now that the cake will be for a gay wedding or do you say, "I'm sorry but I can't provide you a cake." If you decide to not provide the cake, it's clear why you can't - because you were fine with providing the cake just a few minutes ago.

Practically, yes. But the law doesn't look at the practical. The law looks at the event through the lens of the law. You didn't said, "It's because you're gay." That is the key in court. If he's asked, "Did he tell you he couldn't bake the cake because you're gay," he has to respond, "No." And if you've got the sign up in your shop, that's all that need be done. Cases of this nature have been upheld by U.S. courts for nearly 50 years.

It means people have to change the way they proceed to the point of sale, too. I'm not sure I've ever been told "Sure!" right off the bat. How does the service provider know I'm not about to ask him for "a cake" the size and shape of an Abrams tank, for the convention in town next week that I'm planning the food and entertainment for? He has to ask questions, and he may not be prepared to bake a cake the size and shape of an Abrams tank.

The baker should ask, "what kind of event, where, etc?" This gives him/her any number of reasons to turn down the business. No one just jumps in with "Sure!" Not if they're smart. That simple little word is a commitment. No one should be committing to anything until they know what the job is.

I've got a small home building business on the side. It's something I did right out of the military, working for my ex-father-in-law and then going out on my own. I love the business. I like the smell of wood, the process of turning a hole in the ground into a house. So I've kept my hand in. It paid for my Masters.

When someone comes to me asking me to build for them, I want to see their plans, if they have any. It may not be where I want to build, it may not be the style I want to build, it may be I will find out, in talking to them, that they are one of those impossible customers that all home builders detest, and I'm comfortable enough to turn down a job if I think it's going to be a pain in my gluteus maximus. So I ask questions, I want concepts, I pick their brain, and in the end, for any reason, I can say "No, I don't think I can help you." I give them the name of a couple other builders, and that's the end of it. I could do the same -- though I've never been presented with the situation -- if it was a gay couple. No, I wouldn't have a problem building for a gay couple, particularly since the close working partnership of a builder and a buyer gives me opportunity to show them love and tolerance so they come away with a much better impression about Christians. But using my approach, I still don't have to accept the job. Maybe I see they are militant, and don't want to hear what a Christian has to say. I can say "No," and no one's feelings are hurt.

If bakers, photographers, etc., aren't doing business that way, then they get what they deserve. No one should say "Sure!" right off the bat. Get information. Then decide whether you want the job. And if you do it right, and have the sign up, no one can sue.

Again, the laws proposed in Arizona and Kansas were the worst sort of Jim Crow laws against gays. And we, as Christian, were going to put ourselves out front as endorsing them. Terrible idea. Terrible witness. Not something we want, as the body of Christ, to do.

 

[Zaac]

Practically, yes. But the law doesn't look at the practical. The law looks at the event through the lens of the law. You didn't said, "It's because you're gay." That is the key in court. If he's asked, "Did he tell you he couldn't bake the cake because you're gay," he has to respond, "No." And if you've got the sign up in your shop, that's all that need be done. Cases of this nature have been upheld by U.S. courts for nearly 50 years.

It means people have to change the way they proceed to the point of sale, too. I'm not sure I've ever been told "Sure!" right off the bat. How does the service provider know I'm not about to ask him for "a cake" the size and shape of an Abrams tank, for the convention in town next week that I'm planning the food and entertainment for? He has to ask questions, and he may not be prepared to bake a cake the size and shape of an Abrams tank.

The baker should ask, "what kind of event, where, etc?" This gives him/her any number of reasons to turn down the business. No one just jumps in with "Sure!" Not if they're smart. That simple little word is a commitment. No one should be committing to anything until they know what the job is.

I've got a small home building business on the side. It's something I did right out of the military, working for my ex-father-in-law and then going out on my own. I love the business. I like the smell of wood, the process of turning a hole in the ground into a house. So I've kept my hand in. It paid for my Masters.

When someone comes to me asking me to build for them, I want to see their plans, if they have any. It may not be where I want to build, it may not be the style I want to build, it may be I will find out, in talking to them, that they are one of those impossible customers that all home builders detest, and I'm comfortable enough to turn down a job if I think it's going to be a pain in my gluteus maximus. So I ask questions, I want concepts, I pick their brain, and in the end, for any reason, I can say "No, I don't think I can help you." I give them the name of a couple other builders, and that's the end of it. I could do the same -- though I've never been presented with the situation -- if it was a gay couple. No, I wouldn't have a problem building for a gay couple, particularly since the close working partnership of a builder and a buyer gives me opportunity to show them love and tolerance so they come away with a much better impression about Christians. But using my approach, I still don't have to accept the job. Maybe I see they are militant, and don't want to hear what a Christian has to say. I can say "No," and no one's feelings are hurt.

If bakers, photographers, etc., aren't doing business that way, then they get what they deserve. No one should say "Sure!" right off the bat. Get information. Then decide whether you want the job. And if you do it right, and have the sign up, no one can sue.

Again, the laws proposed in Arizona and Kansas were the worst sort of Jim Crow laws against gays. And we, as Christian, were going to put ourselves out front as endorsing them. Terrible idea. Terrible witness. Not something we want, as the body of Christ, to do.

I think you pretty much covered everything. Excellent post!!!:applause:

 

[InTheLight]

Excellent answer TND.

I can appreciate the difference between baking a cake and having someone pick it up vs. baking the cake, decorating the cake table, and then standing there and serving the cake to the guests at a gay wedding.

I honestly don't see where merely baking a cake (which happens to be for a gay wedding) and having someone pick it up would cause problems for anyone. If it does, I think that person has a streak of legalistic Christianity in them.

Going to the reception and serving the cake might be problematic, but as Zaac and TND have said, it would be a wonderful opportunity to witness and shatter stereotypes of Christians. Think of the possibilities instead of the negatives.

 

[annsni]

I still don't see the big deal for not selling a cake. When Jesus fed the four and five thousand, for sure there were some there still in unforgiven sin as a number was added to the Church that day. Was Jesus feeding these people an endorsement of their sin?

He witnessed Himself by loving those people where they were.

Give the folks the cake and love on them. Open rather than slam shut the door for softening their hearts.

But what if it's against my deeply held religious beliefs - that I believe I would be sinning by providing this cake for this celebration?

Jesus fed people who were sitting listening to Him. He didn't provide food knowing that it would be offered to the temple gods, did He?

 

[InTheLight]

But what if it's against my deeply held religious beliefs - that I believe I would be sinning by providing this cake for this celebration?

In this instance you would know about the gay wedding. But if you were a baker, surely you must admit that you are providing food for gay people on a practically daily basis, but you don't necessarily know it. In these instances you would also be sinning. What do you do then?

Or suppose after years of selling baked goods to a loyal customer you learn they are gay. Are you going to quit selling to them?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But what if it's against my deeply held religious beliefs - that I believe I would be sinning by providing this cake for this celebration?

Put up a sign in your shop, "We reserve our right to refuse service to anyone," then ask questions before saying "Sure!" to anything or anyone. How hard is that?

 

[Zaac]

But what if it's against my deeply held religious beliefs - that I believe I would be sinning by providing this cake for this celebration?

That's a cop out. We tend to create crises when they are convenient. Scripture doesn't make it a problem. WE do. Let them eat cake!!!( SOmebody was bound to say it!)

Jesus fed people who were sitting listening to Him. He didn't provide food knowing that it would be offered to the temple gods, did He?

He provided food to folks who had a need and witnessed Himself in doing so. Provide a cake for someone who has a need and witness for Christ in doing so.

He would be baking a cake. Not endorsing two gay people and what they do. Now a large part of the evangelical church ENDORSED Mitt Romney for President.

Endorsing a person and their values is completely different from running a business and providing goods and services that are neutral in endorsing anything. Yet a lot of folks in the church didn't seem to have any problem endorsing a man who was 100% against Jesus Christ.

So why the problem with selling someone a good isn't endorsing anything? I think TND put it well with the housebuilding example. Building a house for a gay couple would not be an endorsement of their sin. It would be an endorsement of his business.

If he said I'm gonna build this house for this gay couple and I agree with their homosexual offense, then that's an endorsement. Otherwise he's just selling a house.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think you did a good job making your point, until you decided to people up (once again) over Mitt Romney. This has nothing to do with him, or your judgement of those that voted for him.

 

[Zaac]

In this instance you would know about the gay wedding. But if you were a baker, surely you must admit that you are providing food for gay people on a practically daily basis, but you don't necessarily know it. In these instances you would also be sinning. What do you do then?

And the thing is that food is also being provided for every brand of sinner imaginable. You'd have to remove yourself from the world to not sell anything to a sinner. I think such manufactured religious beliefs run contrary to what Christ preached because it's impossible to have such a religious belief and ever sell anything to a nonsinner. So what's really at work when people say a religious belief keeps them from selling something to you?

Religious beliefs aren't necesarrily BIBLICAL.

Or suppose after years of selling baked goods to a loyal customer you learn they are gay. Are you going to quit selling to them?

Precisely. Treat people the way you want to be treated. I'm selling a good. If they want to talk about Jesus, we can do that too. But it reflects very poorly on the Body of Christ that of ALL things we, who are supposed to understand the nature of sin and fallingness, would discriminate against someone because they are sinners.

 

[Zaac]

I think you did a good job making your point, until you decided to people up (once again) over Mitt Romney. This has nothing to do with him, or your judgement of those that voted for him.

My point with Mitt Romney was that a lot of folks in the church endorsed him, and thus his belief system got attached to that.

Selling goods to someone does not endorse that person's beliefs. It's just selling goods.

It is this type of behavior from us that causes those who are lost to not want to listen. We present ourselves in a hypocritical manner and don't even realize it.

 

[Yeshua1]

What part of "I can't do it," do you not understand? That's all that needs be said, and we already have the right to say that. Give them a couple names of other bakers, photographers, or whatever, and move on.

The govt is now saying that we cannot do that, for if they ask us to cater for them, we HAVE to do that!