Support Gay Marriage Cakes

[PaulSacramento]

Rick addressed your red herring Daniel.

[Philip]

Noooooooooo, there's no agenda to hurt Christians. Look what happened to the bakers:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/ ... -cake.html

[melanie]

Dan, I get what you're saying
The accusations of trolling ect is uncalled for.
What you hold is a difference of opinion, it's not a popular opinion and one that is often misconstrued and misunderstood.
But it is a valid and integral belief. I do understand that others disagree, well within their rights but to question character based upon such is unfair. Kudos to you for your composure.
I did watch the videos and in particular the first one and I was quite compelled. What a great guy!!
Emotive music, emotive language and no doubt a stand up guy that supported the homeless, the drunks and those with obvious life issues. This fact was used to reiterate his moral standing.
And I'm not doubting that be is a caring, moral guy.
Although I do question the narrative and angle of the video.
It was purely reflective of the case at hand.
He only makes cakes for noble, God fearing Christians??
Period?

There was a beautiful angle taken of compassion for the broken. An understanding of addiction and less than perfect relationships. Not disdain but a true, reflective compassion.
To do so in one regard does not make it okay to neglect it in the next regard. The emotivness of embracing the neglected does not excuse exclusion in the next breathe.
It comes down to an individual ideal of what is okay.
And while that may be alright in a personal sense it does not equate to what is okay in business. It just doesn't work that way and neither should it.
There is a reason why the law dictates against such because of the Pandora's box that would open if it didn't.
As a business owner I don't have the right to decide who I serve or accomadate based on my religious beliefs. If it did then a very blurry line could exist.
Everyone is entitled to customer service.
The drunk, the homeless and the homosexual.
The Nazi isn't entitled because the law dictates that hate affiliations are not entitiled to the same privilege.
Religious persuasions are not mandated the same. And thank goodness they aren't! Could you imagine if they were??
Single mothers, divorcees, Catholics, Muslims, Aboriginals, Jews, ect could be under the same logic and denied service.
That is why laws exists to protect against discrimination.
A personal ideal should never be an excuse for denial of basic customer service. Unless it's an illegal matter then the law exists to protect.
We manage what is allowable within the basis of legality.
Christians don't have the legal right to mandate our personal beliefs onto the greater public. We are free to believe what we like but not to make others live by own standards.

[RickD]

Is there an epidemic in Southeast Australia, which causes people to avoid the facts?

For the millionth time, nobody was refused service because they were gay!

[Kurieuo]

I did watch the videos and in particular the first one and I was quite compelled. What a great guy!!
Emotive music, emotive language and no doubt a stand up guy that supported the homeless, the drunks and those with obvious life issues. This fact was used to reiterate his moral standing.
And I'm not doubting that be is a caring, moral guy.
Although I do question the narrative and angle of the video.
It was purely reflective of the case at hand.
He only makes cakes for noble, God fearing Christians??
Period?

If you got that from the first video, then I think we watched different videos.
And sorry, but Dan was trolling imo.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Dan, I get what you're saying
The accusations of trolling ect is uncalled for.
What you hold is a difference of opinion, it's not a popular opinion and one that is often misconstrued and misunderstood.
But it is a valid and integral belief. I do understand that others disagree, well within their rights but to question character based upon such is unfair. Kudos to you for your composure.
I did watch the videos and in particular the first one and I was quite compelled. What a great guy!!
Emotive music, emotive language and no doubt a stand up guy that supported the homeless, the drunks and those with obvious life issues. This fact was used to reiterate his moral standing.
And I'm not doubting that be is a caring, moral guy.
Although I do question the narrative and angle of the video.
It was purely reflective of the case at hand.
He only makes cakes for noble, God fearing Christians??
Period?

There was a beautiful angle taken of compassion for the broken. An understanding of addiction and less than perfect relationships. Not disdain but a true, reflective compassion.
To do so in one regard does not make it okay to neglect it in the next regard. The emotivness of embracing the neglected does not excuse exclusion in the next breathe.
It comes down to an individual ideal of what is okay.
And while that may be alright in a personal sense it does not equate to what is okay in business. It just doesn't work that way and neither should it.
There is a reason why the law dictates against such because of the Pandora's box that would open if it didn't.
As a business owner I don't have the right to decide who I serve or accomadate based on my religious beliefs. If it did then a very blurry line could exist.
Everyone is entitled to customer service.
The drunk, the homeless and the homosexual.
The Nazi isn't entitled because the law dictates that hate affiliations are not entitiled to the same privilege.
Religious persuasions are not mandated the same. And thank goodness they aren't! Could you imagine if they were??
Single mothers, divorcees, Catholics, Muslims, Aboriginals, Jews, ect could be under the same logic and denied service.
That is why laws exists to protect against discrimination.
A personal ideal should never be an excuse for denial of basic customer service. Unless it's an illegal matter then the law exists to protect.
We manage what is allowable within the basis of legality.
Christians don't have the legal right to mandate our personal beliefs onto the greater public. We are free to believe what we like but not to make others live by own standards.

Thank you Mel, I don't really care if they call me a troll, it has no effect on me and just shows the weakness of their position that they have to resort to such name calling.

The thing they don't get is that discriminating against the message is actually discriminating against the people, it doesn't matter who buys it or if they discriminate against other ideologies, holidays, religions or whatever, the fact is that they are discriminating against gay people through the discrimination of not selling a wedding cake with a gay wedding message. Neo highlighted the point quite well that if every shop was a "Christian" shop then gay people would not be able to find service for a cake for their wedding anywhere, just like what happens to Christian people in the country that Neo is from. Discriminating against people for no good reason is illegal and rightly so, if you don't like the law, maybe these people should move to a country that is more discriminatory.

[Philip]

Daniel: The thing they don't get is that discriminating against the message is actually discriminating against the people, it doesn't matter who buys it or if they discriminate against other ideologies, holidays, religions or whatever, the fact is that they are discriminating against gay people through the discrimination of not selling a wedding cake with a gay wedding message.

But the sad thing is that Dan can't seem to see there are two sides to that coin. And forcing someone to join in to support a message they abhor is also discrimination - which he doesn't seem terribly upset about. Just wait until he's forced to accomodate a message or belief he despises. People that think the only way that they can assert their views is to resort to courts and the legal system - especially when it's about a denial of something that isn't critical to their well-being or safety - are truly pathetic. As the ONLY rights such people typically care about are their own.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I do see the other side of the coin and I do see how it does discriminate against a persons rights to believe as they wish. Where we disagree is when we can and can't discriminate. You cannot discriminate against someone because of their race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, their sex (male or female), their religious beliefs, so and and so forth. Your rights end when you choose to discriminate against someone else for no good reason other than the fact you just don't like who they are or what they represent according to your own personal convictions, at this point you have chosen to forfeit your rights. You are not being asked to celebrate anything, you are not condoning anything, you are providing a service and that's it, the exact same service you would provide a hetero couple or even a gay couple buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding. When you open a business you agree to uphold the law, the same way a paramedic chooses to uphold the oath he has taken, regardless of what he personally believes in certain incidences, if you choose to break the law then you should be held accountable.

You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

[Kurieuo]

You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Just like this guy, right?

• Longtime Australian pro-life activist Graham Preston was ordered Wednesday to pay a $3,000 fine as the first person convicted under 2013 laws enacted in Tasmania that prohibit protests within 150 meters of an abortion center.
  ....
  In Preston’s case, Rheinberger said he came to Tasmania with the express purpose of challenging the state’s laws. She also pointed to his previous convictions in her decision to levy the fine.
  
  “I don't intend to pay as I do not believe we have acted wrongly,” Preston said in an email to supporters.
  
  Preston carries one sign near an abortion facility with “Everyone has the right to life, Article 3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights” on the front and “Every child has the right to life, Article 6 Convention on the Rights of the Child” on the back. A second sign displayed the image of an unborn baby at eight weeks from conception.

[Danieltwotwenty]

You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Just like this guy, right?

• Longtime Australian pro-life activist Graham Preston was ordered Wednesday to pay a $3,000 fine as the first person convicted under 2013 laws enacted in Tasmania that prohibit protests within 150 meters of an abortion center.
  ....
  In Preston’s case, Rheinberger said he came to Tasmania with the express purpose of challenging the state’s laws. She also pointed to his previous convictions in her decision to levy the fine.
  
  “I don't intend to pay as I do not believe we have acted wrongly,” Preston said in an email to supporters.
  
  Preston carries one sign near an abortion facility with “Everyone has the right to life, Article 3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights” on the front and “Every child has the right to life, Article 6 Convention on the Rights of the Child” on the back. A second sign displayed the image of an unborn baby at eight weeks from conception.

Separate issue, but I think the child's right to life outweighs anything unless the mothers life is at risk or there is no life in there, however you can protest without breaking the law, there are reasons for this law, as not all abortions are a violation of human rights and as such demonstrating outside a clinic can have a negative emotional impact on an individual that requires this procedure, so I think that the law is appropriate.

For example my friends sister who is a strong Christian woman became pregnant, however scans of the child revealed that the child had no brain, just an empty space where the brain should have been. There was zero chance the baby would survive outside the womb and there was significant risk to the mother if the pregnancy continued. She had to have the child removed at an abortion clinic, now imagine how she must have been feeling and imagine if she was met with protesters shouting at her and calling her a murderer or holding signs that said such things. It would have been immensely more traumatic than what she had already been through, I believe this law exists for a very good reason and this person was rightfully prosecuted.

I wish that abortions never happen, but they do and in some circumstances they are medically necessary.

[Kurieuo]

It is a separate issue, but Graham apparently broke the law so your logic still seems to largely apply in your following words:

You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

[RickD]

dan wrote:
For example my friends sister who is a strong Christian woman became pregnant, however scans of the child revealed that the child had no brain, just an empty space where the brain should have been. There was zero chance the baby would survive outside the womb...

Zero chance? You've survived into your thirties without a brain.

[Kurieuo]

RickD, please read the board guidelines.

[Danieltwotwenty]

It is a separate issue, but Graham apparently broke the law so your logic still seems to largely apply in your following words:

You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Yes what he is doing is sinful for the reasons I have already explained through the example of my friends sister, but if you require me to explain it more clearly for you I will.

Through his illegal protest he is causing undue harm to others that get caught in the cross fire, the end does not justify the means, period.

[RickD]