Do you think LGBT is being forced on us?

[Philip]

I agree that, in a democracy, it doesn't make sense to deny rights equally to those who don't share spiritual beliefs, AS LONG AS those exercising whatever such "right" don't use them to hurt someone else who doesn't have the same moral conscience or convictions. Again, we're not living in a theocracy. How can I expect someone to respect my spiritual beliefs if I expect them to be forced upon someone who doesn't hold to mine? So, equal protection, as long as people can live out their individual religious beliefs with them hurting others. And this is the cause of much of the great backlash and anger.

Back to the "cake bake quake." If I, as a heterosexual and Christian, go to a gay baker and expect them to decorate a cake that says, "Joining this man to this woman, as God intended," and the gay baker refuses to put that on my cake, then that gay baker has every right to his or her conscience, and I should have to go elsewhere to get that cake decorated. No biggie - plenty of other bakers would accommodate me - just as many would with the inverse of the people and sensibilities involved. My inconvenience would not be a significant harm. And occasionally being inconvenienced is NOT an issue to launch a war over, or to address via legal means. If people not truly causing harm were allowed to provide a service - or not - based, situationally, upon their individual moral convictions, then this "it's gotta be my belief over your belief, or else" would greatly diminish. But whenever individual moral beliefs utilize the force of a law to achieve one belief OVER another's differing beliefs, unless true harm has been caused, then that is going to cause major friction and fracture society per the cultural/religious wars. Again, many businesses routinely don't offer ever single desired service to every client, because, situationally, it may not be deemed desirable for the business owner's interests. And so, no one thinks about FORCING through legal means, ever denied service. Get denied a service, go somewhere else.

I believe that if people were allowed to follow their conscience, without all of this compulsory legal stuff, then many of whatever belief would have more of a sensibility of "give and take," knowing NO one, of any moral sensibilities should always gets everything they want. That is why, as a Christian who absolutely is repulsed by gay marriage, I see no way around allowing it. Whenever people want acceptance of embracing of their beliefs (that oppose the beliefs of others), if they attempt this via the courts and forcing one's beliefs over others, A) that person's beliefs will never truly be ACCEPTED, and B) the anger that creates causes great potential harm to society. So, if depends what we mean whenever we consider that "something has been forced upon us." In a real democracy, everyone can't have it their way!

[edwardmurphy]

Back to the "cake bake quake." If I, as a heterosexual and Christian, go to a gay baker and expect them to decorate a cake that says, "Joining this man to this woman, as God intended," and the gay baker refuses to put that on my cake, then that gay baker has every right to his or her conscience, and I should have to go elsewhere to get that cake decorated. No biggie - plenty of other bakers would accommodate me - just as many would with the inverse of the people and sensibilities involved. My inconvenience would not be a significant harm. And occasionally being inconvenienced is NOT an issue to launch a war over, or to address via legal means.

In the case that's on its way to the Supreme Court there was no message on the cake. The couple simply asked a person who makes cakes for wedding receptions professionally to make them a cake for a wedding reception. I don't know how the courts would rule on the matter of slogans, but since slogans aren't part of the current case it's a red herring.

If people not truly causing harm were allowed to provide a service - or not - based, situationally, upon their individual moral convictions, then this "it's gotta be my belief over your belief, or else" would greatly diminish.

Spoken like someone who never has been and never will be turned away from a business because of his race, religion, or sexuality.

Seriously, Phil, I've been watching the Culture Wars long enough to know that the same people who see no reason for a gay person to be offended about being refused service would go completely bananas if they were refused service for being Christian.

I believe that if people were allowed to follow their conscience, without all of this compulsory legal stuff, then many of whatever belief would have more of a sensibility of "give and take," knowing NO one, of any moral sensibilities should always gets everything they want.

The "compulsory legal stuff" is there because it needs to be. Straight, white, Christian men have always gotten served in America - unless they were Irish, obviously - but other groups have had to fight, bleed, and sometimes die for that same consideration. The US has a long history of minority groups being denied rights. Over the years shop windows have been decorated with signs proclaiming things like Chinese Not Welcome, No Dogs or Indians, Hiring - Irish Need Not Apply, Whites Only, and so on. Those signs weren't taken down voluntarily. Long story short, you seem to be a principled Christian conservative who has a conscience to follow, but not everybody is. Sometimes it takes the full weight of the law to force people to recognize that their neighbors are people, too.

[RickD]

EdwardMurphy wrote:
Seriously, Phil, I've been watching the Culture Wars long enough to know that the same people who see no reason for a gay person to be offended about being refused service would go completely bananas if they were refused service for being Christian.

You're comparing bananas and apples.

The gay person wasn't denied service because he was gay. He was denied a specific product, because of the message. A gay "wedding" cake has a message inherent in it.

If I as a Christian, went to a cake shop owned by a gay man, and asked for a cake that said, "God hates [homosexuals]", and the owner refused to make the cake, am I being denied service because I'm Christian, or because of the message?

[edwardmurphy]

It's a cake for a celebration. What kind of celebration is not the baker's concern. And declining to serve them because they want a cake for their wedding reception is no different than declining to serve them because they're gay. It's something that can only happen to gay couples.

In a nutshell, if you're willing to provide a service to a straight couple but refuse to provide that exact same service to a gay couple then you are discriminating against them based on their sexuality.

Frankly, this recent insistence by conservative Christians that having some sort of indirect involvement in a gay activity is tantamount to endorsing said activity is beyond childish and asinine, and claiming that it's not discrimination is as dishonest as it gets.

[RickD]

It's a cake for a celebration. What kind of celebration is not the baker's concern. And declining to serve them because they want a cake for their wedding reception is no different than declining to serve them because they're gay. It's something that can only happen to gay couples.

In a nutshell, if you're willing to provide a service to a straight couple but refuse to provide that exact same service to a gay couple then you are discriminating against them based on their sexuality.

Frankly, this recent insistence by conservative Christians that having some sort of indirect involvement in a gay activity is tantamount to endorsing said activity is beyond childish and asinine, and claiming that it's not discrimination is as dishonest as it gets.

Of course, by definition, it's discrimination. By definition, discrimination is recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

The issue is if the government has the duty to prosecute or fine someone for refusing to perform a service, that's against his conscience.

To you ed, making a cake for a man and woman getting married, is the same as making a cake for a "marriage" of two people of the same sex. But to people who think that gay "marriage" is morally wrong, it's obviously not the same. Just because something is legal in the eyes of the state, that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable. How would you feel if a Christian doctor refused to perform an abortion, because it was against his conscience? Since abortion is legal, just like same-sex "marriage" is legal, should doctors be penalized by the state, if they refuse to perform abortions?

What if the doctor decided to perform an abortion because he was convinced that the mother's life was in danger. And then a teenage girl who got pregnant felt it was too much of an inconvenience to raise a child, wanted the same doctor to perform an abortion. Same service, as the first abortion, right? To hell with the doctor and his conscience, you'd say, right? That's discrimination!!!!

To an atheist who has no moral compass other than what he himself thinks is right and wrong, thinks gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage.
But to someone who believes gay "marriage" is morally wrong, he sees a difference.

And who are you, or the government, to make someone provide a service that goes against his conscience?

Who the hell are you Ed, to tell someone his conscience means squat?

Ed, I really hope that you are never put in a position that you have to decide between doing something against your conscience, or getting punished by the government, if you refuse.

[PaulSacramento]

It's a cake for a celebration. What kind of celebration is not the baker's concern. And declining to serve them because they want a cake for their wedding reception is no different than declining to serve them because they're gay. It's something that can only happen to gay couples.

In a nutshell, if you're willing to provide a service to a straight couple but refuse to provide that exact same service to a gay couple then you are discriminating against them based on their sexuality.

Frankly, this recent insistence by conservative Christians that having some sort of indirect involvement in a gay activity is tantamount to endorsing said activity is beyond childish and asinine, and claiming that it's not discrimination is as dishonest as it gets.

One can NOT discriminate against another because of their sexual orientation, right Ed?
Regardless of their sexual orientation?

[edwardmurphy]

Are you getting ready to connect homosexuality to pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality?

[Hortator]

Are you getting ready to connect homosexuality to pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality?

And if he does? What are you going to do about it, cry about how mean you think it is?

[edwardmurphy]

Wow, you're pretty salty today, little H. Please, have a care for my tender feelings.

If he makes those comparisons then he'll be wrong about beastiality and pedophilia. I'm not sure why I included polygamy in there. Polygamy actually belongs in the same category as heterosexuality or homosexuality, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting adult.

[PaulSacramento]

Are you getting ready to connect homosexuality to pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality?

Nope, getting ready to connect the issues with no taking your views to their logical conclusion because, you know, someone will.
See Communism and Atheistic regimes.
It doesn't matter if you won't take it that far Ed, because you are a good and conscientious person, it matters that someone WILL take that walk.

[PaulSacramento]

Wow, you're pretty salty today, little H. Please, have a care for my tender feelings.

If he makes those comparisons then he'll be wrong about beastiality and pedophilia. I'm not sure why I included polygamy in there. Polygamy actually belongs in the same category as heterosexuality or homosexuality, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting adult.

Is that your gauge? consenting adult?

[edwardmurphy]

For most things, yes.

[PaulSacramento]

For most things, yes.

That is rather vague...how does one define consenting adult then?
Who decides who and what is a consenting adult?

[edwardmurphy]

Last I checked we had legal definitions for both of those terms.

[RickD]

Last I checked we had legal definitions for both of those terms.

Like Paul said, that's pretty vague.

A general definition of "consenting adult" is:

someone who is legally old enough and is willing to take part in an activity, especially a sexual activity.

And here's the vagueness:

The lowest Age of Consent in the world is 11, in Nigeria. The age of consent is 12 in the Philippines and Angola, and 13 in Burkina Faso, Comoros, Niger, and Japan. Japan often stands out as the only developed country on the list of lowest ages of consent, but local prefecture statutes in most areas of the country raise the effective age to 16-18.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/highest-and-lowest

In the US:

The lowest state Age of Consent in the United States is 16. This is the most common age of consent, and is adopted by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

16?!?!

Most, almost all kids that age aren't mature enough, mentally and emotionally, for sex.