Evidence for God from Science

dan wrote:

So you are saying that once someone enters into a contract that they give up their right to freedom?

Are you saying that people should have the freedom to allow another person to die, when it's in their power to help save the life? That's your argument?

What about a business that opens, do they not enter into a contract with the government to pay taxes, to uphold the law and conduct their business ethically; a part of which is to not discriminate against people.

No Dan. We all discriminate every day. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it's not illegal discrimination.

And again, if you're getting back to cake makers, they weren't discriminating against anyone. They discriminated against a thing. An idea, that they found went against their conscience. You're intelligent enough to see the distinction.

RickD wrote:Are you saying that people should have the freedom to allow another person to die, when it's in their power to help save the life? That's your argument?

No that is the opposite of what I am saying, I am saying that the doctor has to obey the law and has given up a portion of their freedom, just like the business does when it enters into a contract with the government. Paul's statement of true freedom is being able to say no is clearly wrong in reality.

No Dan. We all discriminate every day. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it's not illegal discrimination.

Correct we can legally discriminate and the cake shop is illegally discriminating.

And again, if you're getting back to cake makers, they weren't discriminating against anyone. They discriminated against a thing. An idea, that they found went against their conscience. You're intelligent enough to see the distinction.

This is again where we disagree, they are not discriminating against a thing, they are discriminating against a people and their sexual orientation.

If two white people came into the shop and wanted to buy a cake that said black people are awesome and the shop denied them that, then the shop would be discriminating based on racial grounds. The same way if a straight couple came in to buy a cake with a message saying something about a gay wedding, if the shop denies the making of the cake they are discriminating based on sexual orientation. Both of these cases are illegal according to the law which the cake shop entered into when they decided to do business in that particular country. They may very well sell a cake with no message on it to gay people, but that is besides the point, in that case they have decided to not discriminate.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Are you saying that people should have the freedom to allow another person to die, when it's in their power to help save the life? That's your argument?

No that is the opposite of what I am saying, I am saying that the doctor has to obey the law and has given up a portion of their freedom, just like the business does when it enters into a contract with the government. Paul's statement of true freedom is being able to say no is clearly wrong in reality.

No Dan. We all discriminate every day. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it's not illegal discrimination.

Correct we can legally discriminate and the cake shop is illegally discriminating.

And again, if you're getting back to cake makers, they weren't discriminating against anyone. They discriminated against a thing. An idea, that they found went against their conscience. You're intelligent enough to see the distinction.

This is again where we disagree, they are not discriminating against a thing, they are discriminating against a people and their sexual orientation.

If two white people came into the shop and wanted to buy a cake that said black people are awesome and the shop denied them that, then the shop would be discriminating based on racial grounds. The same way if a straight couple came in to buy a cake with a message saying something about a gay wedding, if the shop denies the making of the cake they are discriminating based on sexual orientation. Both of these cases are illegal according to the law which the cake shop entered into when they decided to do business in that particular country. They may very well sell a cake with no message on it to gay people, but that is besides the point, in that case they have decided to not discriminate.

Go back and read Neo's last post. He sees that your argument is wrong. The problem is that we don't disagree on facts. You disagree with something that never happened.

I'm done discussing something with someone who won't deal with the facts of what actually happened.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Are you saying that people should have the freedom to allow another person to die, when it's in their power to help save the life? That's your argument?

No that is the opposite of what I am saying, I am saying that the doctor has to obey the law and has given up a portion of their freedom, just like the business does when it enters into a contract with the government. Paul's statement of true freedom is being able to say no is clearly wrong in reality.

No Dan. We all discriminate every day. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it's not illegal discrimination.

Correct we can legally discriminate and the cake shop is illegally discriminating.

And again, if you're getting back to cake makers, they weren't discriminating against anyone. They discriminated against a thing. An idea, that they found went against their conscience. You're intelligent enough to see the distinction.

This is again where we disagree, they are not discriminating against a thing, they are discriminating against a people and their sexual orientation.

If two white people came into the shop and wanted to buy a cake that said black people are awesome and the shop denied them that, then the shop would be discriminating based on racial grounds. The same way if a straight couple came in to buy a cake with a message saying something about a gay wedding, if the shop denies the making of the cake they are discriminating based on sexual orientation. Both of these cases are illegal according to the law which the cake shop entered into when they decided to do business in that particular country. They may very well sell a cake with no message on it to gay people, but that is besides the point, in that case they have decided to not discriminate.

Go back and read Neo's last post. He sees that your argument is wrong. The problem is that we don't disagree on facts. You disagree with something that never happened.

I'm done discussing something with someone who won't deal with the facts of what actually happened.

Just because Neo sees something a certain way does not mean he is necessarily right.

So what are the facts then Rick, because every time you have explained them I have seen the same inconsistencies with them.

I am starting to think that people don't want to supply the facts in a clear and concise way.

Neo seemed to agree with what you were saying, until he watched the videos, and saw that there was no illegal discrimination on the Christians' part. After looking at the different cases, Neo realized that it was the Christians who were being persecuted.

dan wrote:
So what are the facts then Rick, because every time you have explained them I have seen the same inconsistencies with them.

The most important fact that you keep ignoring, is the fact that nobody in the cases listed, discriminated due to someone's sexual orientation.

If you watched the videos, it's painfully obvious.

You keep spouting off that it's wrong to discriminate in a business, against someone because they're gay. But you refuse to accept the reality of each situation.

I can't discuss something with someone who continually ignores facts, just to stick to some fallacious argument.

You're just wasting everyone's time.

dan wrote:
I am starting to think that people don't want to supply the facts in a clear and concise way.

Are you really that obtuse? Are you trolling to get people agitated?

Watch the videos. They are as clear as day.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

No Dan. We all discriminate every day. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it's not illegal discrimination.

Correct we can legally discriminate and the cake shop is illegally discriminating.

It depends on a case by case basis. Neo-X understood after watching the stories it was more a case of Christians being persecuted (however limited by comparison to having your house burnt down, being raped and killed).

I'm not sure how you continue to miss it Dan, except that you're simply trolling to try rile people here up and that isn't in funny but in extremely poor taste. Especially when you insult and say things like "Your rep is in the bin mate." (please don't call me "mate" when intentioned with disrespect)

Further, it is more your opinion such is illegal discrimination. Rather, what I see, are activists twisting laws to persecute those who believe "gay marriage" is a distortion of what marriage actually is. Both the cases Mrs K mentioned are being taken to the supreme court. So I wonder then, how is it you know what they did was actually illegal?

Seems you are presuming them guilty until proven innocent right, while the jury is really still out. It seems to me you just don't like them towing the line that marriage is actually a sacred divine design and gift that two people of the same sex cannot realistically enter into.

RickD wrote:Neo seemed to agree with what you were saying, until he watched the videos, and saw that there was no illegal discrimination on the Christians' part. After looking at the different cases, Neo realized that it was the Christians who were being persecuted.

dan wrote:
So what are the facts then Rick, because every time you have explained them I have seen the same inconsistencies with them.

The most important fact that you keep ignoring, is the fact that nobody in the cases listed, discriminated due to someone's sexual orientation.

If you watched the videos, it's painfully obvious.

You keep spouting off that it's wrong to discriminate in a business, against someone because they're gay. But you refuse to accept the reality of each situation.

I can't discuss something with someone who continually ignores facts, just to stick to some fallacious argument.

You're just wasting everyone's time.

I went back and watched Jack's story

"It's my pleasure to sell them cookies and cakes and birthday cakes and brownies. It's not their lifestyle that I am accused of turning away. But that's not what it was, it was the event being force to celebrate.

It's not just the case for the same sex weddings. I haven't singled out that one issue as somethat I won't do.
I also won't make cakes for bachelor parties. I don't make Halloween cakes or anything involving witchcraft or demons.
Sometimes it seems like I've turned down more cakes in a day than I've taken orders for.

For us to limit what we do because of a public accomodations act says that we don't want God to be part of our lives except for on Sunday."

The guy seems like a nice guy, misguided and a little legalistic, but that is no excuse for breaking the law.

He is not being forced to celebrate anything, but he is denying gay people the service of baking a wedding cake based on their sexual orientation, this is plain to see, as he would bake the same cake for a straight couple, the only difference is the sexual orientation. That is fine that he doesn't bake for other situations like Halloween or what have you, but they are not protected under the law, he is allowed (as far as I am aware) to discriminate against them, as he is also allowed to discriminate against adults marrying a child or any other illegal activity.

Are these the facts you were talking about?

I am not trying to waste anyone's time, why would I do that, my own time is precious just as much as yours. Don't you get tired of wasting mine by having me defend things which I am not even doing.

Please stop calling me a troll, it is not nice and completely untrue.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:he is denying gay people the service of baking a wedding cake based on their sexual orientation, this is plain to see, as he would bake the same cake for a straight couple, the only difference is the sexual orientation.

Well, actually, that's what we've all been saying. He wouldn't bake that "same cake" for anyone.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:he is denying gay people the service of baking a wedding cake based on their sexual orientation, this is plain to see, as he would bake the same cake for a straight couple, the only difference is the sexual orientation.

Well, actually, that's what we've all been saying. He wouldn't bake that "same cake" for anyone.

Re read what I wrote I said he would bake a wedding cake for a straight couple.

But if a straight couple did buy a cake for a gay wedding and he denied it, it is still discrimination against gay people, which I have said many times, it doesn't matter who is buying it, the only thing that matters is his reason for deny it, which is based on discrimination against a group of people protected under the law, which he agreed to uphold when he opened his business in a country that has anti-discrimination laws in place. Just like the paramedic who has taken an oath and by law must act in accordance with it, so must the baker.

I read what you wrote, and he wouldn't "bake the same cake."

Kurieuo wrote:I read what you wrote, he wouldn't "bake the same cake."

I think I have stated my case clearly enough.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:True freedom means being able to say NO.

No I won't save this black mans life.- ER Doctor

That is so silly, I won't even dignify.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:True freedom means being able to say NO.

No I won't save this black mans life.- ER Doctor

That is so silly, I won't even dignify.

Of course it is silly, it was meant to be, it was would point out how simplistic and silly your statement was.