Evidence for God from Science

Again another scenario.

a) Person buys cake with message "I support hetero weddings" and baker agrees to make it

b) Person buys cake with message "I support gay weddings" and baker does not agree to make it

The only difference between them is the sexual orientation of the people who the message is about, hence it is discriminatory.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

dan wrote:
the person who is actually doing the buying is not relevant.

Are you serious?

Think about this Dan.

The person trying to buy the cake is the one claiming to be discriminated against!

Come on Dan! Are you really this obtuse, or are you just playing with us?

But they are in a way, not one that is protected by law, but they are still being discriminated against for wanting to support gay people. The real discrimination however is against the gay community, that is the important one.

Hello! Earth to Dan!

If someone is discriminating illegally, the person being discriminated against, has to actually be refused service based on illegal discrimination. I'm pretty sure, in both cases, "The gay community" didn't try to buy cakes.

Am I giving you too much credit by saying you are a troll who is playing obtuse? Or are you really this slow to understand?

Because, if you really are this slow to understand, I'll quit responding. I don't want to try to get someone to understand basic logic, who clearly doesn't have the ability to do so.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

dan wrote:
the person who is actually doing the buying is not relevant.

Are you serious?

Think about this Dan.

The person trying to buy the cake is the one claiming to be discriminated against!

Come on Dan! Are you really this obtuse, or are you just playing with us?

But they are in a way, not one that is protected by law, but they are still being discriminated against for wanting to support gay people. The real discrimination however is against the gay community, that is the important one.

Hello! Earth to Dan!

If someone is discriminating illegally, the person being discriminated against, has to actually be refused service based on illegal discrimination. I'm pretty sure, in both cases, "The gay community" didn't try to buy cakes.

Am I giving you too much credit by saying you are a troll who is playing obtuse? Or are you really this slow to understand?

Because, if you really are this slow to understand, I'll quit responding. I don't want to try to get someone to understand basic logic, who clearly doesn't have the ability to do so.

Actually you are wrong Rick, in most western countries you cannot discriminate directly or indirectly, which in this case it is indirectly.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Again another scenario.

a) Person buys cake with message "I support hetero weddings" and baker agrees to make it

b) Person buys cake with message "I support gay weddings" and baker does not agree to make it

The only difference between them is the sexual orientation of the people who the message is about, hence it is discriminatory.

That's not how illegal discrimination works. The person attempting to buy a product, has to be refused service because he or she is gay.

Illegal discrimination is discrimination against a person, not against a message. The person attempting to buy a cake with the message, "I support gay weddings" can be straight. The cake would still be refused because of the message. Not because of the sexual orientation of the person attempting to buy the cake.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Again another scenario.

a) Person buys cake with message "I support hetero weddings" and baker agrees to make it

b) Person buys cake with message "I support gay weddings" and baker does not agree to make it

The only difference between them is the sexual orientation of the people who the message is about, hence it is discriminatory.

That's not how illegal discrimination works. The person attempting to buy a product, has to be refused service because he or she is gay.

Illegal discrimination is discrimination against a person, not against a message. The person attempting to buy a cake with the message, "I support gay weddings" can be straight. The cake would still be refused because of the message. Not because of the sexual orientation of the person attempting to buy the cake.

You need to brush up on your anti discrimination laws.

This is Australian Victorian law which is pretty much the same as anywhere else.

You can be discriminated against directly or indirectly. In Victoria it is against the law for someone to discriminate against you because of a personal characteristic that you have, or someone assumes that you have. These personal characteristics are things like age, race, disability, physical features and political beliefs.

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

In this case the requirement is that there cannot be a message on a cake that supports gay people being married which is indirect discrimination against gay people being married based on their sexual orientation. It doesn't have to be directed at the person or group of people, it just has to exist in some form or another.

He's Christian though Rick, enough said. Because, in every case, including the one I started that you found on Snopes was wrong, Christians ought to be condemned from the get-go for their crime of bigotism and so do the time.

Better to be safe than sorry, we can't risk having millions of people killed due to Christian hatemongers.

Kurieuo wrote:He's Christian though Rick, enough said. Because, in every case, including the one I started that you found on Snopes was wrong, Christians ought to be condemned from the get-go for their crime of bigotism and so do the time.

Better to be safe than sorry, we can't risk having millions of people killed due to Christian hatemongers.

At least I think everyone should be held accountable equally for the wrong they do, but you give people a free pass if they are Christian.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who does it, If the owner was not a Christian and discriminated, I would hold them equally accountable.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:He's Christian though Rick, enough said. Because, in every case, including the one I started that you found on Snopes was wrong, Christians ought to be condemned from the get-go for their crime of bigotism and so do the time.

Better to be safe than sorry, we can't risk having millions of people killed due to Christian hatemongers.

At least I think everyone should be held accountable equally for the wrong they do, but you give people a free pass if they are Christian.

I believe you're agreeing with my sarcasm here.

You know this has nothing to do with Christianity or being Christian or not being Christian, this is to do with discrimination and human rights.

I don't know why you are making it out to be some sort of conspiracy against Christians, anyone who discriminates against someone for no good reason will be held accountable to the law, it is a fair and just system that is in place.

This is not persecution against Christians, this is a persecution against anyone who chooses to discriminate based on particular aspects of another person without good reason for doing so.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:He's Christian though Rick, enough said. Because, in every case, including the one I started that you found on Snopes was wrong, Christians ought to be condemned from the get-go for their crime of bigotism and so do the time.

Better to be safe than sorry, we can't risk having millions of people killed due to Christian hatemongers.

At least I think everyone should be held accountable equally for the wrong they do, but you give people a free pass if they are Christian.

I believe you're agreeing with my sarcasm here.

So we are in agreement now..............finally!!

RickD wrote:Dan has officially taken the "obtuse" crown from Kenny.

Kenny,

If you're listening, I will no longer call you obtuse. Dan is the official G&S Obtuse King.

I am sorry but Dan didn't say Christians should be persecuted, he said people breaking the law should be punished. There is a difference! Unlike you, he is not advocating just for Christians but how the law should apply to everyone. Can you see that?

Dan was clear when he said "and rightly so" that it is more than law, but rather his personal opinion Christians need punishing in many instances that have been presented where it's not necessarily cases of discrimination against a person. He is an SJW quick to blame and condemn Christians for their beliefs.

Kurieuo wrote:Dan was clear when he said "and rightly so" that it is more than law, but rather his personal opinion Christians need punishing in many instances that have been presented where it's not necessarily cases of discrimination against a person. He is an SJW quick to blame and condemn Christians for their beliefs.

Yes rightly so according to the law of discrimination, the same would apply to an atheist, Muslim, agnostic or any other ideology that broke the law. We have laws for a reason, so that our society functions in a way that if fair and just for all people, our whole judicial system and even our democratic government were founded on biblical principles. So yes it is right and it is just that these people are prosecuted according to the laws that govern our land, because without them we end up like the countries that kill people just because they are different.

I don't even know what an SJW is, I don't know if you can really be something unless you know what it is.

You can hurl your insults all you like, it just makes your arguments look childish and petty, but please continue, don't let me stop you from your own self destruction.

I am really astounded at this thread, no one wants to engage the arguments I present and instead resort to personal attacks and twist what I say to the point where I can't even recognise in anyway shape or form that it is my own thoughts and feelings.

I think it really shows the weakness of your position that you need to resort to such slander and intellectual dishonesty to gain some sort of quasi upper hand, but the sad reality for you is that people read this and it is plain to see the types of tactics you are employing. So blatantly obvious that even a child could work it out.

See, here is the thing.
IF freedom of religion does exist it means that a person should not ONLY have the right to practise a religion that does NOT infringe on the civil and human rights of others BUT ALSO have the right to refuse to do something that infringes on THIER religious views AS LONG as it does NOT infringe on the civil or human rights of others.
Refusing to make a cake, refusing to condone gay marriage or a gay wedding, refusing to participate in an event the glorifies homosexuality in a way that does NOT infringe on the civil and human rights of gays should be acceptable.
I think we can all agree on that, yes?

The issue here is WHO's Rights are more in question?

The gay couple that went to a private business and asked for a cake and were refused but can go anywhere else and get one?
The business owner that felt he was being asked to do something against his religious and moral views and denied the request know that they could go somewhere else?