Kentucky Kim and cakes

[Totton Linnet]

If in January when the judiciary meets to make a ruling, they decide to make an accommodation to Christians on the grounds of freedom of conscience how will this ruling effect Christian bakers who do not wish to decorate a cake in a way that promotes homosexuality? Christian booksellers who do not wish to supply people with what they believe to be ungodly literary matter? Christian hoteliers who do not wish to let out rooms for the purpose of homosexual activity, Christian adoption agencies who do not wish to procure children for same sex couples?

 

[shagster01]

It's apples and oranges here.

I believe that business owners should be free to serve who they wish, and make business decisions about what they are willing to do.

Kim Davis doesn't own the marriage license business, however. She works at a job that has certain requirements. If she doesn't want to perform those requirements, then she needs to find a new job. You can't object to doing your job, unless you are also willing to reject the paycheck you didn't earn.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If in January when the judiciary meets to make a ruling, they decide to make an accommodation to Christians on the grounds of freedom of conscience...

Which 'judiciary" is that? We saw what happened when the State of Indiana's legislature passed legislation allowing religious freedom in that State:

Threats of national boycotts by the LGBTQueer movement, etc.

The spineless Governor then backed down and didn't sign the bill.

So what makes you think that other state legislators will even attempt to touch this topic with the proverbial 10 foot pole knowing the economic harm (from boycotts and endless lawsuits) that it will bring to their respective state?

 

[shagster01]

Which 'judiciary" is that? We saw what happened when the State of Indiana's legislature passed legislation allowing religious freedom in that State:

Threats of national boycotts by the LGBTQueer movement, etc.

The spineless Governor then backed down and didn't sign the bill.

So what makes you think that other state legislators will even attempt to touch this topic with the proverbial 10 foot pole knowing the economic harm (from boycotts and endless lawsuits) that it will bring to their respective state?

Do you think that government workers should just get to choose when they will and won't do their job?

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't think this belongs in the group.

Christian booksellers who do not wish to supply people with what they believe to be ungodly literary matter?

I don't see a way to force someone to provide what they don't provide to everyone. If you're a Christian bookseller then excluding other materials is a legitimate business function.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Do you think that government workers should just get to choose when they will and won't do their job?

Perverts need help, not a license to continue their sinful behavior.

We're seeing what happens when things like homosexuality are decriminalized.

Back to the topic of the thread: Do you think state legislatures will take on the LGBTQueer/sexual anarchist movement after what happened in Indiana (the threat of a national boycott including moving the NCAA Final Four to another State, etc.)?

 

[Totton Linnet]

It's apples and oranges here.

I believe that business owners should be free to serve who they wish, and make business decisions about what they are willing to do.

Kim Davis doesn't own the marriage license business, however. She works at a job that has certain requirements. If she doesn't want to perform those requirements, then she needs to find a new job. You can't object to doing your job, unless you are also willing to reject the paycheck you didn't earn.

When she agreed to take the job it was not part of her job put her name to a same sex marriage licence. Why take that aggressive stance? why can't an accommodation be reached which satisfies everyone?

Did you know that before they passed this law concerning equality of rights regarding services to homosexuals in Britain they KNEW this issue would arise...I mean with Christian book sellers being forced to supply homos with what they regard as ungodly materials, they decided to railroad the act through without any regard to people's right to freedom of conscience.

It has meant Christians going out of business.

THAT is what is bad about the law as it stands. The Kentucky case may well be an opportunity to redress that circumstance...I think it can be redressed.

Nobody need to be slighted, let the Christian baker put his notice up "Christian baker" then nobody will go in and ask for products promoting homosexuality.

The homos have caused this situation for they have gone out of their way to hunt out Christians to force them to obey their wishes.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I don't think this belongs in the group.

I don't see a way to force someone to provide what they don't provide to everyone. If you're a Christian bookseller then excluding other materials is a legitimate business function.

I can assure you it has happened, and I can assure you that Christian bookstores like "Send the Light" have vanished from Britain's high streets. You can't find a Christian book store anymore.

 

[Rusha]

It's apples and oranges here.

I believe that business owners should be free to serve who they wish, and make business decisions about what they are willing to do.

Kim Davis doesn't own the marriage license business, however. She works at a job that has certain requirements. If she doesn't want to perform those requirements, then she needs to find a new job. You can't object to doing your job, unless you are also willing to reject the paycheck you didn't earn.

Exactly. When one accepts a position, it doesn't mean they are guaranteed their duties will not change at some point.

 

[bybee]

I can assure you it has happened, and I can assure you that Christian bookstores like "Send the Light" have vanished from Britain's high streets. You can't find a Christian book store anymore.

Kind a hard to find Christians anymore....

 

[chrysostom]

Kind a hard to find Christians anymore....

willing to go to jail for their beliefs

 

[Rusha]

If in January when the judiciary meets to make a ruling, they decide to make an accommodation to Christians on the grounds of freedom of conscience how will this ruling effect Christian bakers who do not wish to decorate a cake in a way that promotes homosexuality? Christian booksellers who do not wish to supply people with what they believe to be ungodly literary matter? Christian hoteliers who do not wish to let out rooms for the purpose of homosexual activity, Christian adoption agencies who do not wish to procure children for same sex couples?

Kim does not works for a Christian business. In fact, if they were going by job qualifications, her own track record would disqualify her for handing out marriage licenses to anyone.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Which 'judiciary" is that? We saw what happened when the State of Indiana's legislature passed legislation allowing religious freedom in that State:

Threats of national boycotts by the LGBTQueer movement, etc.

The spineless Governor then backed down and didn't sign the bill.

So what makes you think that other state legislators will even attempt to touch this topic with the proverbial 10 foot pole knowing the economic harm (from boycotts and endless lawsuits) that it will bring to their respective state?

I think you call it "The Federal Grand Jury"

Why can they not reach a compromise that satisfies everyone?

 

[patrick jane]

Perverts need help, not a license to continue their sinful behavior.

We're seeing what happens when things like homosexuality are decriminalized.

Back to the topic of the thread: Do you think state legislatures will take on the LGBTQueer/sexual anarchist movement after what happened in Indiana (the threat of a national boycott including moving the NCAA Final Four to another State, etc.)?

Joel Osteen will stop homos in America -

 

[Totton Linnet]

Kim does not works for a Christian business. In fact, if they were going by job qualifications, her own track record would disqualify her for handing out marriage licenses to anyone.

No but she has never been asked or required to act against her conscience before, that is what has changed. It is a unique problem and it can be sorted out amicably, so why not sort it out amicably?

Mebbe she should resign, mebbe she will be forced to...are you sure it is such a good thing that good conscientious people should be taken out of business and public services?

Who is going to be shown to be the aggressors? I say let them think the thing through again and come up with a better law.

Kim has 2 track records one before she was saved and one after.

 

[shagster01]

When she agreed to take the job it was not part of her job put her name to a same sex marriage licence. Why take that aggressive stance? why can't an accommodation be reached which satisfies everyone?

She wouldn't let anyone issue them though. Even accommodations don't stretch that far.

Even so, do you get to decline to do what your boss changes at your job?

 

[Rusha]

No but she has never been asked or required to act against her conscience before, that is what has changed. It is a unique problem and it can be sorted out amicably, so why not sort it out amicably.

Mebbe she should resign, mebbe she will be forced to...are you sure it is such a good thing that good conscientious people should be taken out of business and public services?

Who is going to be shown to be the aggressors? I say let them think the thing through again and come up with a better law.

Would you say the same thing about a nurse who refuses to do a blood transfusion? Or a firefighter who refuses to pull someone out of a building because it violates his religion?

IF Kim were the owner of her own business, I would support her right to refuse service to gays even though I would still see her as a huge hypocrite.

 

[Totton Linnet]

She wouldn't let anyone issue them though. Even accommodations don't stretch that far.

Even so, do you get to decline to do what your boss changes at your job?

I understand that she desires her name to be removed from the licence...that does not seem to be an extreme request.

 

[shagster01]

I understand that she desires her name to be removed from the licence...that does not seem to be an extreme request.

Yes, because her and her 4th husband believe in the sanctity of marriage.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Would you say the same thing about a nurse who refuses to do a blood transfusion? Or a firefighter who refuses to pull someone out of a building because it violates his religion?

IF Kim were the owner of her own business, I would support her right to refuse service to gays even though I would still see her as a huge hypocrite.

A nurse takes a job as a nurse fully understanding that she will need to perform blood transfusions...all those things are settled in her mind before she takes the job.

I have turned down job opportunities and opportunities for promotion...I am certain MANY Christians do out of conscience.

I could not be a nurse if I was required to perform an abortion [I don't know if accomodations are made for nurses and doctors??]

I would not join the police or the army or become a politician.

People do have concerns of conscience.