Agreed. That would be bad
Special Interest Groups, selfishly putting their own Identity Politics above The Bill of Rights.
The thing is, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Christian. Part of that obligates me to want to see people not being locked out of obtaining not only the necessities, but even general consumer goods. Yet, there is a line that is crossed in very specific situations. Here, I am willing to see society make sure people don’t get locked out of access to food, water, medicine, shelter, and even trivial consumer goods (by and large) in the market, even at the cost of some liberty. And all I am asking is to not require me to sell a very specific item, far from basic need, (or to play dumb/lie to myself) where no one goes sick, cold, or hungry…From the other side, there can be no compromise? No finding another wedding cake maker, so as to try to protect religious practice/association at even a trivial level? Really?
Libertarians get a free told you so. Give a mile they’ll take every remaining mile. True. And, I’m not a libertarian. Not something I like to admit. Ok, done.
Wrong. You can’t not sell a cake, or any other product, to someone because he is a homosexual.
As far as being forced to make that cake or write some message on an existing cake; you don’t have to do that.
Yes, it would be discrimination but not illegal. Which makes me wonder what you are complaining about.
Agree. Forcing a baker to sell a product to someone, a product he made to sell to someone, is so tyrannical. And it only applies if the baker is dumb enough to say why he won’t sell it.
What exactly are YOU worried about?
Or how about the Christian baker not compromise his Christian beliefs and make them a cake? Imagine if Jesus refused to associate with sinners. You do know he actually died for sinners? I think asking a baker to just be a nice, compassionate, forgiving, non-judgmental Christian is not asking for much by comparison. The baker’s choice had nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity and everything to do with hate.
“Forcing.” He clearly didn’t make a specific product to sell to just someone, or there would be no objection…Why must we play deaf, blind, and dumb?
Hence, why you want to use threat of violence to force him to.
Nevermind, that the entire thing is nullified by “display is not for sale.” Which is likely often the truth. How many bakers are mass producing wedding cakes to just sit around going bad/losing freshness…Instead of using a generic prop, while actually using an order system…
He’s not refusing to make them a cake. He’s refusing to make them a very specific kind of cake. Let’s stop playing at being blind, deaf, and dumb.
Um, you have the wrong impression of Christ. He associated as a Doctor to the sick. Not to condone and contribute…My gosh.
Zero compromise from the Zecarlos. Which sadly, makes me recognize that maybe there can be zero compromise. Score one for the Libertarians.
So he baked a cake and put it on display with a specific person in mind?
And no one is forcing them to make wedding cakes for gays. I think you still don’t get it.
And he is going against Christian values by that refusal.
Um, a wedding cake maker obviously makes a wedding cake…Holy smokes.
The baker is not condoning anything, he is just doing his job. What did Jesus say to the Roman soldiers?
False. Nobody is obligated to provide desert for a celebration that is counter to sacramental marriage. Just stop.
His Job?! He’s the owner operator!!!
I don’t think the word compromise means what you think it means.
Which is because you believe in total domination, even when it comes to desert at a wedding.
1 Like
And the bakers of America are not obligated to do just that. However, a proper Christian would not be so judgmental and cold.
Let’s stop pretending. You aren’t concerned that homosexuals can easily obtain everyday necessary items. You want them to have to contribute to homosexual weddings, period.
1 Like