I think he made it clear: he doesn’t believe gays are worthy of having the same relationships as heterosexuals.
That’s not for you to or your government to worry about. It is without question a question of orthodox Christian belief for a ceremony which traditionally carries great weight with Christian teaching.
No. Actually, it is.
Again, you’re not an evangelical. It’s not as simple as you claim. There are far more sophisticated reasoning processes at work here than you are acknowledging, mainly because I don’t think you are privy to them. There are distinctions between types of sin, levels of involvement, etc. I am not saying that I agree with those interpretations myself; I am saying that freedom of conscience guarantees others the right to hold to interpretations they consider valid, and the fact that the reasoning process is opaque to outsiders does not mean that there is no rationale at all or that people are acting inconsistently.
Does he buy gas from the Middle East? Clothes from Walmart? Does he get loans and pay interest?
Pretend not to know what? What does the Christian know? All he knows is a man and woman come asking about a wedding cake. Next, he knows a couple consisting of a man and a man come asking for a cake. You act like he knew they were coming and had to do a background check or something.
I get that. And it’s why we shouldn’t allow people like that to limit the rest of us. Are we a secular nation or a religious state?
Pretend to not know about the sins of others.
How is any of the relevant to what he KNOWS is before him? And it isn’t your place or the governments to force people into being consistent in their practice.
His adherence to multiple passages in the Old and New Testaments is responsible for his belief that it would be wrong for him to facilitate two individuals promising to continue in behavior labelled sinful by the Old and New Testaments.
But it is our place to limit how they can express their beliefs.
I don’t pretend to not know…I practice a religion that says everyone sins. But it also teaches that marriage is a specific ceremony.
I know that’s what he says but why should that be enough for someone to discriminate? The fact is, we do limit religious expression. Belief, no. Expression yes.
I’m not understanding the logical move here. Are you arguing that only those who would violate their consciences should be allowed to participate in the economy?
And it is our place to protect their expression. Even if it hurts your feelings. For now, I’m still “right.” Because he can still design and sell his wedding cakes. And with this nomination, I’m pretty optimistic this will continue to be the case.
Being a homosexual is not a sin. Certain sexual behaviors are a sin. If a gay couple isn’t planning to have sex, can they still marry without it being a sin?
It also our place to protect our citizens from discriminatation.
No. Not according to my beliefs. You’re not understanding to issue. He’s not denying them any all cake because they’re gay. He’s denying them a wedding cake because his religion (mine too) teaches that God designed man and woman to marry one another. That is the entire point.
Lunch. Hold the fort down?
No. I’m arguing that people should keep their personal beliefs personal. Because, no matter what you do, you will always be guilty of some incongruity or hypocrisy. But I get that people need to defer their morality to monoliths and turn their individual guilt into collective innocence.
My point is only why personal beliefs need to be kept personal. How can a nation function if it is at the mercy of people’s whims?