Christians Kicked Out of Coffee Shop By Gay Owner

[Fife]

Coercion is the key.

Some gays apparently want to coerce some bakers to violate their moral code. It's not about the cake, cakes of any description or message are ubiquitous. It's about coercion.

If Westboro Baptist had enough cash, they would probably like to coerce the NYT to run a full page "God Hates Fags" ad right next to the Sunday crossword. It would also be about coercion.

Guess what the NYT would say to that ad purchase? And 100% of everyone here and in sane America would agree with them.

Fuck coercion. Start your own paper. Start your own bakery.

[Speaker to Animals]

Coercion is the key.

Some gays apparently want to coerce some bakers to violate their moral code.

If Westboro Baptist had enough cash, they would probably like to coerce the NYT to run a full page "God Hates Fags" ad right next to the Sunday crossword.

Guess what the NYT would say to that ad purchase? And 100% of everyone here an in sane America would agree with them.

Fuck coercion.

The right of conscience is nothing more than the freedom of thought. If we don't even have the freedom of thought, then none of the other freedoms matter.

That slaver mentality is alive and well in the world today. You can see it quite clearly on the left, though it's also apparent in some of the politics of the republican party. When people attempt to enslave you either through coercing your conscience or in some other small way where they can get away with it now, imagine what they would do if outright slavery were legal again. The general principle means nothing to them. Only what they can get away with.

[clubgop]

Knowingly providing goods or services for an act that is immoral is called material cooperation. Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding is not something a Christian should ever be doing, but a cake in most other contexts is fine. It's the sacrilegious wedding that is the problem.

Likewise, for this homosexual coffee shop owner, providing a physical space for this group to meet and discuss their pamphlet campaign constituted material cooperation with that campaign. He became a part of it when they used his property and services to hold meetings.

In the case of bakers, if all you did was purchase a generic wedding cake without telling them it's for a homosexual wedding, and put your own statue topping on it, the baker would not have cooperated with it. He wouldn't even know.

The easiest example that most people can recognize is imagining an abolitionist blacksmith in the Antebellum south. If he gets an order for a batch of slave shackles to be produced, he'd be guilty of material cooperation with an inherently evil practice. I think most of us would say FUCK NO to the idea that the state could force us to cooperate with human slavery today (assuming slavery were still legal). The difficulty is in the fact that most people lack the self-awareness and objectivity to place themselves in other people's shoes to recognize the general principle. If they don't personally disagree with the act being objected to, then they don't see the problem. It's only when you point out possible scenarios where people could be forced to participate in acts they actually do see as morally repugnant that they begin to grasp the principle involved. Just another reason why democracy didn't work out, really. Most people lack the mentality to think about social and political problems in terms of general principles.

In the case of slavery, it was exactly this totalitarian and coercive mentality that led to the split. Southern states, when in control of the federal government, passed the Fugitive Slave Act that forced all other Americans to participate in slavery one way or another. They couldn't care less about the conscience rights of their fellow Americans. Even when you think you are right because you agree with individual circumstances of a story, when you find yourself taking the arguments of antebellum slave holders (which the Left has been doing in spades of late), you should at the very least step back from the problem and try to look at it more generally and based upon principles. The right of conscience is one of those basic principles that we ought never impugn since it really is the right of the freedom of thought.

Did you seriously bring up shackles with Kath in the convo?

[Okeefenokee]

He does not have to host their pro-life meeting any more than a Christian coffee shop owner has to host a pro-choice meeting.

Not true, ever since a baker was told they have to make a cake for a gay couple, that thought process was thrown out the door with the bath water, the baby, and the tub all at the same time.

It's not finished. Of course the Marxist state court ruled that way. These state laws and local ordinances are manifestly unconstitutional. It's obviously eventually getting crushed in the US Supreme Court.

I doubt this coffee shop owner refuses services to Christians on account of their religion. He refused to host their meeting where they were discussing their abolition campaign, which he found morally repugnant.

It's the exact same circumstance as Christian bakers who do not wish to participate in a gay wedding. Those bakers did not refuse service to homosexuals; they simply did not want to participate in something they found immoral.

Monty and I are abhorred at your double standard.

[Okeefenokee]

[SuburbanFarmer]

Not true, ever since a baker was told they have to make a cake for a gay couple, that thought process was thrown out the door with the bath water, the baby, and the tub all at the same time.

It's not finished. Of course the Marxist state court ruled that way. These state laws and local ordinances are manifestly unconstitutional. It's obviously eventually getting crushed in the US Supreme Court.

I doubt this coffee shop owner refuses services to Christians on account of their religion. He refused to host their meeting where they were discussing their abolition campaign, which he found morally repugnant.

It's the exact same circumstance as Christian bakers who do not wish to participate in a gay wedding. Those bakers did not refuse service to homosexuals; they simply did not want to participate in something they found immoral.

Monty and I are abhorred at your double standard.

I don’t think it works that way. http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugati ... abhor.html

“Monte and I are abhorrent of”
Or
“Monte and I abhor”

[Okeefenokee]

It's not finished. Of course the Marxist state court ruled that way. These state laws and local ordinances are manifestly unconstitutional. It's obviously eventually getting crushed in the US Supreme Court.

I doubt this coffee shop owner refuses services to Christians on account of their religion. He refused to host their meeting where they were discussing their abolition campaign, which he found morally repugnant.

It's the exact same circumstance as Christian bakers who do not wish to participate in a gay wedding. Those bakers did not refuse service to homosexuals; they simply did not want to participate in something they found immoral.

Monty and I are abhorred at your double standard.

I don’t think it works that way. http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugati ... abhor.html

“Monte and I are abhorrent of”
Or
“Monte and I abhor”

Check your privilege.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Monty and I are abhorred at your double standard.

I don’t think it works that way. http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugati ... abhor.html

“Monte and I are abhorrent of”
Or
“Monte and I abhor”

Check your privilege.

google clearly prefers white male search results.

[K@th]

.

[PartyOf5]

Wasn't sure where to put this....

What's so funny about the word image?