Rainbow

I'm not religious, but I have read the Christian Bible, so you must have missed:
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

No need to bake a cake for dead people.

It does not say anything about any act expected of a believer toward the person committing that specific sin, versus any other sin. So, where is the Biblical basis for choosing to not perform services or sell products to LGBTQ people. It seems that the "deeply held beliefs," ruse is just a lie told by bigots.

"It does not say anything about any act expected of a believer toward the person committing that specific sin
-
"What part of "shall surely be put to death" aren't you getting???

That addresses the gay person, not the person who sold them a cake. That person is not singled out for any punishment for doing so nor any reward for refusing.

You are missing the forest because the trees are in your way.

As I said, there would no one selling cake to dead people.

So, your solution is a Biblical "Final Solution," for LGBTQ people? And, speaking about missing the Forest. You still have not presented a Biblical endorsement for not doing business with them, today, when we allow people who are different from us to live. So, today's closely held beliefs are the same as Jim Crow bigotry.

Seriously, CAN'T YOU FRICKIN' READ???

As I said, I'm not religious, so obviously I don't follow religious maxims, I was just pointing out some people ARE, and believe in the Bible LITERALLY.

The biblical endorsement is if you are following your Bible, there are no gay people to sell cake to.
Damn, you're thick.

I don't mean to talk this to death, but it occirred to me that maybe you need to take back that criticism about not reading. The passage you cite is in Leviticus, which is in the Old Testament. I specifically asked for a New Testament source, since Christians take their marching orders from Jesus, who did not show up until then.

Touche'

However, your request then becomes somewhat disingenuous.

It's like asking for an example of only even numbers, since Christianity uses both old and new testaments.

Still, what you point to does not make the point that you are trying to make. There are LGBTQ people in the world we live in. And, there is no Biblical prohibition against doing business with them in the material world. There are instructions from "God," as to which people his chosen people are allowed to kill and make slaves of. Are we to expect these actions to be OK today? No. These were "instructions," from ancient times. The same holds true for LGBTQ. And, if these people take the Bible literally, there are no mentions of Lesbian activity. But, they don't differentiate. That is not literal, that is interpretive. I understand your argument, I just disagree that the text you site is a valid answer to my request.

OK, so since you are either not understanding, or ignoring what I explained, forget it and let my try to explain the answer to your question.

There is no prohibition against doing business with homosexuals.

The issue in the Colorado baker and the gay couple wasn't that he didn't want to do business with them, from my understanding, he was perfectly willing to sell them any of his unadorned baked goods. What he objected to was creating a custom item that celebrated their homosexuality thereby transitively making him celebrate their homosexuality. Since he viewed his cake decorating skill as a gift from God, he did not think he should be forced to use those gifts in a celebration of something God prohibited.

That choice would not be his, if Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act, to include LGBTQ people. As I pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court has already ruled that businesses cannot withhold services and goods to people based on the Commerce Clause to the Constitution, and this bill gave them enforcement rights. Those rights would extend to LGBTQ people, in that case.

So you don't understand how reality works..."That choice would not be his, if Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act, to include LGBTQ people."

You posed a hypothetical reality. So as of now, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE.

There is a requirement of law that a right has to have an enforcement clause. The part of the Commerce Clause cited by the Supreme Court in ruling that a business like his can not refuse service to a person because they are Black applies to LGBTQ people. They just have no legal way of enfocing their rights. That gives the bakery owner freedom to be a bigot. Is that enough reality for you? The day when people can use Religion as a weapon of bigotry is probably coming to an end. That day is not today. That is also a reality I understand.

Bahahaha....the day when people use bigotry to avoid baking a cake that goes against their religious beliefs....no more talking from the morons.

"No leaven shall be seen of yours, and no leavening shall be seen of yours throughout all of your borders." Why does the bakery in question stay open during Passover, and not rid itself of all leavening during those eight days? Is it because, the rules of the Torah were abandoned when Christ became the way to salvation? How can they ignore one passage from the Old texts and run their business putting a great deal of importance on a misinterpretation of another? Your Freedom of Speech ends at my nose. So does your Freedom of Religion. I have worn the uniform of my country and swore to defend your right to believe what you wish, but not any supposed right to use perverted beliefs to deny others their equal rights.

And just like that, we see how you view Christianity as a "perverted belief"...yet I wonder, do you have any problems with Muslim bakers refusing to bake cakes that are against their "perverted beliefs"?

I ws raised as a Christian in a Christian household. Christianity is what I base my criticisms on. Christianity is a religion based on love, not hate. Hating someone, or doing something hateful, in the name of Christianity is a perversion, yes. As for Islam, and Judiasm for that matter, almost all the people I have met of those religions are positive people. Some of the members of their religions act like the KKK and other people whose behviors go contrary to the what the majority would do. Chopping up a journalist in an Embassy, for example. That is not what Islam is about, while it was done by Muslims.

Let's try again, if a Muslim bakery owner denied to bake a cake that was against his/her religion, would that be bigoted?

If he baked the same cake for someone else, then refused to bake a similar one, he would have no basis in the Torah or Koran to do so. Just like the so-called Christian did not have a Biblical basis for his refusal. In order for the point to be made, the rules have to be the same. That is the reason I qualified my answer. That is how fair forensic discussions and debates are conducted. Refer to The National Forensic League, if you have any questions about this.

You didn't answer the question, again.

I did not ask for your opinion as to whether or not the muslim bakery owner would be justified in his faith to deny baking a cake that went against his religious views.

I asked you, WOULD YOU CONSIDER A MUSLIM BAKERY OWNER A BIGOT FOR DENYING TO PERFORM SERVICES THAT HE/SHE CLAIMS WERE AGAINST HER RELIGIOUS VIEWS?

Can you answer the question now?

Your reply to my correct answer does not allow a reply. But, I followed correct procedures of discussion and answered the question referring to the underlying position I took, originally. Find me a case of a Muslim refusing to bake a cake for such a flimsy reason. They don't, as a rule, misstate the rules of their religion for political reasons, related to baking cakes.

And you evade again. It's because your determination of what is "bigoted" is based solely the religion claimed by the baker.

Bakers religion = Christian = Bigot

Bakers religion = Muslin = LarryCaird malfunctions and evades question

From this conversation we have deduced that are you actually the bigot and intolerant to of Christians and their religious freedom.

Carry on Larry.

law doesn't equal correct or moral.

then the law must be changed or people need to stop following the law

LOL...you do realize that SCOTUS has ruled on the Colorado bakery case right? In fact, twice.

If the Civil Rights law Republican "Christians," voted against this week becomes law, the case like that in Colorado would be ruled on differently. After the Civil Rights laws of 1964 and 1965 were enacted, some claimed that Congress did not have the Constitutional authority to ban segregation. Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said "the fundamental question is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers.". Rolleston claimed that he had the right to discriminate, guaranteed by the Constitution. He said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deprived him of "liberty and property without due process. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims. Congress has the power to take away the right to be a bigot, according to this ruling.

Then you would realize the only discrimination in the matter was against the Christian baker

No moron. The State of Colorado discriminated against his LAWFUL right to refuse service. They state commission, after the SCOTUS ruling, launched an additional attack on him, prompting Phillips to launch a federal lawsuit. It was the State that attempted to use coercive fines to force him to perform services. The Supreme Court rebuked the State Commission for being hostile.

So you are wrong when you claim here "He refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. That's still discrimination." As discrimination is a LEGAL TERM with a LEGAL DEFINITION. You are emphatically incorrect in the matter. He did not DISCRIMINATE.

As I said on another thread, you say somethings that are intelligent but then you turn around and say incredibly ignorant and stupid things.

Look at your bigotry...you take comfort in a man having to pay thousands of dollars in legal costs to defend his own rights simply because you disagree with his views. You are the bigot OM.

LOL...yeah you would welcome the government running them out of business via harassment. LOL