Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,
and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,
what's the point of having constitutional rights?
So, discrimination against wrongdoing, is wrongdoing?Discrimination is the 'wrongdoing'...
I'm not a Muslim, but, it depends upon the nature and object of the condemnation."...Do you stand up for religious condemnation when the religion is Islam?"
Indeed...Even the 3% have rights
And the majority if the 97% recognize it
Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...
That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...
People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...
But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...
Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...
And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...
Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...
I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...
As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...
The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...
They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...
But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...
In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...
There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...
Or so it seems, to this observer...
Religious teachings would dictate that women are subservient to men. Why was that overturned as being false? How has it been sustained over time that women are not subservient even though all of these religious texts have never been "corrected" in this regard?
The same applies to blacks and other minorities. The religious texts that endorse slavery have not prevailed. The individual right to be treated equally has been demonstrated to supercede religious beliefs not matter how many billions have been indoctrinated by archaic and outdated mythology.
The same now applies to gays. The religious texts cannot be held to be the supreme law of the land over the rights of individuals to not be discriminated against. To allow that to happen means trashing the 1st amendment. Once that goes so does your right to the religion of your choice.
And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%. It is a fanatical subset who at most comprise 20% who are trying to deprive the 3% of their equal rights.
Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...
Almost right.
Discrimination is wrong, but government sanctioned discrimination, ie Jim Crow law, is downright evil. What you want is another Jim Crow era where the government gets to tell people what they can, and cannot, believe.
In other words, even if they are wrong for not going to a gay weeding to take pictures, which is debatable, you are evil for trying to force them to do it.
They are not forced to do it. They can quit the wedding photography business.
It might be evil to have to drive 55 mph on the highway, but the government doesn't force you to do it,
you can simply choose not to drive.
Correct.There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual...
The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.
Educate yourselves you right wing fascists.
Do you know ANYTHING about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
I bet I know more than you.
Not that that is a high bar. Fuck, rdean probably knows more about it than you, and all he can say is 6%.
It. Does. Not. Do. That.
I think it does, for the reasons I've stated. But I appreciate the fact that you see it differently and I see no reason to rehash the debate.
How do you reconcile your belief with the actual facts in the example that you deleted from my post?
There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,
and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,
what's the point of having constitutional rights?
That probably explains why no Christian is arguing that they don't have to do business with them, and that the bill we are actually talking about here doesn't permit it to happen.
Then again, you never let inconvenient truths stop you from scaring people before, why start now?
I think it does, for the reasons I've stated. But I appreciate the fact that you see it differently and I see no reason to rehash the debate.
How do you reconcile your belief with the actual facts in the example that you deleted from my post?
The actual facts of the case are that it grants special protections to religious people making decisions based on religious reasons (implicitly state-approved religions at that, because someone must judge whether such a claim represents a "legitimate" religious faith or not). It provides no such protection for non-religious people making exactly the same decisions for secular reasons. As I've said, I don't believe the intent of the first amendment is to grant special privileges to religions.
How do you reconcile your belief with the actual facts in the example that you deleted from my post?
The actual facts of the case are that it grants special protections to religious people making decisions based on religious reasons (implicitly state-approved religions at that, because someone must judge whether such a claim represents a "legitimate" religious faith or not). It provides no such protection for non-religious people making exactly the same decisions for secular reasons. As I've said, I don't believe the intent of the first amendment is to grant special privileges to religions.
How do you separate a religious person from the average fag hater?
Correct.There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual...
But there are mainstream teachings within most of the branches and offshoots of Christianity that DO teach that homosexuality is sinful or otherwise an aberration or unnatural or anathema.
And, folks logically and naturally take that one step further, and figure that if the practitioners of such perversity and aberration are sinful and unclean, that association with them (including doing business with them) is sinful and unclean or otherwise lending aid and comfort to the enemies of God, and goodness.
Go figure...
Indeed."...And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%..."
I have no idea where you pulled your 20% figure from but am content not to dispute it for now - it really doesn't matter much."...It is a fanatical subset who at most comprise 20% who are trying to deprive the 3% of their equal rights."
So, discrimination against wrongdoing, is wrongdoing?Discrimination is the 'wrongdoing'...
So, discrimination against thievery or murder or rape or perjury (other, more severe examples of wrongdoing) is wrongdoing?
Sorry... no sale.
I'm not a Muslim, but, it depends upon the nature and object of the condemnation."...Do you stand up for religious condemnation when the religion is Islam?"
If Muslims are rationalizing a suppression of the rights of women, I do not agree.
If Muslims are condemning homosexuality as aberration, then I do agree.
Your mileage may vary.
Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality.
Jesus changed his mind about polygamy, according to the Mormons.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this law singles out gays. In and of itself, that would likely render it as unconstitutional.
So, the law supposedly would allow people to deny service to people from a particular group due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
How about Christians denying service to Mormons because they see them as a cult?
How about Christians denying service to Jehovah's witnesses for similar reasons?
How about Christians denying service to Jews because they say they killed Jesus?
How about Muslims denying service to Christians?
Or Jews denying service to Muslims?
Or Muslims denying service to Jews?
If Christians want this law, will they be willing to accept the consequences if and when they THEMSELVES are discriminated against by people who claim they are simply exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs?
