Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[Iceweasel]

That’s hypocritical to me, and insincere. I hear many calls to block gay marriage from being legalized, but not a SINGLE call from the Christians to make remarriage illegal too. Yes, I get the point about the perceived unnaturalness of the whole thing, but isn't breaking a direct vow before God just as freakin' serious?

I believe what you are seeing mostly is the backlash from the push by the gay community. Like I said, I went to many churches over decades and doubt I heard the word gay or homosexual twice. And maybe not at all, I don't recall a single sermon on it. Sexual immorality yes, but no details. There is no call to outlaw remarriage because that would create a Christian law, and one that many don't believe in themselves. It's not the same thing.
Same sex marriage changes what marriage is, the union of the male and female, both bringing their qualities to make a better whole and to hopefully (likely) reproduce.

There is no breaking of vows because that isn't what Christianity is, unless you are in a monestary or something. It isn't law. That might be tough to understand from the outside but there's 2,000+ years of writing on it and a different topic.

 

[bendog]

Pilate did that, and he wasn't the kind of man to ask for a show of hands or take no for an answer.

Bible scholar huh? All the translations I've read said he asked the Jewish leadership if he should let him go or crucify him.

Yes, and that was untrue. Pilate was a brutal man, he didn't ask for advice, and he executed insurrectionists, lots of them, without trial, on the cross.

Are you saying the NT does not contain a story of Pilate saying he found nothing in questioning Jesus to crucify him under Roman law, and that he acquiesced to the Jewish elite's wishes to execute Jesus?

 

[Iceweasel]

Pilate did that, and he wasn't the kind of man to ask for a show of hands or take no for an answer.

Bible scholar huh? All the translations I've read said he asked the Jewish leadership if he should let him go or crucify him.

Yes, and that was untrue. Pilate was a brutal man, he didn't ask for advice, and he executed insurrectionists, lots of them, without trial, on the cross.

Your response was on cutting down a tree to crucify Christ. Pilate put the ball in their court and did their will.

 

[KevinWestern]

That’s hypocritical to me, and insincere. I hear many calls to block gay marriage from being legalized, but not a SINGLE call from the Christians to make remarriage illegal too. Yes, I get the point about the perceived unnaturalness of the whole thing, but isn't breaking a direct vow before God just as freakin' serious?

I believe what you are seeing mostly is the backlash from the push by the gay community. Like I said, I went to many churches over decades and doubt I heard the word gay or homosexual twice. And maybe not at all, I don't recall a single sermon on it. Sexual immorality yes, but no details. There is no call to outlaw remarriage because that would create a Christian law, and one that many don't believe in themselves. It's not the same thing.
Same sex marriage changes what marriage is, the union of the male and female, both bringing their qualities to make a better whole and to hopefully (likely) reproduce.

There is no breaking of vows because that isn't what Christianity is, unless you are in a monestary or something. It isn't law. That might be tough to understand from the outside but there's 2,000+ years of writing on it and a different topic.

Maybe this is just a Catholic perspective - but isn't "until death do you part" a vow?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bible scholar huh? All the translations I've read said he asked the Jewish leadership if he should let him go or crucify him.

Yes, and that was untrue. Pilate was a brutal man, he didn't ask for advice, and he executed insurrectionists, lots of them, without trial, on the cross.

Are you saying the NT does not contain a story of Pilate saying he found nothing in questioning Jesus to crucify him under Roman law, and that he acquiesced to the Jewish elite's wishes to execute Jesus?

No I am not. It's in there, it just isn't true.

 

[Iceweasel]

You get to picks values, faiths get to pick values, and society gets to pick values. One of our values, in the public square, is equality. When you do business there, our values come first.

And has been said many times your definition of equality does not include forcing a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. The equality is in respecting other's faiths and values, not forcing them to share yours.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bible scholar huh? All the translations I've read said he asked the Jewish leadership if he should let him go or crucify him.

Yes, and that was untrue. Pilate was a brutal man, he didn't ask for advice, and he executed insurrectionists, lots of them, without trial, on the cross.

Your response was on cutting down a tree to crucify Christ. Pilate put the ball in their court and did their will.

Pilate didn't work for the Jews, he ruled them, and killed many, not to mention intentionally insulting their faith.

 

[ScienceRocks]

First try it and find out if you like it or not. Seriously... Walk into a gay bar, pick up a gay person and have fun. I am thinking that all you homophobes were told it was bad and never attempted it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You get to picks values, faiths get to pick values, and society gets to pick values. One of our values, in the public square, is equality. When you do business there, our values come first.

And has been said many times your definition of equality does not include forcing a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. The equality is in respecting other's faiths and values, not forcing them to share yours.

That is not my definition of Equality. If you bake cakes, bake the damn cake. Baking a cake is not serving God.

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe this is just a Catholic perspective - but isn't "until death do you part" a vow?

Orthodox Catholicism does view it differently than others but they have an annulment clause. Gotta cover the bases. And vows to people aren't the same as a vow to God, but even then it's common to break a vow, seek forgiveness and reboot. Unrepentant sin is the big no no.

 

[ScienceRocks]

make sure you bake a big fucking cock on top of that wedding cake...That way you get your point across.

 

[bendog]

Yes, and that was untrue. Pilate was a brutal man, he didn't ask for advice, and he executed insurrectionists, lots of them, without trial, on the cross.

Are you saying the NT does not contain a story of Pilate saying he found nothing in questioning Jesus to crucify him under Roman law, and that he acquiesced to the Jewish elite's wishes to execute Jesus?

No I am not. It's in there, it just isn't true.

Sooooo, could not Paul's admonitions against homosexuality be "not true" or perhaps a misinterpretation? I mean, isn't this a sort of slippery slope?

 

[KevinWestern]

Maybe this is just a Catholic perspective - but isn't "until death do you part" a vow?

Orthodox Catholicism does view it differently than others but they have an annulment clause. Gotta cover the bases. And vows to people aren't the same as a vow to God, but even then it's common to break a vow, seek forgiveness and reboot. Unrepentant sin is the big no no.

Well that's kinda my point too; there are many, many sins than many Christians commit today unrepentantly that they wouldn't dream of committing in the past. They're breaking a lot of the "rules" that apply directly to things in their life, while toughening up on the rules that apply conveniently to "the other".

Something about the whole thing doesn't seem sincere to me, but realize there's forces on both sides driving these behaviors.

All in all - FUCK THE "NEWS"/MEDIA, it sucks.

Anyways...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you saying the NT does not contain a story of Pilate saying he found nothing in questioning Jesus to crucify him under Roman law, and that he acquiesced to the Jewish elite's wishes to execute Jesus?

No I am not. It's in there, it just isn't true.

Sooooo, could not Paul's admonitions against homosexuality be "not true" or perhaps a misinterpretation? I mean, isn't this a sort of slippery slope?

It's only a Slippery Slope if you think the Bible is entirely accurate, which isn't true. As for Paul, that sounds like him but probably not the line about women being silent in church. And not everything attributed to Paul is by him. Jesus probably didn't say Let He Who Is Without Sin... either, and it's a terrific line.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Tell you what - you show me in the Bible where it says it is a sin to bake a cake for a gay person, and I'll change my mind.

Until then, I'm not buying into those who try to justify ignorance and hate with their "religion."

 

[Bfgrn]

But feel free to spew the anecdotal to support your RIGHT to discriminate...

Business scholar huh? The first thing you learn in business is how to effectively discriminate. What to offer. What products and supplies to buy. What service to offer. What service to avoid, etc. But when a gay couple comes in we are supposed to grab our ankles.

No, the first thing you need to learn is the English language, and the ability to discern different meanings and definitions of a word.


Discriminate

discriminate against:
1) to treat someone unfairly because of their religion, race, or other personal features

Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender.

discriminate between
2) to recognize the difference between things

 

[Iceweasel]

No, the first thing you need to learn is the English language, and the ability to discern different meanings and definitions of a word.


Discriminate

discriminate against:
1) to treat someone unfairly because of their religion, race, or other personal features

Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender.

discriminate between
2) to recognize the difference between things

You're going to lecture people on the English language and apply your word usage to their comments when you feel like it? The first thing you need to learn is how not to be an asshole. Remember, the longest journey begins with but a single step.


Discriminate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
dis·crim·i·nat·eddis·crim·i·nat·ing
Full Definition of DISCRIMINATE
transitive verb
1
a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of
b : distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2
: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object
intransitive verb
1
a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources>
b : to use good judgment
2
: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
See discriminate defined for English-language learners »
See discriminate defined for kids »

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wondering if someone could explain this to me...

You don't hear many stories of a Christian business owner refusing to serve someone who uses the Lord's name in vein, or someone who works on Sunday (by choice), or someone who commits adultery, or someone who worships idols, or someone who gambles/drinks a lot, or someone who doesn't honor his/her parents, etc, but you DO hear stories of Christian business owners refusing to serve a gay customers.

Why just this ONE sin, lol? Why are all the other sins ignored?

I think that's a fair question....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/u...-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?_r=0

I guess ignoring the fact that the people refused service for gay weddings, not gays in general. Are you saying people don't have the right to prefer traditional marriage or the choice not to participate in nontraditional ceremonies?

To clarify, I support a business's right to refuse service to anyone they want. I'm generally a person who wants less government involvement in our lives.

The OP question was why do Christians single gay people out? Why don't they also refuse to serve people who work on Sunday (by choice) - for instance - or a guy who says "Jesus Christ" in vein all of the time, or a guy who gambles and is divorced, or a guy who's known to worship idols, or a guy who doesn't honor his parents, etc?

Why do they single out the gays as the customer of choice to refuse, as if they are the only humans on the planet who sin?

A person comes in, orders a specialty cake, pays for it, comes back and picks it up. How does the baker know what kind of life that person leads? Perhaps that person worships satan but ordered a puppy cake for his kid. A gay couple comes in and orders a wedding cake, it is apparent they are gay. Your question is a bit ridiculous. And say that customer ordered a puppy cake and a devil worship cake ... doesn't the baker have the right to refuse to fill the devil order?

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about over this. A business has the right to refuse to do a job. Don't they? What does the reason matter?

Should a photographer have to take a job photographing tarantulas?

Should a house painter have to take a job painting an awkward house if they don't want to take it?

Should a baker have to bake a specialty cake that is explicit (say a cake for a bachelor/bachelorette party that is genitalia)?

Doesn't a business have the right to turn down work?

 

[FA_Q2]

It is worth mentioning that the bill in question actually does not say anything about gays, same sex couples or anything even remotely connected with gays. The media has been very remiss in the reporting of this particular move.

What the bill states is that you may refuse service based on your religious beliefs. There is no doubt that same sex couples were definitely in the thoughts of those proposing the bill but we should at least be clear about what the things actually states.

I find it rather asinine to compare this to the blacks and segregation as well. I notice that there have been numerous pictures of signs posted in this thread of whites only services/buildings but not a single straights only sign. Not one.

The reality of this type of discrimination is that it is extremely rare and that is why you don&#8217;t see any pictures posted &#8211; they don&#8217;t exist. The media trumps up the few places that actually did do something along these lines because there is a story to be sold there but we really are only talking about a few places in a sea of thousands.

To compare that to the plight that blacks faces is absolutely disgusting. They are not on the same level &#8211; not by a million miles.

 

[FA_Q2]

I guess ignoring the fact that the people refused service for gay weddings, not gays in general. Are you saying people don't have the right to prefer traditional marriage or the choice not to participate in nontraditional ceremonies?

To clarify, I support a business's right to refuse service to anyone they want. I'm generally a person who wants less government involvement in our lives.

The OP question was why do Christians single gay people out? Why don't they also refuse to serve people who work on Sunday (by choice) - for instance - or a guy who says "Jesus Christ" in vein all of the time, or a guy who gambles and is divorced, or a guy who's known to worship idols, or a guy who doesn't honor his parents, etc?

Why do they single out the gays as the customer of choice to refuse, as if they are the only humans on the planet who sin?

A person comes in, orders a specialty cake, pays for it, comes back and picks it up. How does the baker know what kind of life that person leads? Perhaps that person worships satan but ordered a puppy cake for his kid. A gay couple comes in and orders a wedding cake, it is apparent they are gay. Your question is a bit ridiculous. And say that customer ordered a puppy cake and a devil worship cake ... doesn't the baker have the right to refuse to fill the devil order?

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about over this. A business has the right to refuse to do a job. Don't they? What does the reason matter?

Should a photographer have to take a job photographing tarantulas?

Should a house painter have to take a job painting an awkward house if they don't want to take it?

Should a baker have to bake a specialty cake that is explicit (say a cake for a bachelor/bachelorette party that is genitalia)?

Doesn't a business have the right to turn down work?

Well, no. According to the liberals (and current law) they do not have a right to refuse service.
The funny thing is that the right to refuse service is only restricted based on a few protected classes. Namely color creed and now sexual orientation.

The real question is whether or not sexual orientation actually belongs on that list. In the past, such restrictions were based on the fact that there was a grate societal ill in allowing people to be a certain kind of bigot. In the case of blacks for instance – the bigotry was extremely wide spread and common. It posed a direct threat to the ability for black men and women to succeed.

The same cannot be said for the ‘plight’ of gays. I have to ask myself then, why do gays need this protection/enforcement?