Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[Seawytch]

Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game

It’s firmly in the Christian ethos to identify as being persecuted. Jesus stood up to the establishment and was tortured and murdered for it. To be a Christian is to worship a martyr.


So it’s been easy for America’s religious leaders/politicians to convince the devout they too are under assault. That in a country of 300 million, where the vast majority identify as Christian, where there’s never been a non-Christian president, where crosses are as ubiquitous as trees—Christians are being victimized for their convictions. That the almost entirely unanimously self-identified Christian government is going to suddenly go all ancient Rome on the followers of Jesus Christ.


It’s a way believers get manipulated. It makes them malleable and willing to go along with any hysteria that flares up. This week it’s religious freedom. If you listen to those sending out emails asking for donations—it’s under attack!!


How are Christians being attacked? How are their rights being diminished? Apparently if they own a business they’re being forced by Big Government to serve homosexuals. This is what oppression looks like: owning a business and making money off people your religion condemns. GASP! [...]

Apparently, American Christians are now being told liberty is a zero-sum game. That if LGBTs have more rights, Christians then have fewer; if homosexuals are equal, then Christians are second-class citizens; the more for a minority, the less for the majority. They’re being told the most important part of their faith isn’t charity to all—it’s ostracization for some.

Slavery is in the Bible. There are even instructions on how to treat one’s slaves. Slavery is not legal—and even the most devout can’t own any human beings. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Segregation was fueled by the belief that black people had the mark of Cain. Segregation is not legal. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Mutilations for punishments are abundant in the Bible for various crimes including theft and being a prostitute. This has been a practice of the Christian World for ages. The Eighth Amendment barred them; they are illegal. Are Christians less free?

No, and no one would dare to make that argument. Those battles have been won. American Christians live with a secular government that “forces” them to not live biblically every day and largely they’re fine with it.


But homosexuality is an abomination—an affront to god—according to the Bible, you say?


Usury is condemned as an abomination in the Bible. Charging interest is legal—even egregious amounts to poor people. These moneychangers are on every corner. Are Christians being threatened by this offense to god?

There are plenty of other abominations which are suspiciously glossed over by the modern faithful, like obesity, not covering your head, wearing wool blends, eating shellfish, being rich—all condemned and punished severely in the Christian Bible. None of them are against the law. Christians don’t claim their freedom is being impeded by these facts or that it’s so offensive to their faith they can’t run a business. [...]

Freedom really means others will be tolerated whom you don’t regard, understand or agree with. That’s the downside of having freedom in a free county—Americans you don’t like have it too.​

Gays being treated equally and having the same protections in a few states that Christians have in all 50 states, does not equate to "Christian Persecution".

 

[PredFan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

 

[Seawytch]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Yeah, well thanks for playing "I want unicorns that fart glitter". The fact is that the government does indeed do just that and when they do, it has been found to be within their Constitutional boundaries. You can argue the world where you want it to be instead of discussing it where it is...I'd rather play a video game. At least that's fantasy I can interact with.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Yeah, well thanks for playing "I want unicorns that fart glitter". The fact is that the government does indeed do just that and when they do, it has been found to be within their Constitutional boundaries. You can argue the world where you want it to be instead of discussing it where it is...I'd rather play a video game. At least that's fantasy I can interact with.

I would rather play a video game than have a govt force me to do something.

 

[Stephanie]

oh for crying out loud. You have every RIGHT the rest of people in this country has.

Marrying isn't a frikken right. You just USE it to bludgeon the rest of the people with it.

so sick of hearing about how you are such poor poor victims in life

tiny is a fitting name for that website. whiners is another

 

[DGS49]

No one seems willing to address the fundamental point at issue here: BEHAVIOR.

No one discriminates against homosexuals for BEING homosexual. The sexual attraction to people of the same gender is (a) morally neutral, and (b) undetectable without overt behavior on the part of the homosexual. No one is refusing any goods or services to anyone because the potential customers are homosexual.

Gay marriage is an entirely different proposition. A same-sex couple that is celebrating its marriage (assuming they are men) are celebrating their intention to perpetually engage in conduct that is abhorrent to a majority of the population, and an "abomination" to people whose religious beliefs are most extreme. A True Believer should not be compelled by law to participate in such a celebration.

So this is totally different from, say, refusing to cater to a wedding between an African American and a Caucasian. It is more analogous to, for example a Jehovah's Witness landlord refusing to rent his storefront to a liquor store, or a medical marijuana clinic. You are asking the landlord to support activity (drinking, toking) that he finds morally unacceptable.

The more basic question, or course, is whether the government has any right at all to regulate private, legal, commercial interactions under any circumstances. It does not.

 

[TheOldSchool]

37 and soon to be 50 states republicunts

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course soon to be 50 states. That's imposed on all 50 states against the will of the public in those states.

 

[Stephanie]

Of course soon to be 50 states. That's imposed on all 50 states against the will of the public in those states.

If they have their way it will. Look how they trounced on the peoples will and VOTES in California. Either the people will take a stand one day or not

 

[The Rabbi]

When people ask "what's the harm in gay marriage? How is it affecting you?" we know the answer. If you disagree with it you will be forced to do work contrary to your principles, you will have your business shut down, you will be hounded out of your job.
That is reason right there to oppose gay marriage.

 

[Katzndogz]

The minute one group has the power to compel another to labor in service against their will the rights of those compelled are diminished.

 

[The Rabbi]

 

[bripat9643]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Yeah, well thanks for playing "I want unicorns that fart glitter". The fact is that the government does indeed do just that and when they do, it has been found to be within their Constitutional boundaries. You can argue the world where you want it to be instead of discussing it where it is...I'd rather play a video game. At least that's fantasy I can interact with.

We know the government does it. Apparently you believe that is sufficient to make it moral and ethical. If that was the case then putting Jews in gas ovens was also moral and ethical.

The fact that you accept the opinion of some hand picked toadies on the Supreme Court as infallible only proves that you are terminally gullible.

 

[Mac1958]

.

There are very few things in life that are zero sum games.

Life is nuance.

If partisan ideologues could understand that, we'd be more likely to solve our problems.

.

 

[Edgetho]

We know the government does it. Apparently you believe that is sufficient to make it moral and ethical. If that was the case then putting Jews in gas ovens was also moral and ethical.

The fact that you accept the opinion of some hand picked toadies on the Supreme Court as infallible only proves that you are terminally gullible.

Dred Scott - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's why we had to kill 300,000+ dimocrap scum.

They STILL haven't gotten the message

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course soon to be 50 states. That's imposed on all 50 states against the will of the public in those states.

Actually a number of states have Same-sex Civil Marriage based on STATE action (ballotts and legislative action).


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course soon to be 50 states. That's imposed on all 50 states against the will of the public in those states.

Actually a number of states have Same-sex Civil Marriage based on STATE action (ballotts and legislative action).


>>>>

It's what, like 3? 4? New York enacted it through the legislature. Colorado had a ballot measure. But everywhere else unelected judges overturned the will of the people and made this country a tyranny.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep, the American PC Police and the Jihadist PC Police.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep, the American PC Police and the Jihadist PC Police.

.

There is fundamentally no difference between "progressives" and their pals in the LGBTQ movement and Islamic jihadis.

 

[Stephanie]

Yep, the American PC Police and the Jihadist PC Police.

.

There is fundamentally no difference between "progressives" and their pals in the LGBTQ movement and Islamic jihadis.

that's truth. Look at them cozying up to every communist country and the Muslims in the middle east. They are a DANGER to all of us. People need to wake up to that fact