Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

A business in the United States should be free to conduct itself in any manner it wishes. Hire, fire, refuse service, allow smoking, or any other decision.

If that business wants to self implode based on poor choices so be it. Likewise if it thrives it should be based on their choices.

The You Didn't Build That mentality is bullshit. The public is not as stupid as your government insists you are and we don't need to be babysat.

And the baker fiasco is VERY RELATIVE to your question. Your refusal to discuss it is telling of your inability to defend the actions taken against the business.

We used to value freedom in this country.

 

[bodecea]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

A business in the United States should be free to conduct itself in any manner it wishes. Hire, fire, refuse service, allow smoking, or any other decision.

If that business wants to self implode based on poor choices so be it. Likewise if it thrives it should be based on their choices.

The You Didn't Build That mentality is bullshit. The public is not as stupid as your government insists you are and we don't need to be babysat.

And the baker fiasco is VERY RELATIVE to your question. Your refusal to discuss it is telling of your inability to defend the actions taken against the business.

We used to value freedom in this country.

Then, the people who feel strongly about it need to organize and take action to repeal such laws.

 

[forkup]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

Ok so a mass murderer is forgiven as long as he repents before he dies? But someone who is gay and follows his heart shouldn't be forgiven? You would rather hire a repentant mass murderer then a unrepentant gay person? Sorry to put it in those terms but that is the logical conclusion to that argument.

You invoked the teachings of Jesus on forgiveness...and I informed you that you were mistaken.

My religion doesn't require that I hire, or refuse to hire either. But the government should also not force me to hire either. Jesus chose to eat with sinners, and he didn't rebuke those who chose not to do so. A person with deeply held religious convictions should not be forced by the government to embrace sin, or be forced to invite sin into their business. Whether that is paying for abortion or contraception, or hiring people who engage in behavior the owners religious beliefs codify as sinful.

That is religious freedom.

It's not like we just made this stuff up last year...it has been a part of our religion for millenia. The prohibitions against homosexuality are recorded in the very first book of the Bible...Genesis 19:4-5 and continue through out the Old Testament and into the New...Jesus reiterated the proclamations that God had made them male and female...and that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife. There isn't any room for discussion in that statement.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

 

[deltex1]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

It's not about religion as much as its about abnormal people. Would you want a social worker who is counseling your kids to show up one week as a man...and the next week as a woman?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the transgender issue....if that is, in fact what you're alluding to.?? Ignorance is abnormal although not as much as it should be.

I know a guy who does exactly that. GFY.

You still don't know what the fuck your talking about.

I'm talking about weirdos...you included. You from massatwoshits? That would explain it.

 

[jknowgood]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

You invoked the teachings of Jesus on forgiveness...and I informed you that you were mistaken.

My religion doesn't require that I hire, or refuse to hire either. But the government should also not force me to hire either. Jesus chose to eat with sinners, and he didn't rebuke those who chose not to do so. A person with deeply held religious convictions should not be forced by the government to embrace sin, or be forced to invite sin into their business. Whether that is paying for abortion or contraception, or hiring people who engage in behavior the owners religious beliefs codify as sinful.

That is religious freedom.

It's not like we just made this stuff up last year...it has been a part of our religion for millenia. The prohibitions against homosexuality are recorded in the very first book of the Bible...Genesis 19:4-5 and continue through out the Old Testament and into the New...Jesus reiterated the proclamations that God had made them male and female...and that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife. There isn't any room for discussion in that statement.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

 

[forkup]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

 

[jknowgood]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

 

[forkup]

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

 

[jknowgood]

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

 

[forkup]

That is wrong too plain and simple.
I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

I'm pretty sure all the references you refer too is against being gay. Not against them getting cake. And I freely admit that I pick my verses to fit my agenda, my point is so do you. I don't claim that I'm religious, you are. Furthermore you are claiming that love can be perverse between 2 consenting adults, because that's what your INTERPRETATION of the bible says. I also want to know how supporting, even if you could make a case that's what baking a wedding cake is ( Something you haven't done) makes us look like Sodom and Gomorrah? A gay person is gay not because of a choice he makes. It's HIS or HERS sexual orientation. It's not contagious. My daughter is best friends with a daughter of a lesbian couple. I have no fear that she will turn out that way. Like I said it's not contagious and I'm not afraid because I don't judge people by who they have sex with. I want my daughter to be happy so why would I be afraid because she finds someone she could love?Compassion and love are central in the New Testament, but since you feel being gay is perverse and some book that claims its alright to stone people for adultery confirms that viewpoint, you feel you can forego these values.

 

[forkup]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

A business in the United States should be free to conduct itself in any manner it wishes. Hire, fire, refuse service, allow smoking, or any other decision.

If that business wants to self implode based on poor choices so be it. Likewise if it thrives it should be based on their choices.

The You Didn't Build That mentality is bullshit. The public is not as stupid as your government insists you are and we don't need to be babysat.

And the baker fiasco is VERY RELATIVE to your question. Your refusal to discuss it is telling of your inability to defend the actions taken against the business.

We used to value freedom in this country.

This the kind of freedom you refer too?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

A business in the United States should be free to conduct itself in any manner it wishes. Hire, fire, refuse service, allow smoking, or any other decision.

If that business wants to self implode based on poor choices so be it. Likewise if it thrives it should be based on their choices.

The You Didn't Build That mentality is bullshit. The public is not as stupid as your government insists you are and we don't need to be babysat.

And the baker fiasco is VERY RELATIVE to your question. Your refusal to discuss it is telling of your inability to defend the actions taken against the business.

We used to value freedom in this country.

View attachment 153285
This the kind of freedom you refer too?

As bad as that is, yes. I would not go there would you?

A business like that today would not survive regardless of regulations.

Freedom also means you have the right to do stupid shit that ends your business venture.

 

[Timmy]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

Religion is an excuse to justify their hatred . These people don't care about the Bible ! They are fake religious . The Bible says tattoos are a sin. Is there an uproar over tattooed people !? No.

 

[forkup]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

A business in the United States should be free to conduct itself in any manner it wishes. Hire, fire, refuse service, allow smoking, or any other decision.

If that business wants to self implode based on poor choices so be it. Likewise if it thrives it should be based on their choices.

The You Didn't Build That mentality is bullshit. The public is not as stupid as your government insists you are and we don't need to be babysat.

And the baker fiasco is VERY RELATIVE to your question. Your refusal to discuss it is telling of your inability to defend the actions taken against the business.

We used to value freedom in this country.

View attachment 153285
This the kind of freedom you refer too?

As bad as that is, yes. I would not go there would you?

A business like that today would not survive regardless of regulations.

Freedom also means you have the right to do stupid shit that ends your business venture.

Point taken. I'm just not sure taking the protections away that limit these kind of behaviors will not revert the US back to a time were racism was a socially acceptable way to be. Laws do steer moral outlook.

 

[jknowgood]

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

I'm pretty sure all the references you refer too is against being gay. Not against them getting cake. And I freely admit that I pick my verses to fit my agenda, my point is so do you. I don't claim that I'm religious, you are. Furthermore you are claiming that love can be perverse between 2 consenting adults, because that's what your INTERPRETATION of the bible says. I also want to know how supporting, even if you could make a case that's what baking a wedding cake is ( Something you haven't done) makes us look Sodom and Gomorrah? A gay person is gay not because of a choice he makes. It's HIS or HERS sexual orientation. It's not contagious. My daughter is best friends with a daughter of a lesbian couple. I have no fear that she will turn out that way. Like I said it's not contagious and I'm not afraid because I don't judge people by who they have sex with. I want my daughter to be happy so why would I be afraid because she finds someone she could love?Compassion and love are central in the New Testament, but since you feel being gay is perverse and some book that claims its alright to stone people for adultery confirms that viewpoint, you feel you can forego these values.

Look two consenting adults can do just about anything. Just don't ask me to support it. My pastor had several bible verses for his sermon like he always does. The ones he referenced about gay marriage. The point out of the 6 or so verses is that marriage is between a man and woman, BUT you hate the sin, not the sinner. So there fore if you are gay I can love you for the person you are, but don't ask me to support your lifestyle. Like the baker sold the couple things off the shelf, but he didn't want to support what he knows is a sin. Why can't you get that through your head. 2 Thessalonians 3:10, if you don't work you don't eat. See I can cherry pick verses, but of course God wants us to help those in need. You have to read the bible to understand it. You also need to listen to a pastor to interpret for you also. The guy that studies the bible.

 

[jknowgood]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

Religion is an excuse to justify their hatred . These people don't care about the Bible ! They are fake religious . The Bible says tattoos are a sin. Is there an uproar over tattooed people !? No.

So you support the businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters? Or how about the coffee shop owner that kick a group out of shop for being against abortion? Do the owners have that right without being sued into bankruptcy? Personally I think they do, but I'm for freedom. Just like the kneeling, they have the right, but I got the right to cut them off.

 

[forkup]

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

I'm pretty sure all the references you refer too is against being gay. Not against them getting cake. And I freely admit that I pick my verses to fit my agenda, my point is so do you. I don't claim that I'm religious, you are. Furthermore you are claiming that love can be perverse between 2 consenting adults, because that's what your INTERPRETATION of the bible says. I also want to know how supporting, even if you could make a case that's what baking a wedding cake is ( Something you haven't done) makes us look Sodom and Gomorrah? A gay person is gay not because of a choice he makes. It's HIS or HERS sexual orientation. It's not contagious. My daughter is best friends with a daughter of a lesbian couple. I have no fear that she will turn out that way. Like I said it's not contagious and I'm not afraid because I don't judge people by who they have sex with. I want my daughter to be happy so why would I be afraid because she finds someone she could love?Compassion and love are central in the New Testament, but since you feel being gay is perverse and some book that claims its alright to stone people for adultery confirms that viewpoint, you feel you can forego these values.

Look two consenting adults can do just about anything. Just don't ask me to support it. My pastor had several bible verses for his sermon like he always does. The ones he referenced about gay marriage. The point out of the 6 or so verses is that marriage is between a man and woman, BUT you hate the sin, not the sinner. So there fore if you are gay I can love you for the person you are, but don't ask me to support your lifestyle. Like the baker sold the couple things off the shelf, but he didn't want to support what he knows is a sin. Why can't you get that through your head. 2 Thessalonians 3:10, if you don't work you don't eat. See I can cherry pick verses, but of course God wants us to help those in need. You have to read the bible to understand it. You also need to listen to a pastor to interpret for you also. The guy that studies the bible.

The guy that studies the bible has no clearer idea then the next guy. You are letting someone else define what is important and he's not on speed dial with god. And you have a hard time making me understand because you aren't able to provide any credence to your claim that baking a wedding cake is supporting their lifestyle. In the end its not even the main issue. Morality in modern day society is governed by laws. We have come a long way since the days of the Old Testament were the bible was the law. I don't think you would want to life in a society that would still consider the bible a law book. Yet the religious right constantly pushes for letting that viewpoint permeate modern day society. The example of the baker is a symptom not a cause. As I pointed out to Grampa, allowing people to discriminate based on race is a slippery slope to the social acceptance of racism. Discriminating on the bases of religious beliefs is an honest to god important step to a theocracy. Gay people are a minority and as such are in constant danger of discrimination to begin with. I personally think it a good thing when that is stopped before it turns into something uglier.

 

[forkup]

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

I'm pretty sure all the references you refer too is against being gay. Not against them getting cake. And I freely admit that I pick my verses to fit my agenda, my point is so do you. I don't claim that I'm religious, you are. Furthermore you are claiming that love can be perverse between 2 consenting adults, because that's what your INTERPRETATION of the bible says. I also want to know how supporting, even if you could make a case that's what baking a wedding cake is ( Something you haven't done) makes us look Sodom and Gomorrah? A gay person is gay not because of a choice he makes. It's HIS or HERS sexual orientation. It's not contagious. My daughter is best friends with a daughter of a lesbian couple. I have no fear that she will turn out that way. Like I said it's not contagious and I'm not afraid because I don't judge people by who they have sex with. I want my daughter to be happy so why would I be afraid because she finds someone she could love?Compassion and love are central in the New Testament, but since you feel being gay is perverse and some book that claims its alright to stone people for adultery confirms that viewpoint, you feel you can forego these values.

Look two consenting adults can do just about anything. Just don't ask me to support it. My pastor had several bible verses for his sermon like he always does. The ones he referenced about gay marriage. The point out of the 6 or so verses is that marriage is between a man and woman, BUT you hate the sin, not the sinner. So there fore if you are gay I can love you for the person you are, but don't ask me to support your lifestyle. Like the baker sold the couple things off the shelf, but he didn't want to support what he knows is a sin. Why can't you get that through your head. 2 Thessalonians 3:10, if you don't work you don't eat. See I can cherry pick verses, but of course God wants us to help those in need. You have to read the bible to understand it. You also need to listen to a pastor to interpret for you also. The guy that studies the bible.

The guy that studies the bible has no clearer idea then the next guy. You are letting someone else define what is important and he's not on speed dial with god. And you have a hard time making me understand because you aren't able to provide any credence to your claim that baking a wedding cake is supporting their lifestyle. In the end its not even the main issue. Morality in modern day society is governed by laws. We have come a long way since the days of the Old Testament were the bible was the law. I don't think you would want to life in a society that would still consider the bible a law book. Yet the religious right constantly pushes for letting that viewpoint permeate modern day society. The example of the baker is a symptom not a cause. As I pointed out to Grampa, allowing people to discriminate based on race is a slippery slope to the social acceptance of racism. Discriminating on the bases of religious beliefs is an honest to god important step to a theocracy. Gay people are a minority and as such are in constant danger of discrimination to begin with. I personally think it a good thing when that is stopped before it turns into something uglier.

On a personal note thank you for having a civil conversation about this.

 

[bodecea]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That is wrong too plain and simple.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

I don't get it because the argument that following Jesus's example is against my religion is a contradiction. Both you and Missouri admitted to the premise that Jesus did eat with sinners, and you added that the bible says hate the sin not the sinner. You also didn't answer my question. How do you decide what's important enough to life by. You pick and choose what's relevant to begin with.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Cakes are for wedding receptions...not weddings. In fact where does the bible even talk about wedding cakes?

 

[jknowgood]

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

I'm pretty sure all the references you refer too is against being gay. Not against them getting cake. And I freely admit that I pick my verses to fit my agenda, my point is so do you. I don't claim that I'm religious, you are. Furthermore you are claiming that love can be perverse between 2 consenting adults, because that's what your INTERPRETATION of the bible says. I also want to know how supporting, even if you could make a case that's what baking a wedding cake is ( Something you haven't done) makes us look Sodom and Gomorrah? A gay person is gay not because of a choice he makes. It's HIS or HERS sexual orientation. It's not contagious. My daughter is best friends with a daughter of a lesbian couple. I have no fear that she will turn out that way. Like I said it's not contagious and I'm not afraid because I don't judge people by who they have sex with. I want my daughter to be happy so why would I be afraid because she finds someone she could love?Compassion and love are central in the New Testament, but since you feel being gay is perverse and some book that claims its alright to stone people for adultery confirms that viewpoint, you feel you can forego these values.

Look two consenting adults can do just about anything. Just don't ask me to support it. My pastor had several bible verses for his sermon like he always does. The ones he referenced about gay marriage. The point out of the 6 or so verses is that marriage is between a man and woman, BUT you hate the sin, not the sinner. So there fore if you are gay I can love you for the person you are, but don't ask me to support your lifestyle. Like the baker sold the couple things off the shelf, but he didn't want to support what he knows is a sin. Why can't you get that through your head. 2 Thessalonians 3:10, if you don't work you don't eat. See I can cherry pick verses, but of course God wants us to help those in need. You have to read the bible to understand it. You also need to listen to a pastor to interpret for you also. The guy that studies the bible.

The guy that studies the bible has no clearer idea then the next guy. You are letting someone else define what is important and he's not on speed dial with god. And you have a hard time making me understand because you aren't able to provide any credence to your claim that baking a wedding cake is supporting their lifestyle. In the end its not even the main issue. Morality in modern day society is governed by laws. We have come a long way since the days of the Old Testament were the bible was the law. I don't think you would want to life in a society that would still consider the bible a law book. Yet the religious right constantly pushes for letting that viewpoint permeate modern day society. The example of the baker is a symptom not a cause. As I pointed out to Grampa, allowing people to discriminate based on race is a slippery slope to the social acceptance of racism. Discriminating on the bases of religious beliefs is an honest to god important step to a theocracy. Gay people are a minority and as such are in constant danger of discrimination to begin with. I personally think it a good thing when that is stopped before it turns into something uglier.

We will have to agree to disagree.