Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry

[mikegriffith1]

Let's just be honest, shall we? Deep down, everyone here knows that the liberals' opposition to, and smearing of, religious freedom laws is based on their hatred of, and bigotry toward, religion, especially Christianity.

You can see the liberals' hatred and bigotry shining through in the numerous threads on this subject, as they repeatedly avoid answering logical objections to their posturing and as they keep using the same erroneous comparisons even after you've shown them that the comparisons are utterly ridiculous.

If placed under a truth serum that worked, liberals would readily admit that they would not dream of filing a lawsuit if a gay couple were turned down by a photographer who was an old-style hippie who rejected all forms of marriage and who therefore refused to service any weddings whatsoever, gay or straight. They would admit that the gay couple would--and should--just go get another photographer. They would not think about whining that they were "victims of discrimination." Why can't gay couples show the same tolerance toward religious vendors? Answer: Because most of them hate religious people and can't stand any reminder that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.

Some basic facts that liberals here keep avoiding like the plague:

* Getting a vendor to provide a flower arrangement at a wedding, or to bake a wedding cake, or to host a wedding, or to cater or photograph a wedding is not a "basic need." These are conveniences that quite a few people have either skimped on or done without when they got married. Lots of people have done their own wedding flower arrangements. Lots of people have baked their own wedding cakes or had friends do so (we did). And lots of people, especially with the advent of digital cameras, have simply had a friend or two take pictures at their wedding.

* For that matter, marriage itself is not something that we "have" to do to survive. It is a choice, a choice that many people in our day reject altogether. We need to eat, sleep, live somewhere, and get medical care. We do not "have" to get married to survive. Indeed, it was not all that long ago that the gay rights advocates, along with other leftists, were screaming that marriage was an archaic, oppressive institution.

* If a religious vendor declines to host or service a gay wedding, he has not denied the gay couple a single basic right or need, and the gay couple has not suffered "discrimination." Instead, the gay couple has merely encountered a vendor whose moral beliefs are different from theirs, and the religious vendor has merely exercised his constitutional freedom of religion to not be forced to host or service a ceremony that he finds morally and spiritually offensive.

* After a religious vendor declines to host or service a gay wedding, the gay couple still has plenty of readily available options. What's more, the gay couple has not in any way been prevented from getting married. They are perfectly free to just go find another vendor, which they can quickly and easily do. They are not being forced to do anything that they find morally offensive. If they simply live and let live and go use another vendor, they get what they want and the religious vendor gets what he wants.

* But what if the gay couple wants a religious vendor and doesn't want to use another vendor? Okay, do we have to get everything we want? The gay couple does not "need" to use a religious vendor, nor any vendor at all. Just because a gay couple might prefer Vendor A who happens to be religious does not mean that the vendor should be forced to host or service a ceremony that he finds offensive.

* If I'm hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and I would prefer that a certain printer who happens to be gay do the printing of the seminar's booklets, should my preference overrule the gay printer's desire not to be forced to print something that he finds offensive? As long as I can find another printer, wouldn't the polite, decent thing to do be to just go use another printer? Can you imagine the explosion of outrage that would occur among the gay rights gestapo if I sued the gay printer and won, and he got fined and was then forced to print my booklets?

In the threads on religious freedom laws, I have mostly used non-religious arguments in favor of them. I have rarely mentioned God or the Bible as reasons for opposing the coercion of religious vendors.

But if I were to emphasize the fact that we know from the Bible that God himself has said that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, and that God wants us to avoid homosexuality because he wants us to be healthy and happy, you would see the fury of the liberals become even more intense and unbounded. (Liberals get annoyed when you point out the scientific fact that we know of no examples in the animal kingdom of two animals of the same gender living together as a romantic couple--this is simply unheard of in nature.)

Liberals could not even begin to try to defend gay marriage, much less defend forcing religious vendors to service gay weddings, if they acknowledged the reality of God and the Bible's validity. Liberals typically react with dismissive anger and/or sarcasm anytime someone cites what the Bible says about marriage, the family, and homosexuality. Only by excluding God from their worldview and from the discussion can liberals even hope to defend their position on these issues.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Lots of words there, but I didn't get to the honest part.

Whatever happened to truth in advertising, anyway?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Lots of words there, but I didn't get to the honest part. Whatever happened to truth in advertising, anyway?

Whatever happened to dealing with arguments and not hiding behind inane polemic? I've asked you guys to answers these and similar points in thread after thread, and all I've gotten is a bunch of ducking, dodging, and the repeating of the same ridiculous apples-to-snails comparisons that have been refuted ad nauseam.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

 

[FA_Q2]

Reverse that. A FEW hate just a there are a few on the right that hate.

The vast majority do not hate. That is blatantly evident. There is a larger concentration of those that hate here on this site as all debate boards are going to draw an inordinate number of trolls but even here there is not a majority. The very vocal minority here of those that hate religious people are just a lot louder.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

They don't follow Jesus, Dragonlady. They follow an admixture of Paul and the Old Testament.

If a rational and fair minded person picked up the N.T. and started reading it from cover to cover, about the LAST thing they would conclude Jesus was all about was the persecution of Gay people. He never once mentioned Homosexuality, never urged his disciples to hate them, and never indicated there was anything wrong with it. His was the New Covenant and not that of the Pharisees.

Modern day Pharisees are not content with actual religious freedom, though. Nobody is telling them what they can or cannot preach in churches. Nobody is saying a priest has to marry a gay couple or that a church has to perform a gay wedding. What they want isn't freedom of belief, but freedom of action and not just freedom of action within the confines of their religion, but within the public sphere.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

More ridiculous arguments that clearly ignore the counter-points to them that have already been made repeatedly--in the OP and in other threads. You start with the erroneous assumption that to decline to host/service a gay wedding is discrimination and then you go from there. You did not touch, did not a lay finger on, the arguments against this assumption.

And your use of Jesus's teachings gives new meaning to the word "distortion." Would you like to consider what Jesus said about marriage, about homosexuality, etc.? How about those times when Jesus did not turn the other cheek but issued sharp condemnations of sinful behavior and those who engaged in it? But, of course, you don't know the Bible much--you used the same handful of cherry-picked verses that other liberals use and ignore everything else Jesus said and did.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, let's talk about that. If I asked a gay printer to print booklets for a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality, and he said he would find it offensive to print them, I would not accuse of him of "discrimination," nor sue him. I would simply recognize that his moral beliefs were different from mine and I would not seek to coerce or punish him for not wanting to print something that he found offensive. WHY CAN'T GAYS SHOW THE SAME TOLERANCE AND RESPECT FOR OTHERS' BELIEFS?

 

[FA_Q2]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

Why turn it around?

It is not for you to decide what ones faith is or is not - that is a personal decision. Anyone can pick a single line or lines from the bible and make a point with it (same as a single line or lines from the Koran) that is counter to the faith that one has. Your interpretation of the bible or other book of faith is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what the OP posits and s no different than what the Christians here have done with the Koran and declaring Islam to be a religion of pure hate and violence.

 

[FA_Q2]

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

They don't follow Jesus, Dragonlad. They follow an admixture of Paul and the Old Testament.

If a rational and fair minded person picked up the N.T. and started reading it from cover to cover, about the LAST thing they would conclude Jesus was all about was the persecution of Gay people. He never once mentioned Homosexuality, never urged his disciples to hate them, and never indicated there was anything wrong with it. His was the New Covenant and not that of the Pharisees.

Modern day Pharisees are not content with actual religious freedom, though. Nobody is telling them what they can or cannot preach in churches. Nobody is saying a priest has to marry a gay couple or that a church has to perform a gay wedding. What they want isn't freedom of belief, but freedom of action and not just freedom of action within the confines of their religion, but within the public sphere.

I am interested in this idea pr persecution.

Where do you see general Christians persecuting gays (Because institution like Wesburro do not really count here)? Is not baking a cake now persecuting? That is how far out of proportion this has been blown.

 

[OKTexas]

Lots of words there, but I didn't get to the honest part.

Whatever happened to truth in advertising, anyway?

It died with the advent of political ads.

 

[jknowgood]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

On all the accounts I've seen queers weren't refused service in the establishment. It's when they wanted the owner to cater their wedding. That does go against a christians values. So they tell them they cannot in faith do it. So the hatred comes from the queer demanding the store owner to go against what they believe in, but they are welcomed into their store.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry"

That IS honest... because that is Truth.

The more interesting truth, is how the Left is separating out Islam... a proclaimed "Religion", which the Left in NO WAY PROTESTS.

There's a clue in that... and that clue tells us three things.

First, Islam is NOT a religion.

Second, the Left understands that Islam is not a religion.

Third, The Left and Islam are perpetrating Evil... thus the Left and Islam ARE EVIL!

 

[bodecea]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

This is a country with a huge christian majority....kind of hard for you to effectively cry persecution. It just makes you look stupid.

 

[Moonglow]

 

[bodecea]

Well, that's kind of what happened with the Puritans. They left England because they felt they were being persecuted and came to Massachusetts and were one of the worst persecutors ever.

 

[Moonglow]

Well, that's kind of what happened with the Puritans. They left England because they felt they were being persecuted and came to Massachusetts and were one of the worst persecutors ever.

I had to grow up around devoutly pious religious and strict social strata..humans called Christian Americans....The subjugation was more than I could take and split the scene at 14......

 

[hangover]

Being honest, the religious freedom law is a conspiracy by cons to legalize discrimination, and that's a fact. Cons got caught with their pants down, and they all know it. Then they tried to make it look like they changed the law without really doing so. It's called doubling down on their stupidity. Cons will never learn that when they're in a hole, to quit digging.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment.

Does it?

Your reasoning is subjective.

In truth, treating others as you would have them treat you, is NOT a license to perpetuate perversion, with impunity. You 'feel' that it is, because you don't want others to judge you.

Sadly, when others do not judge you, you do not learn the difference between viable behavior and inviable behavior. And the culture quickly becomes INVIABLE as a consequence.

In short, you're quite insane. And, sadly for your feelings, viable cultures do not remain so by acquiescing to those who fail to discern the distinction between reality and fantasy.