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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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......

ROFLMNAO!

Well, what you just stated is that you patterned your life around that which you felt was true, when you were 14 years old.

(Reader, you may have seen me point out that Left-think is comprised of Children and Fools. What you see in the above cited contribution is precisely that... maturation ceased at 14 years in that individual... thus it was incapable of growing beyond the mindset of that which is reasonably expected of a child. All of us were beginning to develop opinions in our early teens... most of us grew out of those necessarily short-sighted opinions, as we gained more experience... the fools, sadly, did not.

See how that works?)

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps are the scum of the earth --

Stanford Group That Promotes Family, Marriage And Sexual Integrity Is Threatening To LGBT Students, Group Moved Off Campus…


The offended minority wins again.

Via Campus Reform

LGBT activists and faculty at Stanford University succeeded Wednesday in forcing a nonpartisan, pro-sexual integrity student group to move a previously approved conference off Stanford’s Medical School campus.

Members of a student-led LGBT advocacy group within the medical school circulated a petition Monday demanding that Stanford administrators “reconsider making space available” on the university’s Medical School campus to the school’s chapter of the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS), which is scheduled to host its second annual “Facing History” conference—a scholarly event focused on the history, sociology, psychology, economics, and legacy of the sexual revolution—on April 11.

According to the petition, addressed to Dean Lloyd Minor of Stanford’s Medical School, allowing SAS to hold its conference at previously contracted facilities at the Medical School “will certainly make our LGBT students feel threatened on their own campus.”

“If the conference is held on our campus, we will be protesting the event, and ask for the support of the administration in this opposition. We are preparing to rally the support of both local and national organizations,” signatories of the petition threatened.

SAS, which describes itself as “neither religiously nor politically affiliated,” frequently holds events on campus intended to encourage discussion about the importance of traditional marriage, sexual integrity, and the family unit. Its upcoming conference plans to address the “decreasing rates of marriage and childbirth, increasing rates of premarital cohabitation and divorce, and the emergence of the pro-choice movement” as intensified by the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, according to a statement issued by the organization.[…]

Although the conference has been partially funded by the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Undergraduate Senate, Graduate Student Council, and Stanford Speakers Bureau, and is explicitly open to all interested students, petitioners allegedly claim that the conference’s scheduled list of speakers will deliver remarks that promote “hate speech.”

“To claim that these distinguished speakers are promoting hate speech is reproachable,” Elisa Figueroa, SAS co-president, said in a statement released Wednesday. “They have been invited to Stanford in order to share their research, and they deserve more from this university and its students than the libelous commentary contained in the [petition].”[…]

SAS had the same problem last year when they attempted to host a conference on traditional marriage; after protests from GradQ, a queer graduate student organization, the Stanford Graduate Student Council initially denied funding for the event and labeled the group’s message of sexual integrity “hate speech.”

However, Stanford “ found the funds” to pay for the conference at the last minute.

 

[-S-]

The OP is right, conservative Christians are definitely disliked in this country.



Now, I wonder why that is..

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

It has nothing to do with hatred of Christianity. It has to do with practicing REAL Christianity, the Christianity Jesus practiced and preached. NOT right wing Christianity that preaches bigotry, discrimination and exclusion.

If these "religious" venders refuse to serve sinners, then WHO will there be TO serve?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Anti-religious laws are designed to rein in those who think that conjuring up imaginary beings with magical powers somehow earns them the right to be above the law,

and gain special privileges over those who might not choose to invoke their belief in invisible spirits as some sort of omnipotent talisman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Someday when a religion is formed that includes in its tenets the belief that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment,

and then the followers of that religion claim 1st amendment powers to protect those beliefs,

where will you be then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are not allowed in this country to claim a religious privilege to discriminate against people of color,

and that is now embedded so far into the fabric of our social and legal system that rarely does anyone even venture to dispute it;

it is however, in principle, just as valid a claim as is the claim that one's religious beliefs should allow one to discriminate against people of color.

Someday such will be the same for homosexuals. You're fighting one of the best examples of a losing battle that one can imagine.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Our haters are very concerned about the possibility that someone hates them.

These weirdos interchange the terms mock and persecute. I openly mock Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. That doesn't mean that I persecute them. I've never done a fucking thing to a single one of them.

Can we get some more threads where our christian nutters are throwing a tantrum? Please!!

 

[Mr.Right]

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.

Weren't the Nazi's a minority?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The OP is right, conservative Christians are definitely disliked in this country.



Now, I wonder why that is..

Conservative and Christian are axiomatic synonyms. Can't be one, without the other. Where each concept is accurately conveyed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Weren't the Nazi's a minority?

Yes... Yes they were.

Albeit a mouthy, deceitful, violent minority.

Also, The Iraqi Islamic Terrorist Insurgency... were also a stark minority. As are the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

[-S-]

Conservative and Christian are axiomatic synonyms. Can't be one, without the other. Where each concept is accurately conveyed.

That's an interesting opinion. I'm a Christian, and I'm left of center on a good many issues.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Conservative and Christian are axiomatic synonyms. Can't be one, without the other. Where each concept is accurately conveyed.

That's an interesting opinion. I'm a Christian, and I'm left of center on a good many issues.

Interesting.

Can you cite the specific examples?

 

[Mr.Right]

The OP is right, conservative Christians are definitely disliked in this country.



Now, I wonder why that is..

It's because the majority of people hate God.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The OP is right, conservative Christians are definitely disliked in this country.



Now, I wonder why that is..

It's because the majority of people hate God.

Not true... a majority of the people, counted specifically as 100%, fall short of the glory of God.

Thus within a majority of those, they fear their own failure to ever be worthy of God's love. Having failed to embrace God's grace through Christ. That fear is used by evil, manifested through Relativism, to rationalize that God hates THEM... thus the perception is that they hate God.

Seems like a fine line, but it is not.

The moment that a person realizes that God is the epitome of fair... judging everyone equally (All men are created equal...) and that through Christ their inability to ever rise to any sense of perfect obedience to God's law, is forgiven, this typically results in their embracing God's grace and the subsequent life altering change wherein they come to love God.

The problem is that so few ever take the time and put forth the effort to UNDERSTAND IT!

 

[-S-]

Conservative and Christian are axiomatic synonyms. Can't be one, without the other. Where each concept is accurately conveyed.

That's an interesting opinion. I'm a Christian, and I'm left of center on a good many issues.

Interesting.

Can you cite the specific examples?

Well for instance, I support the ideal that gays should be able to have the same marriage rights as myself. I don't feel that it conflicts with my religion, either. I think that by voting to keep gays from having the same rights as myself, I am passing judgment on their actions by deeming them unworthy of something I have. I am not without sin, so I do not want to judge other's actions.

That is, of course, just my opinion. I'm not claiming that is the end all, be all right way to see that issue (though I personally believe it is).

 

[Mr.Right]

The OP is right, conservative Christians are definitely disliked in this country.



Now, I wonder why that is..

It's because the majority of people hate God.

Not true... a majority of the people, counted specifically as 100%, fall short of the glory of God.

Thus within a majority of those, they fear their own failure to ever be worthy of God's love. Having failed to embrace God's grace through Christ. That fear is used by evil, manifested through Relativism, to rationalize that God hates THEM... thus the perception is that they hate God.

Seems like a fine line, but it is not.

The moment that a person realizes that God is the epitome of fair... judging everyone equally (All men are created equal...) and that through Christ their inability to ever rise to any sense of perfect obedience to God's law, is forgiven, this typically results in their embracing God's grace and the subsequent life altering change wherein they come to love God.

The problem is that so few ever take the time and put forth the effort to UNDERSTAND IT!

I believe that the Bible has much to say about those who REJECT God. Since the vast majority is bound for hell, that can only mean that they have rejected Him, since God is just and would never send anyone to hell who didn't deserve it.

 

[2aguy]

I enjoy your posts....keep up the fight.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Is not baking a cake now persecuting?

And to be even more accurate about how out of proportion it is....these bakers routinely baked all sorts of other baked goods on every other occasions for gay people....it was only one type of cake....and for that they deserve to have their lives destroyed.....and be sent to prison.......

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Conservative and Christian are axiomatic synonyms. Can't be one, without the other. Where each concept is accurately conveyed.

That's an interesting opinion. I'm a Christian, and I'm left of center on a good many issues.

Interesting.

Can you cite the specific examples?

Well for instance, I support the ideal that gays should be able to have the same marriage rights as myself.

But you do not have a right to deceive others, through the projection that what is an otherwise antithetical deviation from the human physiological standard is normal...

And that is because that position is delusional... which is to say that the position is a lie... specifically: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Christ made no accommodation for Homosexuality as normality, why then would you assume, as a RIGHT, the means to do so.

Christ's position was that Marriage was the joining of one man and one woman.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”"

Now, you may "FEEL" that Christ Got it Wrong. But in taking that position, you're faith has taken on something which rests outside of faith.

As a result you may also feel that Divorce is a viable option... as the Left has provided you the legal rationalization for just that.

But Christ again made this clear:

"10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"

It is through this simple but incontrovertible test, that we can know Christ's position. Thus we can know the CHRISTIAN POSITION.

It is not subject to debate... thus your credentials are set to doubt.

Now it is not for me to say what you are... only that what you profess you are, is not in sync with what you say you are, as you describe it.

I'd suggest you spend more time on your knees, and less time advising the readers of this board to believe that which Christ said was TRUE, is NOT TRUE!.