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

[Mr.Right]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

Dear, whether as econchick or this moniker, you never, ever carry your points, then you start pouting, then being mean, then saying you are goining to ignore someone, and you never do. Please do so, and save us having to watch you act the idiot.

Gee. That was real Christian of you. Wasn't it?

 

[Dragonlady]

Expecting Christians to treat others well, regardless of their belief that the "others" are sinners, is hardly attacking their religion. Expecting a separation of church and state is not attacking Christianity. If anything, these incidents are people claiming to be Christians attacking those who think differently than they do. I don't expect other people to conform to my beliefs.

What about adulterers? What about thieves and liars? Do they bake wedding cakes for adulterers, thieves, liars, those who curse, and break the Sabbath? If they do any of those things, why do they only discriminate against the sin of homosexuality? Selective discrimination is still discrimination.

Christianity expects you to show respect for others, whether you agree with their beliefs or not. The behavior of those who will not serve gays, is not very Christian at all. If offends my Christianity that they chose to single out one group as sinners.

How would a Christian know if someone is an adulterer, a thief, a liar...etc? They would serve these people, as they do others. However, would you expect a Christian pawn shop owner to buy stolen goods from the thief? Would you expect a Christian store owner to assist a liar in their lies? Would you expect a Christian to keep a adulterous affair secret from one of their friends? See where I'm going with this?

That's a bad analogy. Buying stolen goods is a crime which could get you arrested. Pawn shop owners are required by law to establish ownership of the goods they buy.

Someone catering an event is not "assisting" in a sin. You're providing food for a dinner. It takes an extreme stretch to see baking a cake as sinful.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

Dear, whether as econchick or this moniker, you never, ever carry your points, then you start pouting, then being mean, then saying you are goining to ignore someone, and you never do. Please do so, and save us having to watch you act the idiot.

Gee. That was real Christian of you. Wasn't it?

Indeed it was. Your unChristian behavior was called out yet again Do better, please.

 

[Mr.Right]

Expecting Christians to treat others well, regardless of their belief that the "others" are sinners, is hardly attacking their religion. Expecting a separation of church and state is not attacking Christianity. If anything, these incidents are people claiming to be Christians attacking those who think differently than they do. I don't expect other people to conform to my beliefs.

What about adulterers? What about thieves and liars? Do they bake wedding cakes for adulterers, thieves, liars, those who curse, and break the Sabbath? If they do any of those things, why do they only discriminate against the sin of homosexuality? Selective discrimination is still discrimination.

Christianity expects you to show respect for others, whether you agree with their beliefs or not. The behavior of those who will not serve gays, is not very Christian at all. If offends my Christianity that they chose to single out one group as sinners.

How would a Christian know if someone is an adulterer, a thief, a liar...etc? They would serve these people, as they do others. However, would you expect a Christian pawn shop owner to buy stolen goods from the thief? Would you expect a Christian store owner to assist a liar in their lies? Would you expect a Christian to keep a adulterous affair secret from one of their friends? See where I'm going with this?

That's a bad analogy. Buying stolen goods is a crime which could get you arrested. Pawn shop owners are required by law to establish ownership of the goods they buy.

Someone catering an event is not "assisting" in a sin. You're providing food for a dinner. It takes an extreme stretch to see baking a cake as sinful.

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The person who has to bake the cake believes it's a sin. That's all that matters. Isn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And there you go, pointing out others faults that you yourself are guilty of.

I merely point out your foibles, and do so forcefully and with power, as I have with your House of Rumor lies below.

 

[Mr.Right]

And there you go, pointing out others faults that you yourself are guilty of.

I merely point out your foibles, and do so forcefully and with power, as I have with your House of Rumor lies above.

Congratulations. You've been ignored. Don't know why I didn't do it sooner.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

I used to feel that way, that it was just an issue of authoritarianism.

I was giving them too much credit. They're just as bigoted and hateful and nasty as those they loathe. They're the newest hate group.

And I'm a comfy agnostic.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Expecting Christians to treat others well, regardless of their belief that the "others" are sinners, is hardly attacking their religion. Expecting a separation of church and state is not attacking Christianity. If anything, these incidents are people claiming to be Christians attacking those who think differently than they do. I don't expect other people to conform to my beliefs.

What about adulterers? What about thieves and liars? Do they bake wedding cakes for adulterers, thieves, liars, those who curse, and break the Sabbath? If they do any of those things, why do they only discriminate against the sin of homosexuality? Selective discrimination is still discrimination.

Christianity expects you to show respect for others, whether you agree with their beliefs or not. The behavior of those who will not serve gays, is not very Christian at all. If offends my Christianity that they chose to single out one group as sinners.

How would a Christian know if someone is an adulterer, a thief, a liar...etc? They would serve these people, as they do others. However, would you expect a Christian pawn shop owner to buy stolen goods from the thief? Would you expect a Christian store owner to assist a liar in their lies? Would you expect a Christian to keep a adulterous affair secret from one of their friends? See where I'm going with this?

Chaucer's unfinished "House of Fame" has a smaller House of Rumor in which people with boxes of lies talk in soothing and ingratiating tones to the gullible.

So does Mr.Right now on the Board.

Contrary to his comments, as aptly pointed out by Dragonlady, those who demand their civil rights to be decently treated in public are not thieves, are not liars, are not adulterers. The wish to act openly in public as any other citizen is no sin or crime.

Yes, Mr.Right, we see "where [you] are going with this", and in fact, baking a cake is not a sin.

Of course you put me on ignore.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

So much wrong in your post, so I won't try to answer all of it, but the part quoted above is bullshit,
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ROFLMNAO!

So the Progressives are advising the Reader of this forum that Humanity should be regulated upon the base animalistic instincts.

LOL!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Obviously you are trying to make stuff up. Read it again dumbass. I showed where the OP was ridiculously wrong, nothing more.

 

[eagle7_31]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

Dear, whether as econchick or this moniker, you never, ever carry your points, then you start pouting, then being mean, then saying you are goining to ignore someone, and you never do. Please do so, and save us having to watch you act the idiot.

Gee. That was real Christian of you. Wasn't it?

Religious conservatives are the targets of discrimination lawyer says - LA Times

When is this going to stop. The above article should make any reasonable person concered.

 

[Mr.Right]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

Dear, whether as econchick or this moniker, you never, ever carry your points, then you start pouting, then being mean, then saying you are goining to ignore someone, and you never do. Please do so, and save us having to watch you act the idiot.

Gee. That was real Christian of you. Wasn't it?

Religious conservatives are the targets of discrimination lawyer says - LA Times

When is this going to stop. The above article should make any reasonable person concered.

I believe that these are the end times. It will continue to get worse, until our Lord's return. Didn't think I'd live to see it, but there it is. Which is actually good news, if you're a Christian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the article: "From his office in Washington, he has watched the events in Indiana and Arkansas and quickly reached this conclusion: Religious conservatives are the ones being discriminated against for their stance of conscience."

Libertarian Jude Andrew Naplotano disagrees.

Has the Judge gone off the deep end Peace . Gold . LOVE

The cons are going after the mainstream GOP.

Religious freedom fight energizes conservatives spark backlash against Republicans - Washington Times

 

[dblack]

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.

None of that has anything to do with why I'm opposed to the laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

Dear, whether as econchick or this moniker, you never, ever carry your points, then you start pouting, then being mean, then saying you are goining to ignore someone, and you never do. Please do so, and save us having to watch you act the idiot.

Gee. That was real Christian of you. Wasn't it?

Religious conservatives are the targets of discrimination lawyer says - LA Times

When is this going to stop. The above article should make any reasonable person concered.

I believe that these are the end times. It will continue to get worse, until our Lord's return. Didn't think I'd live to see it, but there it is. Which is actually good news, if you're a Christian.

No one knows the time of course, but you could be right. Conduct each day as if it is your last.

 

[Dragonlady]

"Love one another as I have loved you" was Jesus message. Refusing service is not loving one another.

I think those who believe it would be wrong to provide services to gays, or anyone else, should have to provide Biblical proof that this is Jesus instruction or bake the cake.

 

[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.

Hate?

Seriously...how much do you have to hate gay people to get to the point where you have to invent a religious instruction that says you cannot do business with them?

Answer: very very very very much.

 

[Mr.Right]

"Love one another as I have loved you" was Jesus message. Refusing service is not loving one another.

I think those who believe it would be wrong to provide services to gays, or anyone else, should have to provide Biblical proof that this is Jesus instruction or bake the cake.

Wrong. One must obey the Bible as they understand it. If someone honestly believes that it's a sin, they shouldn't be compelled to do it. After all, doesn't God judge us by our hearts?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Love one another as I have loved you" was Jesus message. Refusing service is not loving one another.

I think those who believe it would be wrong to provide services to gays, or anyone else, should have to provide Biblical proof that this is Jesus instruction or bake the cake.

Wrong. One must obey the Bible as they understand it. If someone honestly believes that it's a sin, they shouldn't be compelled to do it. After all, doesn't God judge us by our hearts?

Each person must follow Christ as he understands it. Yes.

 

[Plasmaball]

im not reading the op. No real need

 

[Conservative65]

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

Whatever happened to truth in advertising, anyway?

What happened to people not getting that sometimes there answer is no? That's the problem with homos. They demand and expect compliance simply because they asked.