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

[Conservative65]

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.

I bet you define rational and fair minded as someone who reads and follows the Bible the way you think they should.

While he may have never said same sex marriage is wrong using those words, He was very clear about marriage being between a man and a woman. He said, a man should leave his father and mother and join his wife. Jesus didn't mention a man joining his husband. Enough indication for me that marriage was between a man and his WIFE.

Wrong. There are plenty who say that churches who preach anything related to politics should lose tax exempt status. Problem with that is the ones saying it are the one that want to decide what is and isn't political.

 

[OKTexas]

"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.

Forcing people to violate matters of conscience is not loving one another either. This country has always made allowances for matters of conscience before the progressives reared their ugly heads, hell even our military during times of war put conscientious objectors in non-combative rolls. But now civilians who just want to make an honest living according to their beliefs are now treated like criminals. Forced conformity was never a message Jesus would endorse either.

 

[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.

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.......

It is worth noting that not a single naysayer here has bothered to address this either.

There is a damn good reason as well - they cant. The entire controversy in contrived to demand social obedience where there is no reason for it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I find nothing in the OP with which to disagree. As a matter of fact it is dead spot on....
Which leads to the crux of the matter. So what is it....The plain truth here is that this is all politics. Yes there are a few people in this debate who truly believe their feelings have been hurt. Yes there are those who've convinced themselves that religious freedom laws create a slippery slope.
Common sense tells us however, that all groups should be protected by law from egregious discrimination.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

The OP just got through giving clear examples as how the business owner is NOT discriminating against gays. He or she is merely stating their religious beliefs as to how they apply to teh operation of their business.
The hypocrisy is in that your side leaves no prohibition from the protected class to others. In other words, in the scenario of the printing business owned by gay people refusing to do business with someone who is religious and finds the gay lifestyle to be in conflict with his beliefs but unknowingly attempts to enter into an agreement with that business owner.
Your side says it is perfectly fine for the member of the protected class to discriminate. based solely on their point of view. That being, they oppose religion/The Bible, etc....You cannot have it both ways

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

That's a bullshit excuse and a big lie.....
That is the nonsense you libs tell yourselves and your protected classes in order to justify your closed mindedness, your bigotry and your goal which is to silence any and all who do not kowtow to the liberal agenda. As far as your side is concerned, their IS NO other point of view.
Don't hand us this bullshit that a member of a protected class is not capable of hate, racism, bigotry or discrimination.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

When your post hit the word "conspiracy", it shit the bed.
yer done

 

[thereisnospoon]

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......

You did the right thing. You found life around the religious to be uncomfortable. So you moved away...
The hard core lefties and militant gay population want religions to go away. And they will petition the government to create sanctions then act upon those sanctions as well use the the civil courts to maker that happen.
Now, you tell me who is the bigot?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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



Now, I wonder why that is..

Like them or not, you do not have the right to use your rights to squash the rights of others just because "you don't like them"...
Get it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Well, such IS the nature of Evil.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

You answered your own question....
The answer..."those that practice REAL Christianity"...
This is part and parcel of why your side's argument that this is not political simply does not hold water.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

A most improbable hypothetical? Please.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Fine. Your argument fails in two ways..One there is no discrimination. Two, your argument bypasses the contents of the OP...
Have you seen the backlash against those who protest and impugn?....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far religious right has been for forced conformity since the Pilgrims arrived in NE more than 400 yeares ago.

The rest of America has decided the religious far right have to accept that the LGBT get to have the same protections, and the religious far right goes bonkers.

Tough, kiddos. You no longer have the political strength to benefit from exceptionalism. Yeah, you have to enforce your discrimination and got a political haymaker to the nose. The more you resist, the beating will be even worse.

 

[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?

You answered your own question....
The answer..."those that practice REAL Christianity"...
This is part and parcel of why your side's argument that this is not political simply does not hold water.

The answer is "we are ALL sinners". But these right wing christians want to decide which sins they will accept and which sins they will reject.

What about a married person who committed adultery, should that business serve them?

 

[Bfgrn]

Central Fla. baker receives death threats after refusing anti-gay request

LONGWOOD, Fla. -

A Central Florida baker said she is getting death threats after refusing to make a cake with a message against gay marriage. The man who placed the order recorded it and then posted it online.

"I need a sheet cake and I need it to say, 'We do not support gay marriage' [silence]," said Feuerstein in the video posted to his Facebook page earlier this week [full video below].

"He wanted us to put a hateful message on a cake and I said, 'We're not going to do that,'" Sharon Haller, owner of Cut the Cake, told Local 6.

Cut the Cake is a mom-and-pop shop now at the center of controversy over the phone call and video.

Central Fla. baker receives death threats after refusing anti-gay request News - Home

 

[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.

When your post hit the word "conspiracy", it shit the bed.
yer done

Obviously you don't listen to the GOP nominees for the 2016 election. For you, ignorance is bliss.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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.

You guys just keep repeating your silly assumption that it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host or service a gay wedding. Are you ever going to address the arguments against that erroneous assumption? Or are you just going to keep repeating it?

I ask you--yet again: Using your logic, would it not be "discrimination" for a devout Muslim photographer to decline to photograph a wedding between a 50-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl in a European nation where the age of consent for sexual activity is 13 and when the girl's parents have granted their permission for the wedding? After all, if he declined, he would be doing so on the basis of "who a person loves," right? He would also be denying the "couple" service at a "public accommodation," right? And his refusal could "offend" them and make them feel "different from others," right?

Or, consider another scenario: Suppose you have a 60-year-old man and a 15-year old girl and her parents have consented to the girl living with the man in a conjugal relationship and the man and the girl want to have a "commitment ceremony," and the man asks an Orthodox Jewish baker to bake their wedding cake. Now, using your logic, it would be "discrimination" for the baker to refuse to bake them a cake.

If I were a baker and a 60-year-old man wanted me to bake a cake so he could celebrate conjugally living with a 15-year-old girl, I would give him a piece of my mind about his perversion and would then tell him to go get his cake from some other bakery. Any decent, rational person would do the same thing. But, according to your logic, would this not be "discrimination"?

Indeed, many pedophiles and their apologists in the "scientific community" argue that men who pursue underage girls simply do not find women their age attractive or appealing and that they were born "predisposed" to prefer underage girls. So to deny a 60-year-old man a "commitment ceremony" cake for his conjugal relationship with his 15-year-old girlfriend would be "discrimination" on the basis of his sexual orientation.

 

[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.

You guys just keep repeating your silly assumption that it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host or service a gay wedding. Are you ever going to address the arguments against that erroneous assumption? Or are you just going to keep repeating it?

I ask you--yet again: Using your logic, would it not be "discrimination" for a devout Muslim photographer to decline to photograph a wedding between a 50-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl in a European nation where the age of consent for sexual activity is 13 and when the girl's parents have granted their permission for the wedding? After all, if he declined, he would be doing so on the basis of "who a person loves," right? He would also be denying the "couple" service at a "public accommodation," right? And his refusal could "offend" them and make them feel "different from others," right?

Or, consider another scenario: Suppose you have a 60-year-old man and a 15-year old girl and her parents have consented to the girl living with the man in a conjugal relationship and the man and the girl want to have a "commitment ceremony," and the man asks an Orthodox Jewish baker to bake their wedding cake. Now, using your logic, it would be "discrimination" for the baker to refuse to bake them a cake.

If I were a baker and a 60-year-old man wanted me to bake a cake so he could celebrate conjugally living with a 15-year-old girl, I would give him a piece of my mind about his perversion and would then tell him to go get his cake from some other bakery. Any decent, rational person would do the same thing. But, according to your logic, would this not be "discrimination"?

Indeed, many pedophiles and their apologists in the "scientific community" argue that men who pursue underage girls simply do not find women their age attractive or appealing and that they were born "predisposed" to prefer underage girls. So to deny a 60-year-old man a "commitment ceremony" cake for his conjugal relationship with his 15-year-old girlfriend would be "discrimination" on the basis of his sexual orientation.

Yet girls the age of ten could legally marry in the USA up to the era of Women Suffrage....Our ancestors must of liked the little girls Yet it was not considered deviant or immoral.....

 

[bendog]

If the religious freedom laws were only aimed at protecting small biz from being forced to catering to gay weddings, then maybe the OP would have a point.