Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

He was confronted by them on a number of occasions.

You are referring to the incident at Antioch as cited in Paul's letter to the Galatians. There, Paul confronted Peter over his reluctance to break bread with the Gentile Christians in Antioch. That is the only documented instance where there was a disagreement between the apostles.
 
Go ahead. Oppose equal rights.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to follow my beliefs.


You'll find out otherwise if you violate anti-discrimination laws.

No, actually I won't. I am prepared to die for my beliefs. Your little fines, will not be a big issue. Besides that, if Memories Pizza can raise a million dollars, without violating anything, I will have enough support for your cheesy fines.

Oh look, an anonymous fuckstick on the internet prepared to DIE for the right to refuse to sell a pizza to a gay person.

Thank goodness we get people like you to speak up occasionally and reveal the true mentality of the modern Am erican conservative.


Kinda makes him sound like all those Americans for the past 250 years, huh? To die for the rights of others ... how foolish can you get??

He wants to die for the right to discriminate.
 
It should no matter if they are heterosexual or gay.

It should matter. This might sound a bit cliche, but if God wanted children to have same sex parents, he would have made two men or two women in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality defies the natural order God set in place when he created mankind.
Actually it sounds ignorant and ridiculous.

Subjective religious dogma, myths, and fables are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty gay Americans are entitled to – you're free to believe whatever you wish, you're not free to seek to compel conformity to your subjective beliefs through force of law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, the 14th Amendment exists to protect Americans from the intolerance and bigotry you exhibit in this and other posts.
 
Why can't you legally refuse to pay your taxes for religious reasons, such as it being against your conscience to finance war?

Anyone?
 
Go ahead. Oppose equal rights.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to follow my beliefs.


You'll find out otherwise if you violate anti-discrimination laws.

No, actually I won't. I am prepared to die for my beliefs. Your little fines, will not be a big issue. Besides that, if Memories Pizza can raise a million dollars, without violating anything, I will have enough support for your cheesy fines.

Oh look, an anonymous fuckstick on the internet prepared to DIE for the right to refuse to sell a pizza to a gay person.

Thank goodness we get people like you to speak up occasionally and reveal the true mentality of the modern Am erican conservative.


Kinda makes him sound like all those Americans for the past 250 years, huh? To die for the rights of others ... how foolish can you get??
No, it makes him sound like one of those Americans who as a consequence of his ignorance, fear, and hate have sought to disadvantage his fellow Americans through the force of law for no other reason than being 'different'; it makes him sound like one of those Americans who as a consequence of his unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty have sought to compel conformity in violation of the Constitution.

When it comes to social conservatives, you can't get any more foolish.
 
It should no matter if they are heterosexual or gay.

It should matter. This might sound a bit cliche, but if God wanted children to have same sex parents, he would have made two men or two women in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality defies the natural order God set in place when he created mankind.
Actually it sounds ignorant and ridiculous.

Subjective religious dogma, myths, and fables are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty gay Americans are entitled to – you're free to believe whatever you wish, you're not free to seek to compel conformity to your subjective beliefs through force of law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, the 14th Amendment exists to protect Americans from the intolerance and bigotry you exhibit in this and other posts.

And that has to be the quadrillionth time you've said this exact same thing. To me or to someone else. Can it.
 
Where are the witnesses that heard Jesus speak to him or saw his blindness till he converted, or accepted jesus? Jesus has witness to his life and death, but paul had no witnesses to his encounter with jesus.


"1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 9:1-7

and people with migraines can see lights and auras. People can have hallucinations for a number of reason. People can suffer from bi-polar and act like a totally different person. People can become paranoid and believe thing that are not real.
No one saw or head Jesus talking to him. People can have seizures and other might suspect they are crazy or dangerous.
Other than Paul, who can say what Jesus told him or what if anything Jesus told him to do.
Paul spoke of homosexuality, Jesus did not. There are six references to homosexuality, but most other 'sins' are spoken of in hundreds of times. Homosexuality is condemned in term of abuse, not in cases of love and commitment.
Being a christian, or even a good person, does not mean one must believe in what Paul taught or even accept him as a prophet or authority of Jesus or what he taught.

Paul vs Apostles

Religion and Spirituality James and Paul Why the Conflict

Anglicans Online Essays Pierre Whalon Piety

Did the Apostles fight over Doctrine

http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

The Jesus Movements 7 BCE to 170 CE

Even the gospels have errors and contradictions. They are not in total agreement of the facts or teachings.

Why should paul be more of an authority? It is bit like talking about Mohammed flying a horse in his dream and landing in al-Aqsa or the far mosque being in Jerusalem. Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the quran. At the time of Mohammed there was not mosque or temple on the mount.

Easter rabbit carrying a basket of rainbow colored eggs is not factual either, even though we teach our children to search for decorated eggs and eat chocolate rabbits.
 
Romans 1:25-27 NIV

That is a direct condemnation of Homosexuality. And since the person who wrote this was Paul, it then serves to reason that as one of Jesus' disciples, he was reflecting Jesus' and ultimately God's will. Thusly one can only reason that both Jesus and God would condemn homosexuality as sinful, and Paul was merely conveying such sentiment.

Except Paul never met Jesus. So for all we know, Paul was inserting his own thoughts into Jesus mouth.

That assumes that Jesus actually existed (he didn't) and Paul wasn't just making him up.

But I do find it interesting that the GOSPEL writers never felt a need to have Jesus say homophobic stuff. In fact, all the homophobic stuff comes from Paul in the NT.
 
Couple of problems there. Everyone does things that are bad. There is a difference between committing something bad, and repenting, and committing something bad, and arrogantly sticking to it.

Well, no, guy, that wasn't the point I was making at all. I'm guessing that when you photograph people you never make a big deal about these verses.

"Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." -- 1 Peter 3:3

Funny, we never hear Christians making a big deal about THESE verses.

We told a couple, that they could not come to our church groups, because they were shacking up, and the Bible says that's wrong. In fact, we ousted a pastor for that behavior.

Your church group isn't a business. and my guess is, your pastor still is a pastor for the majority of your congregation that doesn't have a stick up its collective asses.

Here's the thing. You guys go around screaming about sin, pretty much you are preaching to empty churches.

And no, it's not up to the proprietor to avoid any business where they could do something wrong, because every business you could do something wrong. You could avoid activities that are in and of themselves evil, like I'll never take a photo job for a porno. I'll never do that. Because the job is inherently evil. But providing wedding services, is not inherently evil. In fact it is very good. Only SSM is evil, and that I will not do.

You have yet to tell me why SSM is "evil". Are they hurting anyone? No.

You just think that it is evil because the Bible says so.

Me, I don't trust a book that extols the virtues of slavery and witch burning, but thinks two people loving each other is bad.
 
We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

Isn't that like saying, "If Black People want to ride at the front of the bus, they should start a bus company."

Why should they have to go see a lawyer to get something straights get simply by getting married?

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

But the point is, the man and woman who decide they want those protections can go to city hall and get them with no questions asked. A gay couple will have to go through hours and hours of legal consultations to do the same thing. That's discriminatory, and you guys know it.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

First, we are fixing the law. 38 states have gay marriage, and after SCOTUS rules, it will be all of them. Second, you can believe in whatever silly-ass superstitions you want, but if you open a business, you have to provide the services you promised.
 
It does not mean you should persecute others that you don't accept either.

We aren't persecuting anyone. We just don't want to be forced to be a part of their lifestyle. Is that too hard for you to understand?

then don't have a job that requires you to interact with them.

Wait, you already got that part covered.

For those who have jobs, most of have to do things we don't like or deal with people we despise. We just have to get on with it. If certain behavior offend you, then do go into a business where you have to contend with those behaviors.
 
It should matter. This might sound a bit cliche, but if God wanted children to have same sex parents, he would have made two men or two women in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality defies the natural order God set in place when he created mankind.

So your argument is, because there was a mythological couple who even most Christians admit didn't exist, that's why gays should be denied rights?

Really?
 
Jesus did not say anything about it being a sin.

We both know that isn't true.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1:25-27 NIV

That is a direct condemnation of Homosexuality. And since the person who wrote this was Paul, it then serves to reason that as one of Jesus' disciples, he was reflecting Jesus' and ultimately God's will. Thusly one can only reason that both Jesus and God would condemn homosexuality as sinful, and Paul was merely conveying such sentiment.

Paul is not Jesus. Paul didn't even know Jesus. Jesus never said a word about gays.
 
But I do find it interesting that the GOSPEL writers never felt a need to have Jesus say homophobic stuff. In fact, all the homophobic stuff comes from Paul in the NT.

That's because Paul was a self loathing gay man. (not to mention an asshole misogynist)
 
Why can't you legally refuse to pay your taxes for religious reasons, such as it being against your conscience to finance war?

Anyone?

No one? None of religious rights zealots wants to defend the right of a pacifist by religion to be exempted from paying taxes?

Are you conceding that there ought not be any such right?

Hmmm...then why are you claiming there should be a right to discriminate against gays?
 
Why can't you legally refuse to pay your taxes for religious reasons, such as it being against your conscience to finance war?

Anyone?

No one? None of religious rights zealots wants to defend the right of a pacifist by religion to be exempted from paying taxes?

Are you conceding that there ought not be any such right?

Hmmm...then why are you claiming there should be a right to discriminate against gays?

render unto caesar what is caesar's and unto god what is god's
Sorry you got to pay your taxes that provide the services like police, firefighters, schools, roads, military, etc.
 
There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.

Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).

Don't lecture me on intolerance.

Oh, nice try...but take a look at the actual breakdown...

Of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:​
  • 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
  • 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
  • 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
  • 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
  • 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
  • 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
  • 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

Deflection.

I think you need to look up what deflection means. Responding directly to a claim made with facts that don't support that claim is not a deflection.

I know what "deflection" means. It means responding with something that has nothing to do with the topic in order to change the subject.

Which is what you did.
 

Forum List

Back
Top