Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Living just a few miles away from the bagel-belt (West Bloomfield, MI), I've been to Jewish delicatessens, bagel shops, bakeries, etc...no bacon anywhere!
Goys eat bacon and the Jewish delicatessens will not serve BLTs.
In reality, aren't they simply refusing to serve non-Jews?
How many times do we have to do this before it sinks in? It's like talking to an Alzheimer's patient. Jewish delis don't serve bacon to ANYONE....Jews or the goyim. It's not like they'll sell bacon to one group but not the other one.
It's like saying a garage discriminates against flower-lovers because they don't sell bouquets of tulips.
Get it, yet? It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
The original bible, not the new testament. Where is it mentioned in the original bible?
We're talking in this thread about people who claim to be following the New Testament. That's the universe they're in, so the issue is whether they can justify their actions and intentions even by the rules of their own universe.
Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nobody would argue that heterosexuality is strictly confined to the private sphere...it's used to sell many of the products we use on a daily basis. So if heterosexuality is in the public sphere, why shouldn't homosexuals be afforded the same rights?
Plus, what we have here is people denying services for a part of sexuality (marriage) that is usually almost always conducted in the public sphere and involves other parties (planning, photos, cakes, etc.).
Heterosexuality is sexuality...sex by definition means male and female...Homosexuality is not a true form of sex. The concept of same sex eliminates sex itself. Two men being intimate with each other and pleasuring each other is not sex...same can be said for two woman...it is something else. Some say if heteros can "flaunt" their sexuality...then homosexuals should be able to also flaunt their sexuality....fine and dandy in a politically correct world...BUT heterosexuality will always be the norm...no matter how homosexuality is promoted...and made through forced legislation the new norm it will never be that.
If someone who has religious values....or does not accept the flawed logic of same sex marriage...decides they do not want to be involved in the trend...and perhaps do not want to bake a damned cake for a gay couple...Why should they be forced and persecuted into compliance for something they do not believe in?
Everyone has the right to believe in what they want....it is not a "denial of service"....Gays and Lesbians have a choice and there are lots of folks who WILL bake a cake for them....and some that won't...What gives them and their supporters the right to attack someone who is not like them and does not believe in what they do?
Frankly from my personal view...I do not believe in same sex marriage...nor to I really believe in opposite sex marriage...The institution need not exist.
Just curious. As an avowed atheist, this to me is still one of the fundamental freedoms. Congressional candidate Erika Harold speaks powerfully about this freedom here.
Is this now obsolete? We see now religious organizations compelled to comply with the tenor of the times. Don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding--you're sued. Don't want to supply birth control to your students--you're sued again--and get a dressing-down from the POTUS.
Do libs support or reject the free exercise of religion?
So, I guess the short answer is ................................. NO!
What that essentially leave us with is a society where certain people wouldn't have access to the things they need because some stores don't serve certain classes of customers, races of customers, people of certain faiths, etc., etc. It doesn't sound like very sound policy to encourage this. This is why we decided as a society that we would have anti-descrimination laws.
Oh, please! You are purposely trying to confuse the argument, which has nothing to do with discrimination, but has everything to do with the right to free exercise of religion, the right of a person to choose not to participate in an event by offering his labor and talent to that event, if it offends his religious beliefs, and is according to those beliefs, dishonoring to God, and causes him to be disobedient. We are told (Ephesians 5:7) "do not be partners" with immoral people, or participate in the sinful-lifestyle of unbelievers.
This means that Christians should not be using their talents and providing their labor to a celebration, a ceremony, that makes a mockery of what is supposed to be the very essence of God's relationship to the Church, that of a man taking a wife in holy matrimony. "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her to make her holy." That is the issue.
No law should force anyone, against their religion, to participate in such an event. If a law can force someone, against their will, to do what is anathema to God, and is in violation of their religion, what else can government do? Government was established to protect our rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aviastar
Also, most EMPLOYERS don't want these types of laws. There is a reason corporations like Apple, who is poised to make considerable investment in the State of Arizona, is against like laws like this. It's bad for business.
Show me something that says employers don't want "these types of laws." The Arizona bill would not have had any affect on most businesses at all. It would, however, have protected Christians from being forced, as above, into doing something that they believed was dishonoring to God, and therefore causing them to sin.
Oh, please! You are purposely trying to confuse the argument, which has nothing to do with discrimination, but has everything to do with the right to free exercise of religion, the right of a person to choose not to participate in an event by offering his labor and talent to that event, if it offends his religious beliefs, and is according to those beliefs, dishonoring to God, and causes him to be disobedient. We are told (Ephesians 5:7) "do not be partners" with immoral people, or participate in the sinful-lifestyle of unbelievers.
This means that Christians should not be using their talents and providing their labor to a celebration, a ceremony, that makes a mockery of what is supposed to be the very essence of God's relationship to the Church, that of a man taking a wife in holy matrimony. "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her to make her holy." That is the issue.
No law should force anyone, against their religion, to participate in such an event. If a law can force someone, against their will, to do what is anathema to God, and is in violation of their religion, what else can government do? Government was established to protect our rights.
Show me something that says employers don't want "these types of laws." The Arizona bill would not have had any affect on most businesses at all. It would, however, have protected Christians from being forced, as above, into doing something that they believed was dishonoring to God, and therefore causing them to sin.
Actually one of the main reasons AZ got that bill vetoed was b/c of the HUGE affect it would have had on business as a whole. The estimates were millions and millions, and that's not including the fact that the NFL was looking like it was immediately going to pull out on hosting the Super Bowl there.
If a Christian doesn't want to work and do something to provide work for something they disbelieve in, they have the complete free will to quit their job and refuse to do it. A Business serving to the general public though, has to serve any and all customers protected under the Civil Rights Acts equally. Otherwise we do away with the entire point of the Civil Rights movement.
You assume most people live in cities like KC, where you have options. Some people live in small towns where there might only be one option for their wedding...
Oh, please. That still doesn't mean that the government should force someone to sin because, after all, there is no one else! The government should stay out of it. We are supposed to have "separation of Church and State." Remember? The First Amendment was established to protect the Church first, from government intrusion into the affairs of the Church.
Interestingly. I'm a portrait photographer. A good friend of mine--and a member of my men's bible study group--is a wedding photographer. We were discussing this very thing a couple of months ago in the bible study. We came to the conclusion that such a deal would provide a great opportunity to introduce Jesus where otherwise Jesus might not be.
One doesn't introduce Jesus to sinners by first participating in their sin! Read Ephesians 5.
Should a Christian take up with prostitutes in order to introduce Jesus to them? Please.
I haven't seen a small town in the US yet that did not have more than one church and some kind of social center, and that includes farm towns of less than 500 people.
Often, the churches are the social centers. That is how it was in the Colonies and for much (if not most) of our history.
One doesn't introduce Jesus to sinners by first participating in their sin! Read Ephesians 5.
Should a Christian take up with prostitutes in order to introduce Jesus to them? Please.
What kind of bible study would suggest this?
Hahahah, what do you think Jesus did? Its not a sin to take pictures for a gay wedding, nowhere in the bible does it say that. Is it similarly sinful to go to a hindu wedding, or how about a wedding ceremony where the couple are atheists? What exactly makes gay weddings sinful?
Its not a sin to go to prostitutes and try and talk to them about God. Now if you go and have sex with those prostitutes, yeah that would be a sin. Similarly, it wouldn't be a sin to be at a gay wedding, to have homosexual sex may be a sin, but to go celebrate at a party...no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
