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.
Oh look, you're resorting to calling others obtuse once again. I love irony.
There is no need to "trap" you, dear. The world moves right along with or without your approval.
Do you understand the meaning of obtuse? Yes, darling, the world moves right along with or without yours as well. And it appears that you enjoy getting swept up in the current and being led along without really thinking about where you have been or where you are going.
No, you are setting up a bunch of ridiculous scenarios in an because you think you can trap me by a false argument.
No one is calling homosexuals "princes or princesses" or anything else. They are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT under the existing laws. It is not discrimination to invoke your Constitutional right to religious freedom, when the action sought directly violates your religious faith.
Are you obtuse? No one discriminated against the gay customer. She served him for over nearly a decade. She declined to proved her services in support of an EVENT that celebrated the ACT of homosexuality.
How do you discriminate against an EVENT or an ACT?
Then she needs to be consistent, not just pick and choose what acts or lifestyles she disapproves of the most, which is what I am saying. Not hard to follow, really. If she won't accept business from a homosexual couple getting married, then she shouldn't for a man or woman who is remarrying, or a couple in the act of living together, but not married, etc.
Thanks for proving my point. She isn't being consistent, unless she's also declining a divorcee when they are in the act of remarrying.
LOL You told me I am free to marry anyone I want. On that basis, your logic indicates I am free to marry my sister or my dad. I asked you for clarification on my freedom to marry who I choose and you can't handle the fact that I swiftly defeated your simplistic statement.
BTW, I asked a question based on YOUR argument. Are you stating that YOU made a straw man argument?
So, you are arguing that because a certain sect of Christianity INTERPRETS the bible in a certain way, that this florist should somehow be denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to her belief that God ordained (through his ordinance) that homosexuality is an abomination?
This is NOT some interpretation of a specific sect of a specific religion.
It is a universally held religious belief that homosexually it is a sin according to God. And the reason is that all recognized religions uphold the validity of the Old Testament (the Torah) and the foundational document from which the word of God first came to man, and the Torah does not leave any room for interpretation when defining what sexual proclivities God deems perverse or an abomination.
I am not arguing anything. I was answering the question of another poster. I would think by quoting it and replying directly, that was pretty clear.
So, you are arguing that because a certain sect of Christianity INTERPRETS the bible in a certain way, that this florist should somehow be denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to her belief that God ordained (through his ordinance) that homosexuality is an abomination?
This is NOT some interpretation of a specific sect of a specific religion.
It is a universally held religious belief that homosexually it is a sin according to God. And the reason is that all recognized religions uphold the validity of the Old Testament (the Torah) and the foundational document from which the word of God first came to man, and the Torah does not leave any room for interpretation when defining what sexual proclivities God deems perverse or an abomination.
Okee-dokey.
"Rabbi Menachem Creditor, who has been performing same-sex marriages since 2002 — four years before the movement permitted them — said that Jewish law is flexible, and should respond to changes within the Jewish community.“Modern halachah has always seen the Torah as its center, but not any one meaning as the final interpretation,” said Creditor, the rabbi of Berkeley’s Congregation Netivot Shalom. “There is a growing understanding from within Conservative Jews that our responsibility is to steward our community with clarity. Conservative Judaism believes halachah changes when it must.”"
Who said anything about FORCING any one to marry any other person? Are you saying that homosexuals tend towards promiscuous sex, so if marriage was defined as the marriage of two people of the same gender, that homosexuals would be out committing adultery with the opposite gender?
My understanding of the definition of marriage is that it is a union of one man and one woman and that it is entered into voluntarily by the two people.
Are you saying that the current definition FORCES people to marry other people? If a homosexual marries someone of the opposite gender, that issue is on the homosexual. He/She doesn't get to blame society for his/her choices and play the victim card. People are not forced to marry in this country and there have been gays living together for decades and celibate heterosexuals and celibate homosexuals that remain unmarried for life (i.e. "confirmed bachelors" or "old maids").
Victimhood is your copilot is appears.
Goodness, I have never seen anyone struggle so with reading comprehension.
Do you understand the meaning of obtuse? Yes, darling, the world moves right along with or without yours as well. And it appears that you enjoy getting swept up in the current and being led along without really thinking about where you have been or where you are going.
And up until not so long ago people also had deeply held religious beliefs that races should not mix, that slavery was okay, that schools should be segregated.
These are extreme examples I know... but these ARE examples of the use of religion by majorities at the time to further their agenda. The logic here in those examples is the SAME logic we are using to justify any action by a person who invokes religion despite secular law.
We cannot allow religious rights to trump secular law no matter how small. This is a slippery slope and it is a problem.
There is no slippery slope. There are examples of everything, but an example here or there does not undercut the constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religious beliefs.
People may have held beliefs about blacks and whites mixing or not, but that is not a religious belief, that is a belief that some people tried to support using twisted logic and their interpretation of the bible.
That has no relation to this case, wherein the religious belief in question is clearly defined and universally held by all major world religions.
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.
