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.
That's precisely what right and wrong is - what society makes it of it. Society is a lot more than just the religious bible thumpers shoving their lifestyles down everyone's throats and homosexual people coming out of the closet.
What's morally right here might be morally wrong in Japan, or Ukraine, or wherever else and vice verse.
So, then, it's what I said: there's nothing that is right, and nothing that is wrong. People justify what they do (for selfish or political reasons) by calling it "right". "Right" and "wrong" ought not be up to individual philosophies, ideaologies, or situational convenience.
So, then, it's what I said: there's nothing that is right, and nothing that is wrong. People justify what they do (for selfish or political reasons) by calling it "right". "Right" and "wrong" ought not be up to individual philosophies, ideaologies, or situational convenience.
No wonder the world is a mess.
Religion wouldn't help it either.
When a religion calls for another human being to be stoned to death for bedding a person of the same sex or the murder of another person just for getting a haircut then there's a issue with people relying on it to help them determine right from wrong.
You are giving examples of people using religion as a shield to justify their own personal desires for power and control over others
EXACT RIGHT!!!!!
Problem is, people do that with religion ALL THE TIME - and they ALWAYS WILL. That WHY religion should stay out of politics. Inevitably, as soon as religion enters politics, it begins to be used as that very "shield to justify their own personal disires for power and control over others". The ONLY way religion won't be used in that manner is for religion to stay out of politics all together.
When a religion calls for another human being to be stoned to death for bedding a person of the same sex or the murder of another person just for getting a haircut then there's a issue with people relying on it to help them determine right from wrong.
I wasn't talking about religions still in the dark ages -- I don't know why extreme, backwards religions are always used to support these arguments -- and I'm not for a Theocracy. I was speaking in general terms about the validity (or lack thereof) of the concept of right and wrong when there is no standard against which to measure.
Our judicial system does have some foundation in the Ten Commandments, for example, with benefits to the society rather than harm.
And here we are talking about our culture and society, not the middle east (although there are those who would like to establish sharia in America).
And now, thanks to this bill dying as it should, they aren't a discriminated class, either.
Why do conservatives have such a hard time with just being civilized, tolerant people? They always have to go out of their way to try to sow some hatred toward others different from themselves.
1. Abrahamic religions forbid homosexuality, condoning homosexuality and facilitating.
2. Selling a wedding cake is facilitating homosexuality
3. Being sued for following Abrahamic religions is evil
4. People have been sued around the country for following Abrahamic religions
the real question is
Why do Liberals have such a hard time with just being civilized, tolerant people? They always have to go out of their way to try to sow some hatred toward others different from themselves.
people like you have killed millions of people like me
Two men walk into a photography studio and want to hire a photographer for their wedding. The photographer does not discriminate, but politely says, "OK, but I have to let you know that I think homosexuality is a sin, and I am opposed to gay marriage."
So the two men walk out and find another photographer.
How hard was that? Did these idiots in Arizona really need to try to pass this stupid law when the above hypothetical conversation provides the same result?
more like
Two men walk into a photography studio and want to hire a photographer for their "wedding".
The photographer politely says, "I have to let you know that I think homosexuality is a sin, and I am opposed to gay "marriage".
The gays say so what, you going to photograph the "wedding"
It certainly does not. It's saying they made a cake and sold it. Do Catholic bakers refuse cakes for weddings outside of the Catholic church, between a bride and groom who've been previously divorced? Or who have been living together unmarried, "in sin", and who have a child out of wedlock?
Worshiping other gods than the Jewish/Christian god is just as bad as gays or gay marriage, if not more so in the Bible. Since many Christians sincerely believe that non-Christians are going to Hell, why do Christian businesses persist in doing business with non-Christians, if they believe that doing business with them is consenting to sin? Hindus and Buddhists participate in idol-worship, in the eyes of Christians. So if what you're saying is true, Christian businesses should already have been clamoring for the right to refuse service to such people, long before gay marriage became a topic.
Using religion to cover for bigotry is ugly, but unfortunately has been commonplace, if not one of its prime reasons for existence. "God told me to do it" really gets people off the hook for their hate, doesn't it?
because there is a difference between not selling to a person and a not selling to a person for a forbidden use.
I would not sell livestock to someone who would slaughter it to idols
I would sell livestock to the same person who would slaughter it for lunch
I would not sell a cake to a man who is going for a same gender "wedding"
I would sell a cake to the same man who is going to use it for his graduation
I think that would go for any cake decoration you found too offensive. If you are Jewish and someone wants you to make a cake to celebrate Hitler's Final Solution Day, you should be allowed to say no thanks, find another bakery.
According to Judaism it's infinitely worse to bake a cake for a same gender "wedding" than "Hitler's Final Solution Day"
Two men walk into a photography studio and want to hire a photographer for their "wedding".
The photographer politely says, "I have to let you know that I think homosexuality is a sin, and I am opposed to gay "marriage".
The gays say so what, you going to photograph the "wedding"
The photographer says I can't
the gays sue him and try to close his business
And then the gay rights activists threaten and boycott to shut a business down, as they did with in the Oregon baker's wedding cake incident:
Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And the family’s children were the targets of death threats.
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.
