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.
We aren't. The country is changing, and government is reflecting that change, in this case-that turmoil.
People can change without legislation. Gay marriage hasn't received a larger approval because of legislation. If you ask me, if anything these laws only impose more problems.
Not so much. There are indeed "Christians" (and I use that term very loosely) who believe quite the opposite. Some of them were posting in this thread yesterday, but due to the vileness and hatred in their posts, the mods deleted them. If you truly believe that all "Christians" welcome homosexuals in all areas of public life, you are the one who is projecting. IF those so called "Christians" actually followed the teachings of Christ, they would behave in a far different manner.
I do not disagree that the rhetoric on the other side can be ugly as well. I don't condone that either. But, to accuse one side while calling the other fully inclusive and loving is laughable.
And on a final note, here's my perspective: If you are a specifically religious organization (church, synagogue, mosque etc.) and your religious beliefs preclude allowing same sex couple to marry or participate in anyway in your house of worship, I support your right to do so. But, if you're a bakery who has applied for and received a business license from your municipality and opened your doors to the public in order to provide them with tasty baked goods, you should provide those baked goods without regard to your personal religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs about same sex marriage compel you to refuse a wedding cake to a same sex couple, then don't sell wedding cakes at all. Problem solved.
In fairness, Spatacus713 said "Christian merchants" not all Christians.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-03-2015 at 02:21 PM..
No it is not, this is all so wrong I don't know where to begin.
First off, going to a pizza parlor or a bakery is a voluntary act. You are of your own free will going to there, no one is making you. By doing so you are stepping on to someone else's property, namely the owner's. The owner has the RIGHT to run his business how he/she sees fit and to refuse his service and his property to anyone he chooses because that property is HIS, not YOURS. There is no force involved there, every action was voluntary. That is not "morality policing" but it is discrimination. I hate to break it to you, but discrimination is part of life. By marrying my wife I discriminated against billions of other women, by drinking Coke instead of Pepsi I'm discriminating. By being friends with one person instead of another, that is discrimination. Every time you make a choice you have discriminated!
Now if you respond to the refusal of service by getting your friend and rolling back up on the pizza shop with guns and forcing him to bake a pie that would be an act of aggression and force. It would be both immoral and illegal. Now if your friend happened to be the local PD and they carry badges, suddenly this becomes legal and everyone is like "oh yeah good thing that happened." That doesn't make any sense. The owner at that point no longer owns his/her property in any meaningful way, the "public" does.
A law allowing business owners to exercise rights they should have had all along is not "morality policing." Morality policing is the use of FORCE to make people comply with a standard of morality. If the law said that owners HAD to refuse service to homosexuals that would be morality policing and it is no different than a law that says that an owner CANNOT refuse service to anybody. Both are versions of morality policing and both are uses of force. Just because you happen to agree with the current version of statist morality policing doesn't make it right, it just makes you a hypocrite.
So the pharmacist can deny life-saving medication to anyone?
If some classes are protected while others are not that is discriminatory.
Except that's not the case. No classes are protected while others are not. Some classes are specifically identified by the law because they have historically been persecuted. Members of classes once persecuted are identified specifically to prevent future persecution.
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20). https://carm.org/christianity/sermon...ody-his-temple
Another person that thinks that what goes on inside a brick and mortar building, stays inside that building when a person leaves it.
It's okay then for a person to stand on their personal beliefs while they are inside the church, but when they leave that building, they are to leave their personal beliefs, at the alter. And when they enter into man's world of public domain, they are to do what man would have them to do, not what Christ would have them to do. Again,
The right to refuse service is abused when it becomes systematic discrimination. People can and have suffered due to the "right to refuse service". If a pharmacist refuses to sell heart medication to Jews because he doesn't like them, and he's the only pharmacist in town, and someone dies because they couldn't get their heart medication prescription filled, is that okay by you?
I love these extremist scenarios that statists come up with to justify their tyranny.
As for your silly scenario, pharmacists take an oath when they become pharmacists and if they violate that they could lose their license and accreditation.
Quote:
The revised Oath was adopted by the AACP House of Delegates in July 2007 and has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association. AACP member institutions should plan to use the revised Oath of a Pharmacist during the 2008-09 academic year and with spring 2009 graduates.
"I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients.
I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”
Another thing is, under your scenario the Jewish guy is going to die even if it's illegal to do so. In reality though I don't foresee such a scenario happening (and even if it did it would likely be an extremely isolated incident) and I do not believe that we should trash the principles that made us a free society because I am afraid of some far flung disaster happening.
People can change without legislation. Gay marriage hasn't received a larger approval because of legislation. If you ask me, if anything these laws only impose more problems.
People have changed without legislation. However, legislation can be enacted to reflect the changes in a society. That's what happened when slavery was ended. That's what happened when women fought for and began to achieve equality with men. That's what happened when prohibition was enacted, and when prohibition was ended.
While the laws can be problematic, the laws also reflect our values as a society, and are a pathway for those who have been persecuted to fight back. Removing such a pathway can also be problematic, since it gives those who choose to persecute a level of impunity in doing so.
As you note, the government has a poor track record of protecting all. Protecting one set over another is just as wrong as any discrimination.
It's not protecting one set over another. It's identifying those who have been systematically persecuted in the past.
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.
And when they enter into man's world of public domain, they are to do what man would have them to do, not what Christ would have them to do. Again, 
