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.
Many Jews probably do not think the Christian cross is an "instrument of hate".
However, because of Charolastra's experiences, I think her view of "the cross being an instrument of hate" is justified. See her post #196.
Because of that, I do not think a person like her should be forced to make a cake with a cross on it. If she is willing to put the past behind her and make such a cake, good for her. We need more people like her who do not always carry a chip on their shoulder.
What if I wanted a cake with sugar flowers and white fondant? Should the baker be allowed to refuse to make the cake?
........"The House also passed a separate package of bills, on mostly party-line votes, that would allow adoption agencies to refuse services to people if that violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. ........"
I don't actually think this is unfair. It's a bit harsh to force a Catholic adoption agency to place a catholic born infant into a Muslim home to be raised as a Muslim. Or to be placed into an Odinist home, or any other non-catholic home.
Catholic mothers giving up infants that deliberately choose a Catholic adoption agency do so because they hope that their infant will be raised Catholic. They believe that is the only way the baby's soul can be saved and they don't want to give up an infant who will then be condemned for eternity.
Not trying to pick on Catholics here. It's just they are the only ones that I know of that have religion specific adoption agencies. If other religions do it, too, then, they also should be able to place infants into homes of their own religion.
A non-religious based adoption agency should not be allowed to discriminate on religion. However, if they are not a religious organization, it becomes difficult to argue that they are acting upon sincerely held religious beliefs. Thus the exception in the law does not apply to them.
It is going to be interesting how this story plays out.
Indeed.
It will also be interesting to see how far Christians are willing to go in marginalizing themselves and becoming unable to function in society.
I can't think of a business or even a job in which you can function while limiting yourself to serving heterosexuals. You can't, say, be a tool booth attendant and refuse to accept a toll from car in which a couple of guys are holding hands.
I guess this case gets a slight traction from the idea that a florist or cake-maker or photographer would be creating artistic expressions that they disagree with or find distasteful. But even there ... heck, I have been in a position as an editor of doing technical edits on articles that I have zero personal interest in, or that I disagree with, or that I don't think should have even been accepted for publication. What this ultimately boils down to is an infantile desire to have the world conform to your ideals simply because you have them.
It will also be interesting to see how far Christians are willing to go in marginalizing themselves and becoming unable to function in society.
I can't think of a business or even a job in which you can function while limiting yourself to serving heterosexuals. You can't, say, be a tool booth attendant and refuse to accept a toll from car in which a couple of guys are holding hands.
I guess this case gets a slight traction from the idea that a florist or cake-maker or photographer would be creating artistic expressions that they disagree with or find distasteful. But even there ... heck, I have been in a position as an editor of doing technical edits on articles that I have zero personal interest in, or that I disagree with, or that I don't think should have even been accepted for publication. What this ultimately boils down to is an infantile desire to have the world conform to your ideals simply because you have them.
It's a symptom of the narcissism that's overtaking our world.
I, too, am an editor, and I daily edit things that I don't 100% agree with. Big deal. It doesn't change my beliefs. It's just a job.
That said, I understand that these business owners don't want to feel like they're doing something that violates their conscience. The thing is, you need to think about that before you open your business in the first place. If the law says you have to do X, but you don't believe in X and can't bring yourself to work with X, then maybe you need to think about another line of work. The law should not have to accommodate your personal religious beliefs.
We're not a theocracy. Civil law trumps religious belief if the two are in conflict. That's why one Supreme Court justice once ruled against an action that would have served "to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Some liberal atheist justice? Nope. Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith.
It will also be interesting to see how far Christians are willing to go in marginalizing themselves and becoming unable to function in society.
I can't think of a business or even a job in which you can function while limiting yourself to serving heterosexuals. You can't, say, be a tool booth attendant and refuse to accept a toll from car in which a couple of guys are holding hands.
I guess this case gets a slight traction from the idea that a florist or cake-maker or photographer would be creating artistic expressions that they disagree with or find distasteful. But even there ... heck, I have been in a position as an editor of doing technical edits on articles that I have zero personal interest in, or that I disagree with, or that I don't think should have even been accepted for publication. What this ultimately boils down to is an infantile desire to have the world conform to your ideals simply because you have them.
It is a pointless debate because people like you just don't understand why forcing someone to participate on any level in a gay wedding is offensive to their strongly held beliefs. So the only perspective you can see is a stubborn Christian being unfair to gay people.
A toll booth operator doesn't face that dilemma. \
No, it ultimately boils down to degrading the foundation of America which is freedom of religion.
It is a pointless debate because people like you just don't understand why forcing someone to participate on any level in a gay wedding is offensive to their strongly held beliefs. So the only perspective you can see is a stubborn Christian being unfair to gay people.
A toll booth operator doesn't face that dilemma. \
No, it ultimately boils down to degrading the foundation of America which is freedom of religion.
Be glad you don't have any real worries.
It's obvious the ones you invent cause you enough anguish.
It is a pointless debate because people like you just don't understand why forcing someone to participate on any level in a gay wedding is offensive to their strongly held beliefs. So the only perspective you can see is a stubborn Christian being unfair to gay people.
As a former fundamentalist I actually DO understand how and why it is offensive. What I also understand now is that this is their problem, and not one to which the law is obligated to, or even should, accommodate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
A toll booth operator doesn't face that dilemma.
If it's intolerable to participate on any level in a gay wedding, why is it tolerable to participate in any level in gay anything ... including gay public display of affection, or acknowledging or accepting the existence of gays?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, it ultimately boils down to degrading the foundation of America which is freedom of religion.
The florist's freedom of religion is in no way impacted by making floral arrangements. She still gets to go to church. She is not conducting the marriage.
People stream into her shop every day, all day, to buy flowers. She does not know how many of them are gay, sadomasochist, using the flowers to induce their girlfriends to have sex out of wedlock with them, going home to a domestic partner, heterosexual or not, to whom they are not officially married, or using it to flatter an underage girl that they want to take advantage of, or a thousand other scenarios that she might find morally repugnant or offensive to her beliefs. And I think it's safe to say, she either willfully ignores that this happens or doesn't care that this happens. She doesn't trouble herself over it or lay awake nights about it. But for some reason if it has to do with a particular use she needs a special exception.
I'm sorry, but she needs to be in another line of work where 100%, rather than just 99%, of the unsavory (to her) aspects of her customer's personal lives, are ignorable to her.
If it's intolerable to participate on any level in a gay wedding, why is it tolerable to participate in any level in gay anything ... including gay public display of affection, or acknowledging or accepting the existence of gays?
If you have to ask that then apparently you don't really get why the gay wedding poses a moral conflict for Christians. God certainly wants us to interact with gay people showing them kindness and friendship like any other group. But assisting or aiding in the context of a gay marriage is different because you are helping in some way with your products and services to allow an act that is the exactly opposite of God's design and purpose to take place. It's the act, not the person that is the issue. It's no different than if the government forced a business to cater or a a photographer to take photos of a a swingers convention. It doesn't have anything to do with the person as an individual.
If you have to ask that then apparently you don't really get why the gay wedding poses a moral conflict for Christians.
Yes, because some Christians are bigots and they gleefully use religion to justify their own preconceived hatred of something they don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
God certainly wants us to interact with gay people showing them kindness and friendship like any other group.
Ah, so not only is your brand of Christianity fascist and bigoted, it's also two-faced.
Thus you bump into a friend who happens to be gay, "Oh, John, how are you? How's your partner? Yes, the weather is pretty bad today. What brings me out on a day like this? Oh ... umm ... we're almost out of milk. Right, then. I'll see you around. Tell your partner I said hello!"
And then you continue on your way to vote against gay marriage, vote for open discrimination, vote to amend your state's anti-bullying laws to allow religiously motivated bullying - and so on and so forth. That's why you couldn't tell John where you were going. Because while you were standing there being nice to your gay friend, you were thinking of ways to punish him.
Nice religion you've got going on there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But assisting or aiding in the context of a gay marriage is different because you are helping in some way with your products and services to allow an act that is the exactly opposite of God's design and purpose to take place.
Here's where the fascism takes place. Everyone must worship and believe as I do or else you're a persona non-grata, a non-person for all intents and purposes. Because your nasty little Bronze Age tribal god says so.
But it's not really about God or the Bible - it's about bigotry and fear.
The reason why I know this is because being homosexual is no worse, according to the Bible, than being an adulterer yet there aren't any campaigns and holy roller, pulpit-pounding, Bible-thumping, pro-discrimination rallies directed at punishing adulterers, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's the act, not the person that is the issue.
I call shenanigans. First of all, what gives you or anyone else the right to punish someone else just because their beliefs are different than yours? What gives you the right to use the cross like a club to beat people (figuratively) who do not walk the same path as yours?
Secondly, you ARE punishing the person, not the act. You don't even know if a gay person has even had sex - he or she could be a virgin, and even those who piously refrain from homosexual sex because of their religious beliefs - well who cares, right? They're still gay and because of that they can't adopt and they still have to put up with people like YOU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It doesn't have anything to do with the person as an individual.
Bull.
In fact, you had to write this twice because you know it wasn't convincing - and it still isn't. Hiding behind your religion isn't going to fly ... everyone who actually believes in having a pluralist society can see right through you. If your God was so nice, loving, and forgiving as YOU claim, then he wouldn't be telling you to shun people. You're just too caught up in Old Testament crap (even though Jesus dying on the cross was supposed to usher in that new covenant that people like YOU suddenly ignore when it comes to gays.)
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.
