Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (atheists, society)
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.
I'm sorry, but all you are doing is showing me a hypocritical position. That's why I mentioned a grown daughter. A grown daughter can fully give consent. So if you are going to throw at me the argument that it is wrong to ever oppose SSM because it is just two people wanting to show their love then the exact same argument can be made for incest. You can't have it both ways so you desperately grasp for any kind of legal loophole to wiggle out of the argument. Grasping on legal arguments rather than looking at the moral backbone is being weak in your arguments.
I have never made those claims.
My morality allows for forgiveness and second chances which can occur with divorce. OTOH, SSM is a public daily commitment to continue in a sinful lifestyle. The only way to equate with your charge would be if someone is commiting adultry and divorcing every day.
You keep ignoring the power dynamics of parent child relationshios. Even as anadult, a senior at that, my relationship with my mother is still mother son and even though she will soon be 91 she still acts like a mother. So no it is not hypocrisy but a reasoned response. Just because I support two people loving each other being able to get married under the now current laws does not mean I have to support all types of marriages. Each would still have to become allowed based on their own rationale.
That is because I am not driven by doctrine and fear. I think on my own and can determine based on the reason s and rationales which should be allowed and which not.
The only reason you and others see SSM as immoral is because it is in your Bible. Your other reasons such as the children will be bullied or that when forced underground gays had a higher rate os std which both are the results of your brand of morality.
One other thing I cannot do under your morality is cheat on my wife and when I get caught repent and get forgiven until the next time I am caught. I made my commitment 44 years ago and cheating would mean that I broke that trust, no easy repent and all is well as it would never be all is well in my own mind which is where my personal morality lives.
No I cannot see promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as a moral act. And incest is not a sexual orientation and for that reason it is not a protected class under any laws I know of. Your personal views of the morality of SSM is your own business but the advocating of treating them as even worse than second class citizens is in my opinion immoral.
...Your personal views of the morality of SSM is your own business but the advocating of treating them as even worse than second class citizens is in my opinion immoral.
Such rationalizers will never understand how their actions are far more immoral than they could dream on the part of their victims.
No. Christians should stay out of business if they are not prepared to provide a service for anybody under the law.
He had his business before the law. It is simply cold hearted to demand that they just quit a business they built and go find a new career, buddy. But obviously atheists don't give it a rip because this is happening to Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You obviously have great difficulty with relative morality. At one time, daughters were mere Things to be used on marriage deals. The church didn't seem to have a problem with that, but only ever with increased liberation for women and their taking control of their own lives. Christianity would increasingly bleat about 'immorality' because they say immorality as anything not countenanced by the Bible or (as you observed) not the Bible but the dogmas of the church. Whichever you belonged to.
If morality has to constantly evolve and change then who is to say your idea of morality is any more righteous than a future generation? God's Word never changes and amazingly remains applicable today. A vast majority of our social problems would be wiped out if people simply practiced the principles of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
It's been one long religious battle against one moral advance after another. contraception, Transplants, assisted birth, and now same sex - first decriminalised and now given equal marriage rights. This is here, it is supported by law, and there is no way that religion is going to win this one. Religious dogma is not an excuse in law for refusing services provides to anyone else, and to be brital, like the Somali taxi drivers who wouldn't take passengers carrying booze, out on their ear, and little sympathy from me.
The problem with your approach is it is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. It erodes other rights like religious freedom. Now I'm sure you probably don't give a rip if we lose this right or not, but the founders of our nation felt it was so important that they made it #1 in the Constitution. You don't have to create a blanket unyielding law. Exceptions can be made for essential goods and services like food, medical, housing, transportation. No one should be denied equal access to such services because we are all equal human beings and need such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Start getting used to it - this case is over. Bar the complaining.
Far from it. The Supreme Court never ruled on the manner and many states do not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class. I never had a problem with homosexuality until they started forcing their way onto business owners and Christian groups. That's when I started speaking up in these forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
What's next? Bestial;ity has gone illegal because animals cannot give consent. It's the same precedent in fact for age of consent and the vulnerable. Incest (where not otherwise illegal) is against social convention. But the question is asked Why? What practical reason is there not to decriminalise it. Trust me Jeff, if yoy can come up with a really good reason why, I'll support you.
The reason is the precedent set by accepting gay marriage. If you are going to say that it is morally wrong to deny two people who love each other the right to marry then you can't say incest is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I find it rather interesting that Christianity compared to atheism doesn't look too good- Kim Davis, Jailed, Kent Hovind, Jailed, scamps, rip -offs, scandals and exploitation. That's the record of Christianity. Atheism has only Dawkins not being as sensitive as he should be to women and their problems with being hit on at atheist conferences.
Atheists doesn't have a very good tract record and the collateral damage in history numbers in the millions. Jim Jones, North Korea leaders, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Stalin. Thankfully most Americans don't trust having an atheist in positions of power.
All you are doing is bring the charge of immorality while refusing to fairly acknowledge cultural context. It is silly to think the ancient cultures had unemployment offices and everyone could easily find a job. The social economic climate thousands of years ago didn't allow for that. Slavery or starvation was often the only choices. That doesn't mean that the Bible stamp approves that type of situation that MAN created. In fact, there are quite a few anti-slavery verses
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase 573
If morality has to constantly evolve and change then who is to say your idea of morality is any more righteous than a future generation? God's Word never changes and amazingly remains applicable today. A vast majority of our social problems would be wiped out if people simply practiced the principles of the Bible.
Fundies are clueless about their hypocrisy. To be aware of it requires insight. Insight requires courageous self-reflection and fundies are too cowardly to face the mirror with their eyes open.
He had his business before the law. It is simply cold hearted to demand that they just quit a business they built and go find a new career, buddy. But obviously atheists don't give it a rip because this is happening to Christians.
If morality has to constantly evolve and change then who is to say your idea of morality is any more righteous than a future generation? God's Word never changes and amazingly remains applicable today. A vast majority of our social problems would be wiped out if people simply practiced the principles of the Bible.
The problem with your approach is it is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. It erodes other rights like religious freedom. Now I'm sure you probably don't give a rip if we lose this right or not, but the founders of our nation felt it was so important that they made it #1 in the Constitution. You don't have to create a blanket unyielding law. Exceptions can be made for essential goods and services like food, medical, housing, transportation. No one should be denied equal access to such services because we are all equal human beings and need such things.
Far from it. The Supreme Court never ruled on the manner and many states do not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class. I never had a problem with homosexuality until they started forcing their way onto business owners and Christian groups. That's when I started speaking up in these forums.
The reason is the precedent set by accepting gay marriage. If you are going to say that it is morally wrong to deny two people who love each other the right to marry then you can't say incest is wrong.
Atheists doesn't have a very good tract record and the collateral damage in history numbers in the millions. Jim Jones, North Korea leaders, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Stalin. Thankfully most Americans don't trust having an atheist in positions of power.
Paragraph 1: Sort of karmic when you think about it.
Paragraph 2: God's laws never change. Guess you aren't capable of seeing the difference between the OT and the NT.
Paragraph 4: And I never had much of a problem with Christianity until I started listening to people like you.
Paragraph 5: Yup we get you. You're a person who can be kind to others only if there's a law making you be kind.
Paragraph 1: Sort of karmic when you think about it.
Paragraph 2: God's laws never change. Guess you aren't capable of seeing the difference between the OT and the NT.
I guess you are not capable of understand the difference between OT law created only for a specific group of people for a temporary time vs universal moral principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Paragraph 4: And I never had much of a problem with Christianity until I started listening to people like you.
Irrelevant condescending goop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Paragraph 5: Yup we get you. You're a person who can be kind to others only if there's a law making you be kind.
We are not talking about just kindness. Anyone is capable of kind acts. I am taking about a higher standard of kindness and empathy like not taking pleasure in tearing down people who don't agree with you which your side loves to do.
I guess you are not capable of understand the difference between OT law created only for a specific group of people for a temporary time vs universal moral principles.
Irrelevant condescending goop.
We are not talking about just kindness. Anyone is capable of kind acts. I am taking about a higher standard of kindness and empathy like not taking pleasure in tearing down people who don't agree with you which your side loves to do.
No. That's not what you said. You said god's laws never change.
But many christians are not capable of consistent kind acts toward all people. Rather, they pander to doing kind acts for those who are in their club.
I guess you are not capable of understand the difference between OT law created only for a specific group of people for a temporary time vs universal moral principles.
Irrelevant condescending goop.
We are not talking about just kindness. Anyone is capable of kind acts. I am taking about a higher standard of kindness and empathy like not taking pleasure in tearing down people who don't agree with you which your side loves to do.
One of the ways morality evolved was in 1873 the last law having the death penalty for sodomy was repealed in the USA. That means up until then a gay could be executed for a sex act with another man. At one time slavery was legal. At one time interracial marrage was ilegal, women were property and there was no laws against either animal or child abuse. God had a law requiring child abuse,the killing of children who disrespected their father.
If 100 years the laws have changed so that some things we do today are then considered immoral because society has improved, good for them. That is to be not only applauded but expected. I truly hope for my granddaughters grandchildren to live in a fairer world then we have today. I am not afraid of change for the better and yes I truly believe my morals are better than those of folks 2 or 3 thousand years ago. I would never have sold my daughter to be a slave for life. I would not have killed all the infants and animals of a land I conquered and I certainly don't see morality in stoning a man for picking up sticks. Nor can I see myself picking and choosing which parts of a Bible I decide our unchangeable and which are no longer applicable and claim that God's word or morals are not to be challenged or changed.
I certainly would not judge Christians or Christianity based on your words, they deserve better than that
You keep ignoring the power dynamics of parent child relationshios. Even as anadult, a senior at that, my relationship with my mother is still mother son and even though she will soon be 91 she still acts like a mother. So no it is not hypocrisy but a reasoned response. Just because I support two people loving each other being able to get married under the now current laws does not mean I have to support all types of marriages. Each would still have to become allowed based on their own rationale.
So now you are arguing from a moral standpoint when it suits your argument rather than legal. I don't disagree. It is an unnatural union, but there may be people out there who do not have a normal parent child relationship and therefore are missing the power dynamics. It is still being hypocritical to deny them
when you fully embrace SSM which is also unnatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
That is because I am not driven by doctrine and fear. I think on my own and can determine based on the reason s and rationales which should be allowed and which not.
I can also think on my own, and if someone can present compelling evidence that Christianity is a fraud, I would consider it. OTOH, atheists will never consider for one second that they could be wrong and eternal death is their reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The only reason you and others see SSM as immoral is because it is in your Bible. Your other reasons such as the children will be bullied or that when forced underground gays had a higher rate os std which both are the results of your brand of morality.
No, we only have to look at our physical bodies to clearly see that they were designed for only male and female unions. And you can't be fruitful and multiply in a SSM. God created sexuality as a gift to us so we can experience an incredibly intimate bond with someone with an opposite physical and inner nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
One other thing I cannot do under your morality is cheat on my wife and when I get caught repent and get forgiven until the next time I am caught. I made my commitment 44 years ago and cheating would mean that I broke that trust, no easy repent and all is well as it would never be all is well in my own mind which is where my personal morality lives.
And yet other atheists or non-religious men have no problem cheating on their wives. How do you explain that? Same brains. Why don't we all act the same like every other species on this earth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
No I cannot see promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as a moral act. And incest is not a sexual orientation and for that reason it is not a protected class under any laws I know of. Your personal views of the morality of SSM is your own business but the advocating of treating them as even worse than second class citizens is in my opinion immoral.
What about people's who sexual orientation makes them attracted to minors? Most people support locking them up yet if I am to believe sexual orientation is a real thing then they can't be blamed be born that way. Even if they never acted on their impulses, they would still be outcasts of society.
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.
Such rationalizers will never understand how their actions are far more immoral than they could dream on the part of their victims.