If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
They're on the road to it, "we" can't have anyone with a different opinion or moral standard, because cakes and floral arrangements are serious business. That's obviously something that must be torn down and destroyed (unless they're part an ultra right-wing Islamic group, then the SJWs will just cower in fear and pray that they don't offend them).
"You" as the majority are held to a higher standard because you are in positions of power where you can very easily incite real oppression against a minority. Last I checked the percentage of Americans identifying as Christian was something like 80-90% or more in most surveys.
Its probably closer to the top end among politicians, law enforcement and educators. You are in zero danger of being oppressed any time soon. It will be half a century before that is likely to rise much above zero.
Oppression is not the same thing as not being allowed to do whatever you want, though this is often described as oppression by US Christians who are simply too used to having absolutely everything their own way.
Its just the usual fear mongers trying to whip you all into a frenzy to protect their power bases.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Do people get cut any slack for thinking marriage is holy?
I would have thought you knew me well enough by now to know that no-one gets cut any slack for believing anything is holy.
If marriage were that holy, then wouldn't it be specific to one religion? It transcends and predates all known religions who like most things adopted it and changed it and now for some reason they don't want to change it again even though its way past due.
"Traditional marriage" if you take it from the bible or the koran is more like a cynical business contract than a holy expression of love anyway. Women are bought, sold and swapped or pseudo-adopted for their own protection because if a girl doesn't get/stay married, then she will get raped and/or murdered and that can't be helped because men are just men and thats what they do right?
Sounds sacred to me.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm going to address a few threads of conversation without quoting them all.
First they call you bigots....because thats what you are and nowadays we live in societies where its finally safe for us to say it out loud without being disembowelled, burned at the stake or put in comfy chair.
People were discussing changes to dogma. The bigotry nowadays is largely confined to hating gay people and contraception, but of course this has been drastically reduced from a much longer list.
The Catholic Church officially recognises the Heliocentric model of the solar system and the Theory of Evolution (despite a few outliers on that one);
For the most part it has learned from numerous tangles with science that it just looks foolish to argue when scientific consensus has been reached.
While you still seem to be holding out on ordaining women, I think its safe to say its just a matter of time. So is gay marriage equality if we're honest (and general acceptance for gays) but sometimes you have to wait for the last few dinosaurs to die out before their slightly more evolved offspring feel brave enough to admit they disagree.
Faith is all well and good, but when you are claiming to tell people the truth, you will get yourself questioned more readily when it becomes obvious that some (much) of what you're saying is false. The same applies to moral truth. Once the majority starts to feel that oppressing gays is wrong, the church will follow suit or it will lose followers.
Paco's comments might seem to dislike the church, but yours clearly indicate that you will defend, dismiss or justify literally anything they do.
What does MGTOW mean please?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Oppression is not the same thing as not being allowed to do whatever you want
Then it isn't oppressive to gays to simply tell them to go to a different bakery, I suppose? Freedom is being allowed to do whatever you want (though perhaps not in the place you want to do it, if it's on someone else's property), provided you aren't depriving someone else of life and liberty.
Listen, I don't agree with people refusing to sell LGBTs a wedding cake, I wouldn't shop at a place that did, but I will support their right to be pricks with an unpopular opinion.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Listen, I don't agree with people refusing to sell LGBTs a wedding cake, I wouldn't shop at a place that did, but I will support their right to be pricks with an unpopular opinion.
But do you feel the same about supporting the rights of people not to sell to blacks? Jews? Divorced women? Disabled people? The vast majority of society has for decades demanded that discrimination against these groups is not acceptable no matter your personal prejudices or 'sincerely held religious beliefs.' In 2015, the majority of Americans (well more than 50% of most polls) think gays and lesbians should be added to this list. When unpopular opinions rise to the level of discrimination, we, as a society, have decided that is is wrong and must not be allowed.
I would have thought you knew me well enough by now to know that no-one gets cut any slack for believing anything is holy.
If marriage were that holy, then wouldn't it be specific to one religion? It transcends and predates all known religions who like most things adopted it and changed it and now for some reason they don't want to change it again even though its way past due.
"Traditional marriage" if you take it from the bible or the koran is more like a cynical business contract than a holy expression of love anyway. Women are bought, sold and swapped or pseudo-adopted for their own protection because if a girl doesn't get/stay married, then she will get raped and/or murdered and that can't be helped because men are just men and thats what they do right?
Sounds sacred to me.
Let's pull gays out of this for a second.
It is unacceptable for Catholics (as an example) to consider marriage holy?
But do you feel the same about supporting the rights of people not to sell to blacks? Jews? Divorced women? Disabled people? The vast majority of society has for decades demanded that discrimination against these groups is not acceptable no matter your personal prejudices or 'sincerely held religious beliefs.' In 2015, the majority of Americans (well more than 50% of most polls) think gays and lesbians should be added to this list. When unpopular opinions rise to the level of discrimination, we, as a society, have decided that is is wrong and must not be allowed.
Sell to ≠cater wedding for.
This is what I don't get. You don't want to sell to gays, my opinion is you can go **** yourself.
This is what I don't get. You don't want to sell to gays, my opinion is you can go **** yourself.
If your business is catering, then sell to = cater wedding for. You cannot discriminate based on personal prejudices for all manner of protected groups. These are groups that have historically suffered from discrimination in out society. The question is not if you can discriminate in general- that's been decided, you can't. The question is if we as a society want to enshrine in law the ability to discriminate against homosexuals. Most Americans don't think we should.
There are other was to express your disagreements with someone's race, marital status, religion, or sexuality. You can speak out against it. You can join a church or organisation of people that feel like you do. You can donate money to 'family friendly' causes or, if one is so inclined, white supremacy groups. But if you want to run a business in America, you can't blithely discriminate against your customers.
Gee I wonder what would happen if someone ventured into a Muslim bakery and wanted a cake for a SS ceremony? Well, now we know!
Alright, starting to read what I missed – To Chongo: What is this post supposed to illustrate or prove that's relevant to the gay marriage discussion?
The question was raised about why SJWs go after bakeries and florists
I don't accept the premise. We've had, what, two whole bakeries in the news for refusing business. If this was some concerted effort by you new favorite term, SJWs, wouldn't the number be higher?
Is there hard proof this is the work of SJWs and not what I imagine is deductive reasoning?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
who won't provide services for gay weddings but give Muslim stores a wide berth.
You're asking why in a majority christian country, bakeries that have christian owners get all the attention?
If your business is catering, then sell to = cater wedding for. You cannot discriminate based on personal prejudices for all manner of protected groups. These are groups that have historically suffered from discrimination in out society. The question is not if you can discriminate in general- that's been decided, you can't. The question is if we as a society want to enshrine in law the ability to discriminate against homosexuals. Most Americans don't think we should.
There are other was to express your disagreements with someone's race, marital status, religion, or sexuality. You can speak out against it. You can join a church or organisation of people that feel like you do. You can donate money to 'family friendly' causes or, if one is so inclined, white supremacy groups. But if you want to run a business in America, you can't blithely discriminate against your customers.
There's no difference between serving customers and participating in a wedding?
Again, this isn't even someone saying "you can't get married", this is someone saying "don't force me to participate".
I think the definition of 'participate' is a little gray here. I don't think anyone would take me seriously if I said I was part of Jay-Zs wedding because I was caterer.
I think the definition of 'participate' is a little gray here. I don't think anyone would take me seriously if I said I was part of Jay-Zs wedding because I was caterer.
Grey is a fair way of putting it.
I'll back off on participation if others back off on considering a wedding just like any other service a caterer can perform.
I'll back off on participation if others back off on considering a wedding just like any other service a caterer can perform.
Well, on the surface, I'm not sure there's any meaningful difference. It's a bunch of people eating.
Ideologically, I can see the issues, but I think it's hilariously one-sided. I don't think the wedding party sees a person providing food and thinks "obviously they support me getting married" on an individual, religious, or any other level. Basically, I'm kind of curious what other reasons people have refused to cater a wedding. The obvious ones are inter-faith and inter-racial marriages, but of course, no one is making a note of it if its happening (or, more likely, they don't feel the need to make a big deal out of it like refusing gay ones).
And, of course, I'm always curious about the hypocrisy if they're ok with catering weddings where people are remarrying, or other religiously frowned upon states exist.
If your own wedding is important to you, why force someone who doesn't want to be involved?
If you don't give a shit about your own wedding, why force someone who doesn't want to be involved?
I honestly don't know. Maybe the price? Maybe the food is that good? Maybe it's because they did a few friends wedding but they're suddenly saying no to you? Maybe the slog of putting together a wedding makes you a vengeful dick, smiting all those who needlessly complicate an already burdensome process?
None of those are justification, just my imagination.
If you don't want to participate in someone's wedding, there are a myriad of ways of doing that without open, hostile, discrimination.
Don't want to do it? Put in a bid 100% above what you think is reasonable. Tell them you are already booked for that date. Maybe even try telling them that you are in support of traditional marriage and you would be happy to do it, but they should be aware that a portion of your profits go to organisations that support 'traditional family values.'
But the answer is not to pass laws that allow people to be openly and specifically discriminatory.
If your own wedding is important to you, why force someone who doesn't want to be involved?
If you don't give a shit about your own wedding, why force someone who doesn't want to be involved?
It's not forcing someone to do something. It's offering them a fair price for the services that that offer to the public. If they don't like what the public has become, perhaps they are in the wrong business.
I honestly don't know. Maybe the price? Maybe the food is that good? Maybe it's because they did a few friends wedding but they're suddenly saying no to you? Maybe the slog of putting together a wedding makes you a vengeful dick, smiting all those who needlessly complicate an already burdensome process?
None of those are justification, just my imagination.
Are these good enough reasons to legally cock-block refusal?
For me, it usually takes ****ing over the person working 60 hours a week for below minimum wage. I don't feel like that's what's going on here.
If you don't want to participate in someone's wedding, there are a myriad of ways of doing that without open, hostile, discrimination.
Don't want to do it? Put in a bid 100% above what you think is reasonable. Tell them you are already booked for that date. Maybe even try telling them that you are in support of traditional marriage and you would be happy to do it, but they should be aware that a portion of your profits go to organisations that support 'traditional family values.'
But the answer is not to pass laws that allow people to be openly and specifically discriminatory.
Make no mistake... I have pointed out on numerous occasions I have refused service to someone because I think they're an asshole.
I did this by lying, not telling them I think they're an asshole.
Are these good enough reasons to legally cock-block refusal?
Just the last one.
Originally Posted by subego
For me, it usually takes ****ing over the person working 60 hours a week for below minimum wage. I don't feel like that's what's going on here.
My support of non-discrimnation laws is rooted in keeping the economic process from being a crapshoot because of immutable qualities. Most of the time, the process doesn't need to be more complicated than "Do you have something I want" and "Do I have the means to compensate you for it."
Still, I just don't see the participation or endorsement angle. If I order 20 pizzas for a wedding, Dominos didn't participate in it. It didn't endorse it. It merely provided a service.
I did this by lying, not telling them I think they're an asshole.
Which is where I start to wonder if this entire issue is more about the refusing party wanting to rub it in the face of those they're turning away. Considering a segment of society thinks gay marriage is rubbing their face in it, I wouldn't be surprised.
But do you feel the same about supporting the rights of people not to sell to blacks? Jews? Divorced women? Disabled people? The vast majority of society has for decades demanded that discrimination against these groups is not acceptable no matter your personal prejudices or 'sincerely held religious beliefs.' In 2015, the majority of Americans (well more than 50% of most polls) think gays and lesbians should be added to this list. When unpopular opinions rise to the level of discrimination, we, as a society, have decided that is is wrong and must not be allowed.
As long as it isn't a life-threatening circumstance, like an ER, yes I do. When it happens enough the public backlash will force them out of business, there's no need to put a gun to their head. There are tons of other bakeries that will gladly take money from gay couples, without having to rely on the heavy cudgel of the law. Why in the hell would you want a cake, from people who don't approve of you, at your wedding? I simply can't get my head around that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You're asking why in a majority christian country, bakeries that have christian owners get all the attention?
Are you people high?
Yet give the most militantly anti-gay people in the world a pass? Are you high?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I don't accept the premise. We've had, what, two whole bakeries in the news for refusing business. If this was some concerted effort by you new favorite term, SJWs, wouldn't the number be higher?
"In the news", that's the key phrase there. Hell, Youtube alone has several dozen videos of people visiting or calling bakeries to get cakes for fictitious weddings (like the one posted above at the Muslim bakery), just to show their own form of intolerance... at the bakery's intolerance (because that always makes things better). That is this generation's form of news, traditional media outlets are dead, most simply don't know it yet.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
BTW, this is turning into example 1A of why I'm thinking of disengaging with discussion with Shaddim in the PL. Socially liberal, doesn't have strong opposition to gay marriage (prefers universal civil marriage), spends most of his time giving liberals unlimited grief. If you're not doing this for your jollies, than you obviously have some kind of problem with being in the mainstream as some type of principle. It's like hipster politics. (You admit cops can be racist, but not because they're racists but because of the job. When they single out on minorities it's not because they're racist (and what they've seen on the job), but because of management or age or location. Anything but popular consensus). Now anyone who beats the drum of justice is a SJW. Guess no one can even bring up issues now.
But lest I be accused of slander without proving my point: It's been asked why don't the liberals pick on the muslims? Here's why:
% of country that identifies as Christian: ~78%
% of country that identifies as Muslim: <1%
Organizations that actively oppose gay marriage:
African Methodist Episcopal Church[333]
Agudath Israel of America[334]
Alliance Defense Fund[335]
Alliance for Marriage[336] Alianza Islámica[citation needed]
American College of Pediatricians[citation needed]
American Family Association[337]
Anglican Church in North America[338]
Arlington Group[339]
Assemblies of God[340]
Brethren in Christ[341]
Black Hebrew Israelites
Catholic Answers
Chabad-Lubavitch[citation needed]
Christian Coalition of America[342]
Christian and Missionary Alliance[341]
Church of God in Christ[343]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[341][344]
Coloradans For Marriage[345]
Concerned Women for America[346]
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference[341]
Conservative Mennonite Conference[347]
Convocation of Anglicans in North America[citation needed] Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago[348]
Eagle Forum[349]
Evangelical Free Church of America[341]
Evangelical Methodist Church[350]
Evangelical Presbyterian Church[341]
Family Institute of Connecticut
Family Research Council[351]
Focus on the Family[352]
The Heritage Foundation
Hindu nationalism[citation needed]
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel[341]
International Pentecostal Holiness Church[341]
Jehovah's Witnesses[353]
JONAH[citation needed]
Karaite Judaism[citation needed]
Knights of Columbus[354][355][356]
Latino American Dawah Organization[citation needed]
Liberty Counsel[357]
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod[358]
MassResistance[359]
Missionary Church[341]
National Association of Evangelicals[341][360]
National Organization for Marriage[361] Nation of Islam[362]
Open Bible Churches[341]
Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition
Protect Marriage Arizona[345][363]
ProtectMarriage.com
Rabbinical Council of America[334]
Rastafari movement[citation needed]
Seventh-day Adventist Church[364]
Southern Baptist Convention[365]
Stand For Marriage Maine[366]
Texans For Marriage[367]
Thomas More Law Center[368]
Traditional Values Coalition[369]
Union for Traditional Judaism[citation needed]
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America[334][341]
United Brethren in Christ Church[341]
United Methodist Church[370]
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops[341]
Vision America[371]
VoteOnMarriage.org
Westboro Baptist Church[372]
Wesleyan Church[341]
Witherspoon Institute[373]
Three islamic/muslim, comprising ~5% of the list.
Now, here's a list of religions liberals are proposing being exempted from the anti-discrimination laws being cited for gay cakes and such:
---
It's not about politics, it's about ethics in gay bakery journalism.
Still, I just don't see the participation or endorsement angle. If I order 20 pizzas for a wedding, Dominos didn't participate in it. It didn't endorse it. It merely provided a service.
Is Dominos, or pizza in general, really the best example to use for analysis?
BTW, this is turning into example 1A of why I'm thinking of disengaging with discussion with Shaddim in the PL. Socially liberal, doesn't have strong opposition to gay marriage (prefers universal civil marriage), spends most of his time giving liberals unlimited grief. If you're not doing this for your jollies, than you obviously have some kind of problem with being in the mainstream as some type of principle. It's like hipster politics. (You admit cops can be racist, but not because they're racists but because of the job. When they single out on minorities it's not because they're racist (and what they've seen on the job), but because of management or age or location. Anything but popular consensus). Now anyone who beats the drum of justice is a SJW. Guess no one can even bring up issues now.
I don't have opposition to gay marriage at all, never have. I believe it's inherently imperfect, because I believe all civil marriage is imperfect, but I'd much rather have it than not.
I think you're looking at it in reverse, I have a problem with anyone using the law to force others to do anything against their will, especially when it comes to moral decisions. Someone wants to use public property to picket a bakery for not making cakes for gay couples, go right ahead, write nasty things on Yelp too, be proactive in letting others know that you disapprove of their decisions. BUT, as soon as you put what essentially amounts to a "gun" to their head and use the law to try and force them to think like you, however, you're in the wrong.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Organizations that actively oppose gay marriage:
African Methodist Episcopal Church[333]
Agudath Israel of America[334]
Alliance Defense Fund[335]
Alliance for Marriage[336] Alianza Islámica[citation needed]
American College of Pediatricians[citation needed]
American Family Association[337]
Anglican Church in North America[338]
Arlington Group[339]
Assemblies of God[340]
Brethren in Christ[341]
Black Hebrew Israelites
Catholic Answers
Chabad-Lubavitch[citation needed]
Christian Coalition of America[342]
Christian and Missionary Alliance[341]
Church of God in Christ[343]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[341][344]
Coloradans For Marriage[345]
Concerned Women for America[346]
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference[341]
Conservative Mennonite Conference[347]
Convocation of Anglicans in North America[citation needed] Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago[348]
Eagle Forum[349]
Evangelical Free Church of America[341]
Evangelical Methodist Church[350]
Evangelical Presbyterian Church[341]
Family Institute of Connecticut
Family Research Council[351]
Focus on the Family[352]
The Heritage Foundation
Hindu nationalism[citation needed]
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel[341]
International Pentecostal Holiness Church[341]
Jehovah's Witnesses[353]
JONAH[citation needed]
Karaite Judaism[citation needed]
Knights of Columbus[354][355][356]
Latino American Dawah Organization[citation needed]
Liberty Counsel[357]
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod[358]
MassResistance[359]
Missionary Church[341]
National Association of Evangelicals[341][360]
National Organization for Marriage[361] Nation of Islam[362]
Open Bible Churches[341]
Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition
Protect Marriage Arizona[345][363]
ProtectMarriage.com
Rabbinical Council of America[334]
Rastafari movement[citation needed]
Seventh-day Adventist Church[364]
Southern Baptist Convention[365]
Stand For Marriage Maine[366]
Texans For Marriage[367]
Thomas More Law Center[368]
Traditional Values Coalition[369]
Union for Traditional Judaism[citation needed]
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America[334][341]
United Brethren in Christ Church[341]
United Methodist Church[370]
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops[341]
Vision America[371]
VoteOnMarriage.org
Westboro Baptist Church[372]
Wesleyan Church[341]
Witherspoon Institute[373]
Three islamic/muslim, comprising ~5% of the list.
How many major Christian groups in the world are out actively dragging gays out of their homes and murdering them, just for being gay? Criticism and non-acceptance doesn't equal oppression. I don't accept evangelicals (to put it lightly), I criticize them openly when I see them doing something stupid, but they have the right to be wankers.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If you don't want to participate in someone's wedding, there are a myriad of ways of doing that without open, hostile, discrimination.
Don't want to do it? Put in a bid 100% above what you think is reasonable. Tell them you are already booked for that date. Maybe even try telling them that you are in support of traditional marriage and you would be happy to do it, but they should be aware that a portion of your profits go to organisations that support 'traditional family values.'
But the answer is not to pass laws that allow people to be openly and specifically discriminatory.
I don't think we can gloss over the part where your position makes the first two options you offer illegal.
I don't have opposition to gay marriage at all, never have. I believe it's inherently imperfect, because I believe all civil marriage is imperfect, but I'd much rather have it than not.
I think you're looking at it in reverse, I have a problem with anyone using the law to force others to do anything against their will, especially when it comes to moral decisions. Someone wants to use public property to picket a bakery for not making cakes for gay couples, go right ahead, write nasty things on Yelp too, be proactive in letting others know that you disapprove of their decisions. BUT, as soon as you put what essentially amounts to a "gun" to their head and use the law to try and force them to think like you, however, you're in the wrong.
I hold a similar position.
I'm pro gay out the ass, but I draw the line at forcing people to go to the ceremony for it.
Even if those people have shitty reasons for not wanting to go.
It's not forcing someone to do something. It's offering them a fair price for the services that that offer to the public. If they don't like what the public has become, perhaps they are in the wrong business.
If someone is racist, and doesn't want to serve black people, they are forced by law to do so.
You can call this "offering a fair price", but I'd rather call a spade a spade. It's force.
Likewise, if I'm going to support this policy (which I do), I'm not going to let myself off the hook for having forced somebody to do something, because that's exactly what I did.
In an attempt to play devil's advocate I'd like the thread participants to consider the following ...
So the question of the day seems to be "Should a Christian baker be forced by the government to bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Now let's say one's position on that is "Yes. If you do business with the public you should serve all customers." Ok fine. But think about it from the other direction. What if the question of the day was "Should a print shop owned by a gay man be forced by the government to print t-shirts with a Bible verse on it for a conservative, evangelical Church?"
Originally Posted by Levitcus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Now Sen. Rick Santorum made a similar argument on one of the Sunday shows this past weekend. But he gave the example of the print shop having to print the Westboro Baptist Church's slogan of "God Hates Fags". Which as an argument falls short IMO because it leaves itself open to the counter-argument that no print shop would be required to print "hate speech". But I must admit the "gist" of his argument had some merit. So I modified it to be something that simply quoted a Bible verse and would be much more difficult to summarily dismiss. So now what? Does what goes for the goose also go for the gander?
OAW
PS: For the record .... my position is that it does.
I wouldn't mind them refusing, but, umm... bible leaflet passer-outers(?) aren't a protected class, so it's legal in all 50 to tell them to go pound dirt.
Edit: bible slogan t-shirt vendors. I mixed my Santorum with my Fruit of the Loom.
I wouldn't mind them refusing, but, umm... bible leaflet passer-outers(?) aren't a protected class, so it's legal in all 50 to tell them to go pound dirt.
True. But if the determining factor is going to be whether or not someone is a member of a "protected class" then only 19 states offer this protection and the status at the federal level is somewhat ambiguous in light of the recent SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA.
True. But if the determining factor is going to be whether or not someone is a member of a "protected class" then only 19 states offer this protection and the status at the federal level is somewhat ambiguous in light of the recent SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA.
OAW
It is the determining factor, which is what makes it ironic in light of the current kerfuffle.
Pizza lady doesn't need this law to refuse service. She's fully within her rights to discriminate.
If Indiana passes a orientation non-discrimination law, then they get to duke it out, which I guess is the point. It's premptive.
In an attempt to play devil's advocate I'd like the thread participants to consider the following ...
So the question of the day seems to be "Should a Christian baker be forced by the government to bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Now let's say one's position on that is "Yes. If you do business with the public you should serve all customers." Ok fine. But think about it from the other direction. What if the question of the day was "Should a print shop owned by a gay man be forced by the government to print t-shirts with a Bible verse on it for a conservative, evangelical Church?"
Now Sen. Rick Santorum made a similar argument on one of the Sunday shows this past weekend. But he gave the example of the print shop having to print the Westboro Baptist Church's slogan of "God Hates Fags". Which as an argument falls short IMO because it leaves itself open to the counter-argument that no print shop would be required to print "hate speech". But I must admit the "gist" of his argument had some merit. So I modified it to be something that simply quoted a Bible verse and would be much more difficult to summarily dismiss. So now what? Does what goes for the goose also go for the gander?
OAW
PS: For the record .... my position is that it does.
I'm going to address a few threads of conversation without quoting them all. First, They Call Us Bigots… - Aleteia
First they call you bigots....because thats what you are and nowadays we live in societies where its finally safe for us to say it out loud without being disembowelled, burned at the stake or put in comfy chair.
People were discussing changes to dogma. The bigotry nowadays is largely confined to hating gay people and contraception, but of course this has been drastically reduced from a much longer list.
The Catholic Church officially recognises the Heliocentric model of the solar system and the Theory of Evolution (despite a few outliers on that one);
For the most part it has learned from numerous tangles with science that it just looks foolish to argue when scientific consensus has been reached.
While you still seem to be holding out on ordaining women, I think its safe to say its just a matter of time. So is gay marriage equality if we're honest (and general acceptance for gays) but sometimes you have to wait for the last few dinosaurs to die out before their slightly more evolved offspring feel brave enough to admit they disagree.
Faith is all well and good, but when you are claiming to tell people the truth, you will get yourself questioned more readily when it becomes obvious that some (much) of what you're saying is false. The same applies to moral truth. Once the majority starts to feel that oppressing gays is wrong, the church will follow suit or it will lose followers.
Paco's comments might seem to dislike the church, but yours clearly indicate that you will defend, dismiss or justify literally anything they do.
What does MGTOW mean please?
First of all, did you read the article? If you did, do you believe we are not on a path to repeat the past?
Define what you mean by the Church oppressing people with SS attraction. Where in the Catechism does it say we should hate people with SS atraction?
Blessed Paul VI made some statements of what would happen if the contraceptive mentality took hold. It has, and they have proven true. (HUMANAE VITAE #17)
Like the theory of the "Big Bang?" Thank a Catholic Priest. Like the science of genetics? Thank a Catholic Monk.
With the exception of the "comfy chair" our brother and sister Christians in the ME are being crucified, beheaded, and burned at the stake (or in cages) for their faith. It won't be long before we hear of disembowelments. ISIS throws those with SSA off the tops of buildings.
BTW, I opposed the Bishops support for Obamacare. This is best left to the states. I also oppose the call for the total elimination of the death penalty. There are still "Ted Bundys" out there.
MGTOW sounds like St. Paul's letter to the Romans.
I now avoid using gender pronouns around people I don't know, just to be safe.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
First of all, did you read the article? If you did, do you believe we are not on a path to repeat the past?
Yes I read it (while cringing a lot). I commented on it to but I suspect what I wrote was moderated swiftly into the void. No, I don't see the past repeating. I don't see the past being the way the article described it either but regardless I don't expect anyone in any developed country to start rounding up Catholics into extermination camps any time soon which seemed to be the tone the article was written with.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Define what you mean by the Church oppressing people with SS attraction.
Its public record that homosexuals are at the very least frowned upon, in more extreme cases they are hated. Sometimes with violence. Clearly the violence is not public policy but I doubt curtailing it is high on the Vaticans to-do list.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Where in the Catechism does it say we should hate people with SS attraction?
You tell me. Its your Catechism and you lot are the ones who choose to use it to oppress gay people. Why ask me to explain why you do it? I have no clue. Its silly and one day none of you will do it any more, just a pity you can't all accept the inevitability of that and cut out the misery it causes innocent people in the meantime.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Blessed Paul VI made some statements of what would happen if the contraceptive mentality took hold. It has, and they have proven true. (HUMANAE VITAE #17)
Vague.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Like the theory of the "Big Bang?" Thank a Catholic Priest. Like the science of genetics? Thank a Catholic Monk.
Did you think you'd 'got me' with this information? You didn't, I'm well aware. The fact that Catholicism has finally learned to accept science instead of fighting it kicking and screaming is one of the reasons its low on my list of religions to mock and deride. Compared to other sections of Christianity, you guys are actually quite enlightened these days when it comes to science. Unless you're talking about the efficacy of condoms or the viability or feelings of a foetus. Of course sexual enlightenment is still a ways off which is why you still seem to be having certain 'troubles'. You know if you ditched the gay-bashing and embraced contraception and pre-marital sex, you'd be a genuine modern religion with very little left for us anti-theists to really moan about.
Originally Posted by Chongo
With the exception of the "comfy chair" our brother and sister Christians in the ME are being crucified, beheaded, and burned at the stake (or in cages) for their faith. It won't be long before we hear of disembowelments. ISIS throws those with SSA off the tops of buildings.
The old 'look how much worse that guy is' argument. I have several problems with this.
1: It isn't really relevant to this discussion;
2: It doesn't make you look great that you focus on the victimisation of your own. Do you think Islamic extremists aren't just as happy to set fire to Jews? If I had been in that Kenyan University the other day and answered "Atheist" when asked my own beliefs, what do you imagine they would have done to me? Somehow I doubt I would have got "Oh well as long as you're neutral, thats fine. Off you go then." By fixating on their Christian victims (and I've seen you do this before), it sort of implies that you don't really care about non-Christians being burned and skewered for not being Muslims. While we're on the subject you know your book says to kill non-Christians right? Thats another piece of dogma thats been bent a little over the last couple of millennia. Better add it to your list.
3: The fact that someone else is behaving worse than you doesn't exonerate you for behaving badly. You know this, its been pointed out a billion times over in these theistic discussions but somehow that classic deflection trick still pops up time and again.
Originally Posted by Chongo
BTW, I opposed the Bishops support for Obamacare.
So your guys finally get something right and this is where you choose to disagree with them?
Originally Posted by Chongo
MGTOW sounds like St. Paul's letter to the Romans.
Lots of new acronyms being bandied about in this thread like everyone should know what they mean. I've worked most of them out but not this one. I'm going with Mega-Giant Tower Of Wensleydale until someone corrects me.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Did you think you'd 'got me' with this information? You didn't, I'm well aware. The fact that Catholicism has finally learned to accept science instead of fighting it kicking and screaming is one of the reasons its low on my list of religions to mock and deride. Compared to other sections of Christianity, you guys are actually quite enlightened these days when it comes to science. Unless you're talking about the efficacy of condoms or the viability or feelings of a foetus. Of course sexual enlightenment is still a ways off which is why you still seem to be having certain 'troubles'. You know if you ditched the gay-bashing and embraced contraception and pre-marital sex, you'd be a genuine modern religion with very little left for us anti-theists to really moan about.
Here we get to the crux of the matter, sex. It's all about sex and nothing to do with redefining marriage.
The Church does not hate people with SSA, now matter how much you want to believe that. She has an Apostolate to help people with SSA Courage
I don't see the past being the way the article described it either but regardless I don't expect anyone in any developed country to start rounding up Catholics into extermination camps any time soon which seemed to be the tone the article was written with.
Are you saying the persecution of the Church in Mexico in 1920's and the Soviet era didn't happen?
MGTOW AKA Men going their own way. Like I said Romans 1
Did you think you'd 'got me' with this information? You didn't, I'm well aware. The fact that Catholicism has finally learned to accept science instead of fighting it kicking and screaming is one of the reasons its low on my list of religions to mock and deride. Compared to other sections of Christianity, you guys are actually quite enlightened these days when it comes to science. Unless you're talking about the efficacy of condoms or the viability or feelings of a foetus. Of course sexual enlightenment is still a ways off which is why you still seem to be having certain 'troubles'. You know if you ditched the gay-bashing and embraced contraception and pre-marital sex, you'd be a genuine modern religion with very little left for us anti-theists to really moan about.
Top