(04-08-2014 10:58 AM)gdunn Wrote:  But Ham, what about "content of character"?

Being ugly is content of character.
Being nerdy is content of character.
Being rude, mean, nice, mannerly, lazy, lying, beautiful, etc X 100, is content of character...


But gay? No sir, THAT'S not content of character. Make sure you remember that.

(04-08-2014 11:04 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 10:58 AM)gdunn Wrote:  But Ham, what about "content of character"?

Being ugly is content of character.
Being nerdy is content of character.
Being rude, mean, nice, mannerly, lazy, lying, beautiful, etc X 100, is content of character...


But gay? No sir, THAT'S not content of character. Make sure you remember that.

Well that was the argument for the gay business owners refusing business because of the content of character.. Sounds like they were making snap judgments to me and deciding they wouldn't serve them because they disagreed with their beliefs.

(04-08-2014 12:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and even if it was a choice I still don't see how it defines someones character negatively. but then again I am not a homophobic prick.

lemme go back and restate.......

Only if viewed through the lens where homosexuality is a sin (eg Christianity Islam, etc). But then again, we are all sinners that must seek forgiveness for our continued sinning against God. Then again, if you are not a person of faith, then it is less likely that it would affect character.

There are double standards guys. They can tell you to F off but you cannot tell them to for being gay. Yes, it's a double standard and it's unfair but that's how it is.

(04-08-2014 11:10 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Well that was the argument for the gay business owners refusing business because of the content of character.. Sounds like they were making snap judgments to me and deciding they wouldn't serve them because they disagreed with their beliefs.

That's because of the content of their characters... Might I add, their STRAIGHT characters.

(04-08-2014 10:58 AM)gdunn Wrote:  But Ham, what about "content of character"?

So long as you are judging people by their unique characteristics... I see no inconsistency (based on MLK's leadings).

Context makes a huge difference. While there are certainly stereotypical gays, there are also plenty whom you wouldn't know were gay unless or until you saw them interact with their partner. I don't care if my carpenter or mechanic or barrista is gay... because it doesn't impact their ability to do the work that I want them to do... but I probably wouldn't want someone who doesn't like sports to be my sideline photographer. I probably wouldn't want a Christian Scientist doctor or a Scientology Psychiatrist.