(04-03-2015 11:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 10:08 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:13 AM)T-Town Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  My tweet when this started with the MAC

"Great just what my sports needed... More politics"

Exactly. The fact is that the Indiana and the New York politicians are both trying to do the EXACT SAME THING---namely politically pander to their respective perceived political bases and, of course as always, people get screwed in the process, but never enough to ever change the system by voting out incumbents who play these games (which is close to 100% of them).

The name of the game is stir up controversy in order to energize your political base. Politicians manipulate the electorate thru fear and anger and are experts at doing so and the American public falls for it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Yup. This was never about "religious freedom" and always completely about politics.

This was brought to a head by bakers, florist, and photographers being put out of business (by the government) because of their religious beliefs. The Indiana law was far from perfect but it was about "religious freedom".

can you provide specific examples of businesses that were shut down by the Govt because of their religious beliefs?

(04-02-2015 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again...it's really quite simple. There's no caveats...no sin score card. Take it from the man himself:

Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The caveat I will offer is I do believe our culture too often believes love and acceptance are the same. I can unconditionally love someone, but not accept person's choice (i.e. homosexuality).

A better example of this is a parent-child relationship. If a child is caught stealing candy from a store and the parent finds out. Does the parent stop loving the child? Of course not. The parent will say that this type of behavior is not acceptable, but I still unconditionally love you.

Hope that makes sense because I have a lot of homosexual friends that are Christians and they know I believe it is sin. But they can also see how much I care for them and love them for the person they are as a whole, not just one aspect of their life.

And that is where Christians can stumble at times. When they see a homosexual that is all they see in the person.... that they are homosexual when there is so much more to a person than just there sexual identity.

(04-03-2015 11:10 AM)axeme Wrote:  If you have a business, and you refuse to sell to/service those who are sinners in your religious perspective, how long are you going to be in business anyway? Let he who is without sin buy the first floral arrangement?

Look into the woman in Washington who *DID* sell flowers to a gay couple for years. She just could not partake in the wedding. It was not about *THEIR* sin it was about *HER* right not to endorse a ceremony which cut against her beliefs.

This is not nearly as simple as either side wants to make it out to be. If a gay guy walks into a bakery picks up a cake off a shelf and then walks to the register should the baker be able to say no? Probably not.

Should that same baker be forced by law to custom make a cake for a wedding ceremony their religion forbids participation in? Probably not.

Then there is the matter of the size / organization. Should a bed and breakfast in which a person lives be held to the same standard as the Hilton?

Like I said this is all rather complicated.

From a non religious philosophical perspective we are turning:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Into

""I do not agree with what you have to say, so shut up or the government will fine you and mandate sensitivity training"

(04-03-2015 11:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 10:08 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:13 AM)T-Town Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  My tweet when this started with the MAC

"Great just what my sports needed... More politics"

Exactly. The fact is that the Indiana and the New York politicians are both trying to do the EXACT SAME THING---namely politically pander to their respective perceived political bases and, of course as always, people get screwed in the process, but never enough to ever change the system by voting out incumbents who play these games (which is close to 100% of them).

The name of the game is stir up controversy in order to energize your political base. Politicians manipulate the electorate thru fear and anger and are experts at doing so and the American public falls for it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Yup. This was never about "religious freedom" and always completely about politics.

This was brought to a head by bakers, florist, and photographers being put out of business (by the government) because of their religious beliefs. The Indiana law was far from perfect but it was about "religious freedom".

No. No. No. No. No. You keep on making this erroneous argument! They were put out of business (if they actually even were) for discriminating against people and violating their civil rights to equal access. They were not put out because of their religious beliefs. A business does not have a religious identity. If you're going to run a business you have to abide by laws that apply equally to all people regardless of their religious beliefs. If not, who do you want deciding these rules? Politicians? Pastors? I highly doubt it!

But where does it end BIE?

A couple questions...

Where do you shop? Where do you invest?

If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support gay people somewhere...
If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support folks how favor abortions...
If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support those who sin...
If you think that not one cent you spend is going to those who practice behavior you don't like...
If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support those who don't believe in God...

You're living an impossible life.

The God that I love and serve does not require this from me. He only requires me to serve the least and the lost...and to love him and love others.

Where does it end?

As a Christian...How can you even attempt to live your life this way?

(04-03-2015 11:19 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  can you provide specific examples of businesses that were shut down by the Govt because of their religious beliefs?

In the process of having her business taken away and possible having her home taken away..

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/arti...y-marriage

(04-03-2015 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No. No. No. No. No. You keep on making this erroneous argument! They were put out of business (if they actually even were) for discriminating against people and violating their civil rights to equal access.

Distinction without a difference. you can't say "you can only be in business if you do things against you religious beliefs" and claim you're not persecuting those beliefs. As you are so fond of telling others *YOU* don't get to define Christ for others.

Quote:A business does not have a religious identity.

The SC disagrees. See hobby lobby

Quote:But where does it end BIE?

That is a difficult question that people of good intentions on Both sides should be working on. Instead people on both sides are lobbing mud at eachother.

Quote:Where do you shop? Where do you invest?

That's not your business.

Quote:If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support gay people somewhere...

That's an awesome straw man you are starting to build up.

Quote:If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support folks how favor abortions...

And the scary straw man continues.

Quote:If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support those who sin...

And the scary straw man continues.

Quote:If you think that not one cent you spend is going to those who practice behavior you don't like...

And the scary straw man continues.

Quote:If you think that not one cent you spend is going to support those who don't believe in God...

And the scary straw man continues.

Quote:You're living an impossible life.

This is not *ABOUT ME* tom. I am not a florist. If I were I am not 100% positive what I would do. This is about the rights of my fellow citizens, both Gay and Christian to live their lives.

Quote:As a Christian...How can you even attempt to live your life this way?

Again Tom this is not about me and how I live my life. I'm not narcissistic enough to assume everyone should live and believe as I do.

I am in an Interracial marriage. If the first wedding photographer I approached would not do the service because we were interracial, or because we were Christian, I would simply move on.

(04-03-2015 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Again Tom this is not about me and how I live my life. I'm not narcissistic enough to assume everyone should live and believe as I do.

I am in an Interracial marriage. If the first wedding photographer I approached would not do the service because we were interracial, or because we were Christian, I would simply move on.

Bingo.

I truely wish one day people will stop reading these old texts as if they were written in modern times. Historians interpreting the bible, looking at it in the spectrum of when it was written don't believe the purpose of the passages was ever meant to even be anti-homosexual. The Jews were a minority, they needed more Jews, gay sex doesn't result in more Jews. The Old Testament couldn't read, lying with another man is fine, just throw in some ladies every now and then. Just like eating shellfish when proper cooking was difficult made people sick. Bible's answer? Eating shellfish is blasphemy! A college teammate of mine came from a devout Jewish family, and wasn't circumsized. When I asked why? That was an old practice because of health reasons, his parents would rather he still be in god's image, the way he was born. The practice was dated.

Not trying to start a discussion on religion. Just a small side of this debate that needs to be said. I know it's not a popular one. The idea that the Christians sitting in the pew next to me can't get a cake from a Christian baker is a small violation of their religious freedoms (and their normal freedoms too) I think. Stupid law.

Nickle,

Question for you... Which act is a great imposition on one's liberty...

1 - Being told by a private citizen that they won't provide you with a cake so you have to get a cake somewhere else?
2 - Being forced by the government to take place in a religious ceremony which violates that religion or you have to give up your business.

There are two sides to this I just wish people would rationally talk this out instead of planting flags down and demanding the other side not have any voice. This is a time for compromise not grandstanding.

(04-03-2015 11:53 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  I truely wish one day people will stop reading these old texts as if they were written in modern times. Historians interpreting the bible, looking at it in the spectrum of when it was written don't believe the purpose of the passages was ever meant to even be anti-homosexual. The Jews were a minority, they needed more Jews, gay sex doesn't result in more Jews. The Old Testament couldn't read, lying with another man is fine, just throw in some ladies every now and then. Just like eating shellfish when proper cooking was difficult made people sick. Bible's answer? Eating shellfish is blasphemy! A college teammate of mine came from a devout Jewish family, and wasn't circumsized. When I asked why? That was an old practice because of health reasons, his parents would rather he still be in god's image, the way he was born. The practice was dated.

Not trying to start a discussion on religion. Just a small side of this debate that needs to be said. I know it's not a popular one. The idea that the Christians sitting in the pew next to me can't get a cake from a Christian baker is a small violation of their religious freedoms (and their normal freedoms too) I think. Stupid law.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

(04-03-2015 12:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Nickle,

Question for you... Which act is a great imposition on one's liberty...

1 - Being told by a private citizen that they won't provide you with a cake so you have to get a cake somewhere else?
2 - Being forced by the government to take place in a religious ceremony which violates that religion or you have to give up your business.

There are two sides to this I just wish people would rationally talk this out instead of planting flags down and demanding the other side not have any voice. This is a time for compromise not grandstanding.

No baker or florist should be asked to put on a suit or wedding dress if they don't want to. Didn't realize anyone was. I just thought they pulled up to the curb and popped open the trunk. Does your florist double as the flower girl?

(04-03-2015 12:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Nickle,

Question for you... Which act is a great imposition on one's liberty...

1 - Being told by a private citizen that they won't provide you with a cake so you have to get a cake somewhere else?
2 - Being forced by the government to take place in a religious ceremony which violates that religion or you have to give up your business.

There are two sides to this I just wish people would rationally talk this out instead of planting flags down and demanding the other side not have any voice. This is a time for compromise not grandstanding.

The right to discriminate does not supersede the right to not be discriminated against. The first 10 words of the very first amendment of the Constitution states "Congress shall pass no law recognizing the establishment of religion.." When you do business in the public square you are beholden to the Constitution above all other documents, even those written by Middle Eastern men in the Bronze Age.

There was a time in this country, not too long ago, when interracial marriages were out-right banned and business owners were free to refuse goods and services to interracial couples, all in the name of religious freedom. In large parts of the country it wasn't so simple as going to the next vendor, there were no other options. I would think someone who has personally benefited from the struggle against this type of bigotry would have a better appreciation for current events.

(04-03-2015 12:13 PM)NickleCity Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 12:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Nickle,

Question for you... Which act is a great imposition on one's liberty...

1 - Being told by a private citizen that they won't provide you with a cake so you have to get a cake somewhere else?
2 - Being forced by the government to take place in a religious ceremony which violates that religion or you have to give up your business.

There are two sides to this I just wish people would rationally talk this out instead of planting flags down and demanding the other side not have any voice. This is a time for compromise not grandstanding.

No baker or florist should be asked to put on a suit or wedding dress if they don't want to. Didn't realize anyone was. I just thought they pulled up to the curb and popped open the trunk. Does your florist double as the flower girl?

My aunt baked wedding cakes. There is a lot of involvement for a good caterer or florist for a wedding.

You did not answer the question.

(04-03-2015 12:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The right to discriminate does not supersede the right to not be discriminated against. The first 10 words of the very first amendment of the Constitution states "Congress shall pass no law recognizing the establishment of religion.."

Telling someone they have to violate their religion is far closer to *establishing* than telling someone they don't have to violate their religion.

(04-03-2015 12:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 12:13 PM)NickleCity Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 12:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Nickle,

Question for you... Which act is a great imposition on one's liberty...

1 - Being told by a private citizen that they won't provide you with a cake so you have to get a cake somewhere else?
2 - Being forced by the government to take place in a religious ceremony which violates that religion or you have to give up your business.

There are two sides to this I just wish people would rationally talk this out instead of planting flags down and demanding the other side not have any voice. This is a time for compromise not grandstanding.

No baker or florist should be asked to put on a suit or wedding dress if they don't want to. Didn't realize anyone was. I just thought they pulled up to the curb and popped open the trunk. Does your florist double as the flower girl?

My aunt baked wedding cakes. There is a lot of involvement for a good caterer or florist for a wedding.

You did not answer the question.

Ok, I choose 1.

(04-03-2015 12:40 PM)NickleCity Wrote:  Ok, I choose 1.

First they came .....

(04-03-2015 12:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 12:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The right to discriminate does not supersede the right to not be discriminated against. The first 10 words of the very first amendment of the Constitution states "Congress shall pass no law recognizing the establishment of religion.."

Telling someone they have to violate their religion is far closer to *establishing* than telling someone they don't have to violate their religion.

How is baking a fricking cake or making a pizza violating ones religion if you do it for a gay couple?

It's absolutely maddening!

So if a gay person buys something from these businesses and the person selling it just doesn't know, their religion isn't violated?

My head hurts......

(04-03-2015 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No. No. No. No. No. You keep on making this erroneous argument! They were put out of business (if they actually even were) for discriminating against people and violating their civil rights to equal access.

Distinction without a difference. you can't say "you can only be in business if you do things against you religious beliefs" and claim you're not persecuting those beliefs. As you are so fond of telling others *YOU* don't get to define Christ for others.

Quote:A business does not have a religious identity.

The SC disagrees. See hobby lobby

So you're good with Roe v. Wade then?

(04-03-2015 12:42 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 12:40 PM)NickleCity Wrote:  Ok, I choose 1.

First they came .....

I can't think of a single religion that strictly prohibits providing services to non-believers so option 2 doesn't exist.

(04-03-2015 12:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No. No. No. No. No. You keep on making this erroneous argument! They were put out of business (if they actually even were) for discriminating against people and violating their civil rights to equal access.

Distinction without a difference. you can't say "you can only be in business if you do things against you religious beliefs" and claim you're not persecuting those beliefs. As you are so fond of telling others *YOU* don't get to define Christ for others.

Quote:A business does not have a religious identity.

The SC disagrees. See hobby lobby

So you're good with Roe v. Wade then?

Oh boy, lets go ahead and start a new thread for that one