Big ten

[The_PhoenixII]

I support the state of Indiana. Religious liberty needs to be protected. This is a judeo christian nation, it's what the country was found under and continues to be the mass population today. Christians are being bigoted against daily. Besides, this law doesn't allow for business' to not serve someone, it merely gives them an injunction if they feel that they are being called to do something against their moral and religious foundation. Go Indiana!

 

[theIowaHawk]

Ok, youflog1hawk, let's talk about that Colorado baker. I presume you don't actually know the facts, so let me post some, they aren't complicated:

Two males requested a cake be made for their wedding. Owner replied that he would not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, due to his religious beliefs.

Colorado has a law banning discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of a few things, including sexual orientation.

Clearly, under that law the owner can not discriminate against homosexuals for being homosexuals, which clearly he was.

The question then, is whether the owner's religious objection to homosexuality (or homosexual weddings) should be exempt from that law.

Let me presume a few things, and feel free to correct me:

The owner has a "religious belief" that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexual marriage is specifically prohibited by those religious beliefs. Further, any participation in the wedding, say baking a cake, would be akin to participating in the sin.

Sure, ok. Let's try some similar scenarios to fully flesh this out:

Catholics believe that marriages are only "valid" if performed in a Catholic church and following specific procedures and principals, for example annulling all previous marriages.

Would it be acceptable, on "religious grounds" to turn away a non-catholic who is going to be married at the Grand Canyon?

Taking it farther, which you've already acknowledged your refusal to discuss: A "I-hate-whites-man", religious teacher and reverend of the "I-hate-whites-church" refuses to allow patronage by Whites. Acceptable?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by The_PhoenixII:
I support the state of Indiana. Religious liberty needs to be protected.

Ok. The vast majority pretty much agrees.

This is a judeo christian nation, it's what the country was found under

According to what?

and continues to be the mass population today.

Ok. "Christianity", according to this, makes up 78% of U.S. religions, but there are multiple denomination families that make up "Christianity". Which one should we be catering to? The ones that don't want to serve homosexuals, the ones who do?

Christians are being bigoted against daily.

Care to explain how? Just a few example would suffice. I presume you are a Christian, how were you specifically "bigoted against" today? I'm concerned if this is, actually true. I am surrounded by Christians, I am a member of the Catholic church and I haven't seen a "bigoted against" action in a very long time, and even with that I'd be stretching it.

Besides, this law doesn't allow for business' to not serve someone, it merely gives them an injunction if they feel that they are being called to do something against their moral and religious foundation. Go Indiana!

How can you separate those two claims at the end so completely? It doesn't allow them to "not serve someone"? I presume you mean that they would still be required to serve a homosexual...they just don't have to "participate" in the act, by baking a cake.

But that is just one religious objection. Why wouldn't they be able to deny homosexuals entirely, because feeding them would further their survival and refuel them for more homosexual sex.

I truly am curious, because you are necessarily drawing a line....where would you draw the line? Whether they must "participate"? Is that your delineation?

 

[BeardedAxeWound]

Looks like the capitalist free market is gonna sort this one out:
Washington governor joining CT governor, prominent city mayors, university presidents in banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Numerous companies pulling back business plans & musical acts cancelling large events.

Consequences of doing "business" I suppose. Sucks to be Indiana.



Link

 

[youflog1hawk]

Re: Big ten[/URL]theIowaHawk posted on 3/31/2015...
Ok, youflog1hawk, let's talk about that Colorado baker. I presume you don't actually know the facts, so let me post some, they aren't complicated:

Two males requested a cake be made for their wedding. Owner replied that he would not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, due to his religious beliefs.

Colorado has a law banning discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of a few things, including sexual orientation.

Clearly, under that law the owner can not discriminate against homosexuals for being homosexuals, which clearly he was.

The question then, is whether the owner's religious objection to homosexuality (or homosexual weddings) should be exempt from that law.

Let me presume a few things, and feel free to correct me:

The owner has a "religious belief" that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexual marriage is specifically prohibited by those religious beliefs. Further, any participation in the wedding, say baking a cake, would be akin to participating in the sin.

Sure, ok. Let's try some similar scenarios to fully flesh this out:

Catholics believe that marriages are only "valid" if performed in a Catholic church and following specific procedures and principals, for example annulling all previous marriages.

Would it be acceptable, on "religious grounds" to turn away a non-catholic who is going to be married at the Grand Canyon?

Taking it farther, which you've already acknowledged your refusal to discuss: A "I-hate-whites-man", religious teacher and reverend of the "I-hate-whites-church" refuses to allow patronage by Whites. Acceptable?................................................................................

What? Ha Ha
I know very well what their law states and it will end up at the supreme court. Like forcing a doctor to perform an abortion when it is against his religious belief.
Why would a non Catholic be worried about being turned away by the Catholic Church at the Grand Canyon? The Church has the right to perform that sacrament as they choose in the church or at agreed sites. The church would just not perform the ceremony. Of course you force them to by another unconstitutional law. Today, if do not believe the churches belief system, the bullies just call for the total ban of churches at public sites.
I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph. Why would I go where I'm not invited. We already have gender bias. See you at the latest womans club meeting.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Ok, youflog1hawk, let's talk about that Colorado baker. I presume you don't actually know the facts, so let me post some, they aren't complicated:

Two males requested a cake be made for their wedding. Owner replied that he would not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, due to his religious beliefs.

Colorado has a law banning discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of a few things, including sexual orientation.

Clearly, under that law the owner can not discriminate against homosexuals for being homosexuals, which clearly he was.

The question then, is whether the owner's religious objection to homosexuality (or homosexual weddings) should be exempt from that law.

Let me presume a few things, and feel free to correct me:

The owner has a "religious belief" that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexual marriage is specifically prohibited by those religious beliefs. Further, any participation in the wedding, say baking a cake, would be akin to participating in the sin.

Sure, ok. Let's try some similar scenarios to fully flesh this out:

Catholics believe that marriages are only "valid" if performed in a Catholic church and following specific procedures and principals, for example annulling all previous marriages.

Would it be acceptable, on "religious grounds" to turn away a non-catholic who is going to be married at the Grand Canyon?

Taking it farther, which you've already acknowledged your refusal to discuss: A "I-hate-whites-man", religious teacher and reverend of the "I-hate-whites-church" refuses to allow patronage by Whites. Acceptable?

????????????????????????????????????

That's nuts. The correct analogy would be requiring a priest to marry two people who were divorced. WTF does the Grand Canyon have to do with this discussion?

 

[ckettmann]

Should they ban the other 19 states that have the same or very similar laws?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Sure, ok. Let's try some similar scenarios to fully flesh this out:

Catholics believe that marriages are only "valid" if performed in a Catholic church and following specific procedures and principals, for example annulling all previous marriages.

Would it be acceptable, on "religious grounds" to turn away a non-catholic who is going to be married at the Grand Canyon?

????????????????????????????????????

That's nuts. The correct analogy would be requiring a priest to marry two people who were divorced. WTF does the Grand Canyon have to do with this discussion?

Why is that nuts? Or, at least more nuts than refusing to bake a cake?

If a person's religious belief believes that a "marriage" is only done within a specific church while following specific parameters, it would follow that the religious person would refuse to make a wedding cake for a non-catholic who would not be following those procedures. (i.e. the Grand Canyon not being a Catholic church).

Your "correct analogy" is off. I don't think even the defenders of the right to refuse would equate baking a cake with officiating the wedding.


We agree that a Catholic church can't be forced (by the government) to perform, or accept, a non-catholic wedding, right? That is the easy one. The question is, can a public accommodation provider refuse to perform an ancillary function?

The basic point is this: a) we can't legitimately "question" a person's religious beliefs, then b) all "religious beliefs" must be considered, meaning we could invent many ways to turn away whomever we so choose. The line will be drawn somewhere, the question is where.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:

Re: Big ten[/URL]


What? Ha Ha
I know very well what their law states and it will end up at the supreme court. Like forcing a doctor to perform an abortion when it is against his religious belief.
Why would a non Catholic be worried about being turned away by the Catholic Church at the Grand Canyon? The Church has the right to perform that sacrament as they choose in the church or at agreed sites. The church would just not perform the ceremony. Of course you force them to by another unconstitutional law. Today, if do not believe the churches belief system, the bullies just call for the total ban of churches at public sites.
I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph. Why would I go where I'm not invited. We already have gender bias. See you at the latest womans club meeting.

Serious question for you flog: Do you believe that baking a wedding cake is akin to performing an abortion?

Ahhh, now I think I see where I confused LC. I wasn't saying that the Catholic Church would turn anyone away, I'm saying a Catholic cake baker could turn away a customer who wants a non-catholic wedding cake.

Who has ever forced a church to perform a wedding that they disagree with in this country? I would be in stark disagreement with that, and would actively fight against it.

Man, the victim you are, I actually do feel bad for you, you must be miserable. You are a persecuted Christian...and now, apparently, a persecuted male. It is damned difficult to be a white Christian male in the United States these days......

 

[markfromj]

Let's all take a moment to appreciate how effing awesome it is that we live somewhere where we get to have this debate.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Sure, ok. Let's try some similar scenarios to fully flesh this out:

Catholics believe that marriages are only "valid" if performed in a Catholic church and following specific procedures and principals, for example annulling all previous marriages.

Would it be acceptable, on "religious grounds" to turn away a non-catholic who is going to be married at the Grand Canyon?

????????????????????????????????????

That's nuts. The correct analogy would be requiring a priest to marry two people who were divorced. WTF does the Grand Canyon have to do with this discussion?

Why is that nuts? Or, at least more nuts than refusing to bake a cake?

If a person's religious belief believes that a "marriage" is only done within a specific church while following specific parameters, it would follow that the religious person would refuse to make a wedding cake for a non-catholic who would not be following those procedures. (i.e. the Grand Canyon not being a Catholic church).

Your "correct analogy" is off. I don't think even the defenders of the right to refuse would equate baking a cake with officiating the wedding.


We agree that a Catholic church can't be forced (by the government) to perform, or accept, a non-catholic wedding, right? That is the easy one. The question is, can a public accommodation provider refuse to perform an ancillary function?

The basic point is this: a) we can't legitimately "question" a person's religious beliefs, then b) all "religious beliefs" must be considered, meaning we could invent many ways to turn away whomever we so choose. The line will be drawn somewhere, the question is where.

I missed the part about Catholics not believing any marriage is valid if not performed in a Catholic church. I wasn't aware of that. I am pretty sure you are wrong about Catholics not accepting a non-catholic wedding. For one thing, if that were the case, there would be no problem with a Catholic wedding of two people who had previously been married in protestant ceremonies.

I think things have changed since my days in high school in the '60s, but at that time many Catholic priests refused to let their parishioners take part in non-Catholic weddings. Some priests -- usually the same ones who turned a blind eye to birth control use -- didn't do this, but in my home town, if a Catholic girl's best friend was getting married in a Methodist church, she was not allowed to be a member of the wedding party. And in some places, she would not have been allowed to even attend the wedding.

But we are getting far afield. My analogy is correct. Requiring a priest to marry two divorcees would be requiring him to participate in a religious ceremony that goes contrary to his beliefs, which -- the argument says -- is what is being asked when a photographer or baker is forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.

While we're on the subject, why can't the law require the RC church to ordain women as priests? Are you OK with the church putting its beliefs ahead of laws against sex discrimination?

I think in the case of the cake or the photos, it comes down to whether the court believes that those roles actually constitute participation in the procedure.

In any case, people who have read the Indiana law agree it has been horribly mischaracterized. It does not "allow discrimination against gays."

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

I missed the part about Catholics not believing any marriage is valid if not performed in a Catholic church. I wasn't aware of that. I am pretty sure you are wrong about Catholics not accepting a non-catholic wedding. For one thing, if that were the case, there would be no problem with a Catholic wedding of two people who had previously been married in protestant ceremonies.

We can argue the merits of Catholic requirements for a marriage/wedding ceremony, but it is certainly off topic. Feel free to change the word "Catholic" to whatever word you want to use. A person, citing religious reasons, would be able to turn away anybody they want for any reason they want. Unless you draw a line, so where should that line be drawn? At homosexuals?

I think things have changed since my days in high school in the '60s, but at that time many Catholic priests refused to let their parishioners take part in non-Catholic weddings. Some priests -- usually the same ones who turned a blind eye to birth control use -- didn't do this, but in my home town, if a Catholic girl's best friend was getting married in a Methodist church, she was not allowed to be a member of the wedding party. And in some places, she would not have been allowed to even attend the wedding.

Yeah, I'm sure that has changed, and nearly impossible (these days) to actually enforce. What do they do, excommunicate them?

But we are getting far afield. My analogy is correct. Requiring a priest to marry two divorcees would be requiring him to participate in a religious ceremony that goes contrary to his beliefs, which -- the argument says -- is what is being asked when a photographer or baker is forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.

So you do agree that baking a cake for eating at a wedding is the same as actually performing the wedding? I simply don't buy that you believe that. One could draw the line at performance...are both of them equal performance?

For example:

Would it be against their "religious beliefs" to create a "happy wedding!" cake and sell it to homosexuals?

Or is it only "performance" if the cake decorating involves the homosexuality, say two grooms, or a penis entering a butt.

While we're on the subject, why can't the law require the RC church to ordain women as priests? Are you OK with the church putting its beliefs ahead of laws against sex discrimination?

Yes, of course I am. A religious institution should be exempt from, basically, all laws involving discrimination. A basic tenet of religion is discrimination. I don't mean that in an offensive way, it shouldn't even be inflammatory, it is a fact.

I am differentiating on the basis of religious institution vs. public accommodation. Certainly a church would not have to perform a wedding ceremony against their wishes, nor would a church be required to bake a cake with a giant penis on it for two grooms, or anyone for that matter.

I think in the case of the cake or the photos, it comes down to whether the court believes that those roles actually constitute participation in the procedure.

I completely agree, somewhere, someone must draw the line. I'm not sure where it should be drawn. The line right now seems to be against homosexuals. I'm not sure where people would stand if it were businesses refusing service entirely to homosexuals, or anyone else, say fornicators.

In any case, people who have read the Indiana law agree it has been horribly mischaracterized. It does not "allow discrimination against gays."

Of course it has been. As is nearly always the case the national conversation is quite bastardized from what it was originally discussing. BUT, that doesn't moot the point, or win the argument.

The posters on here screaming, "That's not what the law says!" can't, in the very next sentence, argue that homosexuals should, in fact, be allowed to be discriminated against for religious reasons......without it being about gay marriage.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by markfromj:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate how effing awesome it is that we live somewhere where we get to have this debate.

Now THAT is something I can agree with wholeheartedly.

I would have been lynched/stoned/burned long ago if I had lived in a different era.

 

[OldTownPepe]

I was raised Catholic. Civil divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, and unless you have had your marriage annulled by the Church, if you divorce you are living in mortal sin and will go to hell. At least in Indiana, my business does not have to cater to divorced people any more - especially if they have remarried without an annulment. Thank God. Since the divorce rate in the U.S. is around 50%, I expect my going-out-of-business sale will be problematic, but who cares. I may not be able to make a living but I'll go to Heaven.

 

[JIMSOULS]

As a Christian myself, I don't recall The Bible saying it's okay to discriminate against those who are different from you. Those who think this bill is about "religious freedom" need to look in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is a bigot. Seriously, I don't understand why people would want to be mean-spirited toward other human beings. I don't understand why they'd want people to feel bad about who they are. What does that accomplish? Sometimes these bigots make me ashamed to be a Christian, because I don't want folks assuming that I think like these people. Again, these religious freedom people are bigots who need education and/or counseling. I truly feel sorry for them, because the hate that exists in their hearts has nothing to do with true Christianity.

This topic isn't about politics, by the way. It's about civil rights.

One more thing. Some posters referred to being gay as a "lifestyle." Sexual preference is not a lifestyle . Has anyone ever heard of heterosexuality described as a lifestyle? Of course you haven't. The lifestyle reference another way for a bigot to say "look at me. I'm a bigot." Remove the hate from your heart and let all people be equal. Jesus will thank you.

 

[jaffarosenfels]

In the end the B1G represents many different people from all walks of life and that includes people of different race, religion, and sexual orientation. Those folks all have a voice. The B1G will listen.

 

[AuroraHawk]

The law's proponents thought that they could keep tight control over the message. The "talking points" have been carefully orchestrated but, when the tough questions are asked, the deer-in-the-headlights look appears on their faces. When pressed on the issue of whether they would support an amendment that would add language offering to ensure that it couldn't be used to protect those who refuse to provide public accommodation services to gays and lesbians, they refuse to answer. Pretty clear why they don't answer.

 

[OldTownPepe]

Three of the Final Four teams have issued statements about their stance on discrimination and non-inclusion coming into Indianapolis, with the exception of Kentucky unless I missed it. So has the Big Ten and the NCAA, to their credit.
That in itself is a sad commentary on Indiana's new law, no matter how you interpret it..

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by AuroraHawk:
The law's proponents thought that they could keep tight control over the message. The "talking points" have been carefully orchestrated but, when the tough questions are asked, the deer-in-the-headlights look appears on their faces. When pressed on the issue of whether they would support an amendment that would add language offering to ensure that it couldn't be used to protect those who refuse to provide public accommodation services to gays and lesbians, they refuse to answer. Pretty clear why they don't answer.

No, the law's proponents thought it wouldn't be a big deal because they thought it was the same law the feds and a bunch of other states passed without a whole lot of controversy. Pence, in particular, was not expecting it to be controversial.

 

[youflog1hawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Re: Big ten


What? Ha Ha
I know very well what their law states and it will end up at the supreme court. Like forcing a doctor to perform an abortion when it is against his religious belief.
Why would a non Catholic be worried about being turned away by the Catholic Church at the Grand Canyon? The Church has the right to perform that sacrament as they choose in the church or at agreed sites. The church would just not perform the ceremony. Of course you force them to by another unconstitutional law. Today, if do not believe the churches belief system, the bullies just call for the total ban of churches at public sites.
I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph. Why would I go where I'm not invited. We already have gender bias. See you at the latest womans club meeting.
Serious question for you flog: Do you believe that baking a wedding cake is akin to performing an abortion?

Ahhh, now I think I see where I confused LC. I wasn't saying that the Catholic Church would turn anyone away, I'm saying a Catholic cake baker could turn away a customer who wants a non-catholic wedding cake.

Who has ever forced a church to perform a wedding that they disagree with in this country? I would be in stark disagreement with that, and would actively fight against it.

Man, the victim you are, I actually do feel bad for you, you must be miserable. You are a persecuted Christian...and now, apparently, a persecuted male. It is damned difficult to be a white Christian male in the United States these days......


Your a prophet? A bad one at that. I see you have fallen back to the lefts tactics. I'm not in agreement with you so let's try to minimize me by claiming I'm miserable, a sad persecuted Christian, male, and white. You know I have white privilege.

No reason to feel sad for someone who has a little common sense. By the way this is about liberty for everyone! There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake if the government forces a doctor to perform an abortion or forces a Christian baker to promote something his religion is against? Freedom is a hard thing to keep and people are to easily fooled in giving it up.
It will get worse as long as we except political correctness as something to admire. The lefts mantra is your ok as long as you think as I do. Facism is a dangerous thing!

 

[AuroraHawk]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by AuroraHawk:
The law's proponents thought that they could keep tight control over the message. The "talking points" have been carefully orchestrated but, when the tough questions are asked, the deer-in-the-headlights look appears on their faces.

No, the law's proponents thought it wouldn't be a big deal because they thought it was the same law the feds and a bunch of other states passed without a whole lot of controversy. Pence, in particular, was not expecting it to be controversial.

LC -
Sorry, not buying it. Just another "talking point." These laws have gathered steam because of the fear mongering generated by those promulgating the fictitious War on Christianity and the thrashing that the courts are handing them on the issue of gay marriage. The timing is not coincidence. They've lost the Equal Protection and Due Process arguments. Thus, they have to turn it into a religious liberty issue. Very carefully calculated.

The he only mistake that Pence and the religious right have made is underestimating the current business environment in this country. The majority of those under 40 have no issue with gay/lesbian marriage. Those horrified by the notion are literally dying off by the day (yes, I'm plagiarizing George Will). The GOP is on the wrong side of history here and, IMO, it's going to burn them in 2016.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake...

Ok, good luck convincing other people that those two things are equal.

Here is a tip: They don't have to be equal for you to present your argument...unless you need the shock factor, which you clearly love.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

No, the law's proponents thought it wouldn't be a big deal because they thought it was the same law the feds and a bunch of other states passed without a whole lot of controversy. Pence, in particular, was not expecting it to be controversial.

Obviously compounding on Aurora's response, but let me ask this LC:

Why was it passed, now? The ruling re: RFRA application to the states happened 18 years ago. So why now? What was the impetus...in your opinion?

 

[AuroraHawk]

For anyone who is interested in the letter written to the Indiana lawmakers by legal professors, see this: http://freedomindiana.org/LawProfessorsRFRA.pdf

Read and make up your own mind what the motivations were.

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

As a Christian with an older brother, who was born and died homosexual, I wish those good Christians, who believe being gay is a sin and a choice, were all lucky enough to have a child born homosexual. Sometimes I wonder which Bible people are reading.

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by JIMSOULS:



As a Christian myself, I don't recall The Bible saying it's okay to discriminate against those who are different from you. Those who think this bill is about "religious freedom" need to look in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is a bigot. Seriously, I don't understand why people would want to be mean-spirited toward other human beings. I don't understand why they'd want people to feel bad about who they are. What does that accomplish? Sometimes these bigots make me ashamed to be a Christian, because I don't want folks assuming that I think like these people. Again, these religious freedom people are bigots who need education and/or counseling. I truly feel sorry for them, because the hate that exists in their hearts has nothing to do with true Christianity.

This topic isn't about politics, by the way. It's about civil rights.

One more thing. Some posters referred to being gay as a "lifestyle." Sexual preference is not a lifestyle . Has anyone ever heard of heterosexuality described as a lifestyle? Of course you haven't. The lifestyle reference another way for a bigot to say "look at me. I'm a bigot." Remove the hate from your heart and let all people be equal. Jesus will thank you.

You're not a christian, yr a liberal. If you were, then you wouldn't tell a bald faced lie and call people who agree with this "bigots". How is refusing to take part in something "hate"? Why isn't it just disagreement? Liberals have hijacked the words "gay", "hate", and "phobia". Gay meant happy, now it means sodomy. Hate meant an intense resentment toward something, now hate meas disagreement. Phobia meant an overpowering fear, now it means disagreement w/ a gay lifestyle. You need to refocus, get away from liberal lies and talking points, and go back to logic and honesty.

Politics and civil rights are inextricably linked. And YOU are the one denying the rights of anyone who would be forced to participate in something they want no part of.

Gay IS a lifestyle. And YOU are bigoted against people w/ morals and values. You are also calling God a liar. We are to judge in righteousness, meaning you better not call out someone when you are doing the same thing. There are former gays, confirming that its a choice/lifestyle. There are no former blacks, whites, Asians or whatever. Its simply who they are. Instead of smearing people who disagree with you, why not have an honest conversation?

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake...

Ok, good luck convincing other people that those two things are equal.

Here is a tip: They don't have to be equal for you to present your argument...unless you need the shock factor, which you clearly love.

Sorry theIowaHawk but YOU are the one guilty of the "shock factor" here. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to realize that he doesn't equate the two acts but rather that govt trying to force someone who disagreed w/ them, to perform them, IS the same thing.

 

[BeardedAxeWound]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
You're not a christian, yr a liberal. If you were, then you wouldn't tell a bald faced lie and call people who agree with this "bigots". How is refusing to take part in something "hate"? Why isn't it just disagreement? Liberals have hijacked the words "gay", "hate", and "phobia". Gay meant happy, now it means sodomy. Hate meant an intense resentment toward something, now hate meas disagreement. Phobia meant an overpowering fear, now it means disagreement w/ a gay lifestyle. You need to refocus, get away from liberal lies and talking points, and go back to logic and honesty.

Politics and civil rights are inextricably linked. And YOU are the one denying the rights of anyone who would be forced to participate in something they want no part of.

Gay IS a lifestyle. And YOU are bigoted against people w/ morals and values. You are also calling God a liar. We are to judge in righteousness, meaning you better not call out someone when you are doing the same thing. There are former gays, confirming that its a choice/lifestyle. There are no former blacks, whites, Asians or whatever. Its simply who they are. Instead of smearing people who disagree with you, why not have an honest conversation?

 

[markfromj]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by JIMSOULS:




As a Christian myself, I don't recall The Bible saying it's okay to discriminate against those who are different from you. Those who think this bill is about "religious freedom" need to look in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is a bigot. Seriously, I don't understand why people would want to be mean-spirited toward other human beings. I don't understand why they'd want people to feel bad about who they are. What does that accomplish? Sometimes these bigots make me ashamed to be a Christian, because I don't want folks assuming that I think like these people. Again, these religious freedom people are bigots who need education and/or counseling. I truly feel sorry for them, because the hate that exists in their hearts has nothing to do with true Christianity.

This topic isn't about politics, by the way. It's about civil rights.

One more thing. Some posters referred to being gay as a "lifestyle." Sexual preference is not a lifestyle . Has anyone ever heard of heterosexuality described as a lifestyle? Of course you haven't. The lifestyle reference another way for a bigot to say "look at me. I'm a bigot." Remove the hate from your heart and let all people be equal. Jesus will thank you.

Gay IS a lifestyle.

What are some of the main characteristics of that lifestyle that differentiate it from a straight lifestyle?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by markfromj:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Gay IS a lifestyle.

What are some of the main characteristics of that lifestyle that differentiate it from a straight lifestyle?

I'm interested to read this as well IronFist.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake...

Ok, good luck convincing other people that those two things are equal.

Here is a tip: They don't have to be equal for you to present your argument...unless you need the shock factor, which you clearly love.

Sorry theIowaHawk but YOU are the one guilty of the "shock factor" here. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to realize that he doesn't equate the two acts but rather that govt trying to force someone who disagreed w/ them, to perform them, IS the same thing.

Why is that NOT what he is saying? Full quote:

"There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake
if the government forces a doctor to perform an abortion or forces a
Christian baker to promote something his religion is against?"

If you are taking the approach that every act the government is forcing someone to perform that they disagree with are the same...that would necessarily include a whole lot of things, such as:

Paying taxes
Getting a social security number
Having a drivers license
Getting health insurance
Getting vehicle insurance
Getting a physical before attending school
etc.

Are you really of the belief that these things are all equal? That one (abortion) can't be more invasive than another (baking a cake)?

I'll repeat this for the thousandth time, we already draw lines, the question is where.

So I asked the obvious question: Is performing an abortion the same as baking a cake? His response is above, although he stated in a peculiar, question-like form.

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by JIMSOULS:




As a Christian myself, I don't recall The Bible saying it's okay to discriminate against those who are different from you. Those who think this bill is about "religious freedom" need to look in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is a bigot. Seriously, I don't understand why people would want to be mean-spirited toward other human beings. I don't understand why they'd want people to feel bad about who they are. What does that accomplish? Sometimes these bigots make me ashamed to be a Christian, because I don't want folks assuming that I think like these people. Again, these religious freedom people are bigots who need education and/or counseling. I truly feel sorry for them, because the hate that exists in their hearts has nothing to do with true Christianity.

This topic isn't about politics, by the way. It's about civil rights.

One more thing. Some posters referred to being gay as a "lifestyle." Sexual preference is not a lifestyle . Has anyone ever heard of heterosexuality described as a lifestyle? Of course you haven't. The lifestyle reference another way for a bigot to say "look at me. I'm a bigot." Remove the hate from your heart and let all people be equal. Jesus will thank you.

You're not a christian, yr a liberal. If you were, then you wouldn't tell a bald faced lie and call people who agree with this "bigots". How is refusing to take part in something "hate"? Why isn't it just disagreement? Liberals have hijacked the words "gay", "hate", and "phobia". Gay meant happy, now it means sodomy. Hate meant an intense resentment toward something, now hate meas disagreement. Phobia meant an overpowering fear, now it means disagreement w/ a gay lifestyle. You need to refocus, get away from liberal lies and talking points, and go back to logic and honesty.

Politics and civil rights are inextricably linked. And YOU are the one denying the rights of anyone who would be forced to participate in something they want no part of.

Gay IS a lifestyle. And YOU are bigoted against people w/ morals and values. You are also calling God a liar. We are to judge in righteousness, meaning you better not call out someone when you are doing the same thing. There are former gays, confirming that its a choice/lifestyle. There are no former blacks, whites, Asians or whatever. Its simply who they are. Instead of smearing people who disagree with you, why not have an honest conversation?

Unfortunately, some people are born homosexual. If you grew up with a brother or sister who was gay, you would understand that it is more than a chosen lifestyle. It is not their choice to be homosexual, and it is not something that is the result of learning or wanting to be gay. Maybe they can choose to hide the fact that they are only attracted to the same sex, but they cannot choose to change what they really are.

I know there are some religious groups who claim to have saved some gays from their life of sin, but if these "former gays" were truly homosexual, at best, these groups are only pressuring them into concealing the truth. My family is extremely religious, very conservative on most issues, but my brother was different at a very early age. He had a difficult childhood, because he was often made fun of. As his younger brother, I had to stand up for him at times. He went on to be a gifted musician, who served as a music director for several very large churches. He also wrote and published religious music. If you heard some of his music, you would realize how wrong your thoughts are about being homosexual. Just because he was gay, did NOT make him a bad person. This is an issue on which the religious right needs to stop judging and start figuring out how to accept people for who they are. That us what my New Testament tells me to do.

 

[hawkssox1]

Originally posted by chaoshawk:
The big ten is in a position to ban all championship games in Indiana until they change there position on discrimination. They need to vote on this asap and send a message.

I vote you don't post threads where you don't know what you are talking about.Looks like something Hillary would post.

 

[youflog1hawk]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake...

Ok, good luck convincing other people that those two things are equal.

Here is a tip: They don't have to be equal for you to present your argument...unless you need the shock factor, which you clearly love.

Sorry theIowaHawk but YOU are the one guilty of the "shock factor" here. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to realize that he doesn't equate the two acts but rather that govt trying to force someone who disagreed w/ them, to perform them, IS the same thing.
Why is that NOT what he is saying? Full quote:

"There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake
if the government forces a doctor to perform an abortion or forces a
Christian baker to promote something his religion is against?"

If you are taking the approach that every act the government is forcing someone to perform that they disagree with are the same...that would necessarily include a whole lot of things, such as:

Paying taxes
Getting a social security number
Having a drivers license
Getting health insurance
Getting vehicle insurance
Getting a physical before attending school
etc.

Are you really of the belief that these things are all equal? That one (abortion) can't be more invasive than another (baking a cake)?

I'll repeat this for the thousandth time, we already draw lines, the question is where.

So I asked the obvious question: Is performing an abortion the same as baking a cake? His response is above, although he stated in a peculiar, question-like form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow your totally reaching for straws.

 

[youflog1hawk]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:



Originally posted by JIMSOULS:



As a Christian myself, I don't recall The Bible saying it's okay to discriminate against those who are different from you. Those who think this bill is about "religious freedom" need to look in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is a bigot. Seriously, I don't understand why people would want to be mean-spirited toward other human beings. I don't understand why they'd want people to feel bad about who they are. What does that accomplish? Sometimes these bigots make me ashamed to be a Christian, because I don't want folks assuming that I think like these people. Again, these religious freedom people are bigots who need education and/or counseling. I truly feel sorry for them, because the hate that exists in their hearts has nothing to do with true Christianity.

This topic isn't about politics, by the way. It's about civil rights.

One more thing. Some posters referred to being gay as a "lifestyle." Sexual preference is not a lifestyle . Has anyone ever heard of heterosexuality described as a lifestyle? Of course you haven't. The lifestyle reference another way for a bigot to say "look at me. I'm a bigot." Remove the hate from your heart and let all people be equal. Jesus will thank you.



You're not a christian, yr a liberal. If you were, then you wouldn't tell a bald faced lie and call people who agree with this "bigots". How is refusing to take part in something "hate"? Why isn't it just disagreement? Liberals have hijacked the words "gay", "hate", and "phobia". Gay meant happy, now it means sodomy. Hate meant an intense resentment toward something, now hate meas disagreement. Phobia meant an overpowering fear, now it means disagreement w/ a gay lifestyle. You need to refocus, get away from liberal lies and talking points, and go back to logic and honesty.

Politics and civil rights are inextricably linked. And YOU are the one denying the rights of anyone who would be forced to participate in something they want no part of.

Gay IS a lifestyle. And YOU are bigoted against people w/ morals and values. You are also calling God a liar. We are to judge in righteousness, meaning you better not call out someone when you are doing the same thing. There are former gays, confirming that its a choice/lifestyle. There are no former blacks, whites, Asians or whatever. Its simply who they are. Instead of smearing people who disagree with you, why not have an honest conversation?

Unfortunately, some people are born homosexual. If you grew up with a brother or sister who was gay, you would understand that it is more than a chosen lifestyle. It is not their choice to be homosexual, and it is not something that is the result of learning or wanting to be gay. Maybe they can choose to hide the fact that they are only attracted to the same sex, but they cannot choose to change what they really are.

I know there are some religious groups who claim to have saved some gays from their life of sin, but if these "former gays" were truly homosexual, at best, these groups are only pressuring them into concealing the truth. My family is extremely religious, very conservative on most issues, but my brother was different at a very early age. He had a difficult childhood, because he was often made fun of. As his younger brother, I had to stand up for him at times. He went on to be a gifted musician, who served as a music director for several very large churches. He also wrote and published religious music. If you heard some of his music, you would realize how wrong your thoughts are about being homosexual. Just because he was gay, did NOT make him a bad person. This is an issue on which the religious right needs to stop judging and start figuring out how to accept people for who they are. That us what my New Testament tells me to do.



If this is truly what you think you need reassess. It has nothing to do with judging. It is all about the gay mafia forcing people to accept them by government force of law. Making them a special class above the rights of others. Taking the freedom of others.

From one Christian to another you and I know a lot lot of good people close to us who feel by there works they can get to heaven. We love them no matter what but also know deep inside they are trying to take the wide gate. All we can do is be honest with them and the rest is up to them. The last thing we should do is force others with government , because of our love , to give up there freedom of conscience. If you do you are doing exactly what you state your against.

 

[Floyd_Of_Rosedale]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Originally posted by IronFist1776:
Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake...

Ok, good luck convincing other people that those two things are equal.

Here is a tip: They don't have to be equal for you to present your argument...unless you need the shock factor, which you clearly love.

Sorry theIowaHawk but YOU are the one guilty of the "shock factor" here. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to realize that he doesn't equate the two acts but rather that govt trying to force someone who disagreed w/ them, to perform them, IS the same thing.
Why is that NOT what he is saying? Full quote:

"There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake
if the government forces a doctor to perform an abortion or forces a
Christian baker to promote something his religion is against?"

If you are taking the approach that every act the government is forcing someone to perform that they disagree with are the same...that would necessarily include a whole lot of things, such as:

Paying taxes
Getting a social security number
Having a drivers license
Getting health insurance
Getting vehicle insurance
Getting a physical before attending school
etc.

Are you really of the belief that these things are all equal? That one (abortion) can't be more invasive than another (baking a cake)?

I'll repeat this for the thousandth time, we already draw lines, the question is where.

So I asked the obvious question: Is performing an abortion the same as baking a cake? His response is above, although he stated in a peculiar, question-like form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow your totally reaching for straws.

......"There is no difference between abortion or baking a cake".........

There is one less person that gets to eat cake....so, there is a bit of a difference.

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Originally posted by IronFist1776:



Originally posted by JIMSOULS:



As a Christian myself, I don't recall The Bible saying it's okay to discriminate against those who are different from you. Those who think this bill is about "religious freedom" need to look in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is a bigot. Seriously, I don't understand why people would want to be mean-spirited toward other human beings. I don't understand why they'd want people to feel bad about who they are. What does that accomplish? Sometimes these bigots make me ashamed to be a Christian, because I don't want folks assuming that I think like these people. Again, these religious freedom people are bigots who need education and/or counseling. I truly feel sorry for them, because the hate that exists in their hearts has nothing to do with true Christianity.

This topic isn't about politics, by the way. It's about civil rights.

One more thing. Some posters referred to being gay as a "lifestyle." Sexual preference is not a lifestyle . Has anyone ever heard of heterosexuality described as a lifestyle? Of course you haven't. The lifestyle reference another way for a bigot to say "look at me. I'm a bigot." Remove the hate from your heart and let all people be equal. Jesus will thank you.



You're not a christian, yr a liberal. If you were, then you wouldn't tell a bald faced lie and call people who agree with this "bigots". How is refusing to take part in something "hate"? Why isn't it just disagreement? Liberals have hijacked the words "gay", "hate", and "phobia". Gay meant happy, now it means sodomy. Hate meant an intense resentment toward something, now hate meas disagreement. Phobia meant an overpowering fear, now it means disagreement w/ a gay lifestyle. You need to refocus, get away from liberal lies and talking points, and go back to logic and honesty.

Politics and civil rights are inextricably linked. And YOU are the one denying the rights of anyone who would be forced to participate in something they want no part of.

Gay IS a lifestyle. And YOU are bigoted against people w/ morals and values. You are also calling God a liar. We are to judge in righteousness, meaning you better not call out someone when you are doing the same thing. There are former gays, confirming that its a choice/lifestyle. There are no former blacks, whites, Asians or whatever. Its simply who they are. Instead of smearing people who disagree with you, why not have an honest conversation?

Unfortunately, some people are born homosexual. If you grew up with a brother or sister who was gay, you would understand that it is more than a chosen lifestyle. It is not their choice to be homosexual, and it is not something that is the result of learning or wanting to be gay. Maybe they can choose to hide the fact that they are only attracted to the same sex, but they cannot choose to change what they really are.

I know there are some religious groups who claim to have saved some gays from their life of sin, but if these "former gays" were truly homosexual, at best, these groups are only pressuring them into concealing the truth. My family is extremely religious, very conservative on most issues, but my brother was different at a very early age. He had a difficult childhood, because he was often made fun of. As his younger brother, I had to stand up for him at times. He went on to be a gifted musician, who served as a music director for several very large churches. He also wrote and published religious music. If you heard some of his music, you would realize how wrong your thoughts are about being homosexual. Just because he was gay, did NOT make him a bad person. This is an issue on which the religious right needs to stop judging and start figuring out how to accept people for who they are. That us what my New Testament tells me to do.



If this is truly what you think you need reassess. It has nothing to do with judging. It is all about the gay mafia forcing people to accept them by government force of law. Making them a special class above the rights of others. Taking the freedom of others.

From one Christian to another you and I know a lot lot of good people close to us who feel by there works they can get to heaven. We love them no matter what but also know deep inside they are trying to take the wide gate. All we can do is be honest with them and the rest is up to them. The last thing we should do is force others with government , because of our love , to give up there freedom of conscience. If you do you are doing exactly what you state your against.

I am really confused about what freedom gays are trying to take from you. I also find some gays who act out disgusting, but what you seem to not understand is that the great majority of gays are just trying to live their lives (they have jobs, some go to church and are devote believers, they don't want to go through live alone), but with a partner of the same sex. Asking for that life partner to have many of the same rights (insurance, inheritance, etc.) as any other person's life partner. That really doesn't take anything from others.

I honestly have no idea what you are suggesting in your discussion about getting into heaven. You clearly don't love gays and you clearly are judging them to be less worthy of going to heaven. I don't think you or I get to make that judgment.

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by HoustonREDHawk:

Unfortunately, some people are born homosexual. If you grew up with a brother or sister who was gay, you would understand that it is more than a chosen lifestyle. It is not their choice to be homosexual, and it is not something that is the result of learning or wanting to be gay. Maybe they can choose to hide the fact that they are only attracted to the same sex, but they cannot choose to change what they really are.

I know there are some religious groups who claim to have saved some gays from their life of sin, but if these "former gays" were truly homosexual, at best, these groups are only pressuring them into concealing the truth. My family is extremely religious, very conservative on most issues, but my brother was different at a very early age. He had a difficult childhood, because he was often made fun of. As his younger brother, I had to stand up for him at times. He went on to be a gifted musician, who served as a music director for several very large churches. He also wrote and published religious music. If you heard some of his music, you would realize how wrong your thoughts are about being homosexual. Just because he was gay, did NOT make him a bad person. This is an issue on which the religious right needs to stop judging and start figuring out how to accept people for who they are. That us what my New Testament tells me to do.


+1 Same situation as I grew up very close to a relative who happened to be gay and there was absolutely no way it was a choice. He was born gay.

And you know this whole business has me thinking about how long I've stayed away from my own Church because the people running it are Haters. I kind of feel like going back and telling them what I was taught in those walls before the faction on the right took over and chased those on the left out.

I was taught.

Bake people cakes, make their flower arrangements, take their pictures, when you give them their bill for your services, give them a free Bible if you think they need it. God never said build a moat, he said build bridges.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Originally posted by IronFist1776:

It is all about the gay mafia forcing people to accept them by government force of law.

Is this akin to the "religious mafia", or the "minority mafia", or the "disabled mafia", or the "female mafia", or the "single-parent" mafia. All of those fall within most protected classes. Or is it just gays that are "mafia"?

Making them a special class above the rights of others. Taking the freedom of others.

What "rights" are they getting that are "above the rights of others"? They appear, in this thread's context, to be wanting equal treatment in public accommodation, where they would be treated like everyone else.

I presume, then, that the "right" you believe you are losing is that to discriminate, legally, against them in public accommodation?

We love them no matter what but also know deep inside they are trying to take the wide gate.

Yes, when I call people a "mafia", it is out of love, not hate.

The last thing we should do is force others with government , because of our love , to give up there freedom of conscience.

This should be your point all along, but you keep segueing into the ridiculous arguments you make above. The argument is more complex than you are attempting to make it. Public accommodation laws are commonplace and have "violated religious beliefs" (under your definition) for years and for many different people, you seem to want to only pin this on "gays".

Certainly we can discuss that basic premise, what "performance" would actually violate someone's religious belief, but you seem to want to just demonize/blame homosexuals instead of discussing the actual religious argument.

 

[theIowaHawk]

BTW.