PDA

View Full Version : Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill



tbm3fan
22 Feb 14,, 05:14
In this day and age you would think people would have better things to do and the state other issues to deal with. Well at least Putin can feel comfortable visiting Arizona should any kind of boycott erupt. Amazes me so much about the only thing I can say is "you got to be kidding me"



Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)






(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140221165256-lead-arizona-rep-john-kavanagh-religion-bill-00014512-story-body.jpgArizona Rep: Law would not shield waiter
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140221120430-az-legislation-pass-controversial-bill-00010505-story-body.jpgArizona passes bill seen as 'anti-gay'
As expected, the measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation.

On Friday, the LGBT group Wingspan staged a protest march to the governor's office that drew about 200 people. Some carried signs with messages "God created us all equal" and "Shame on Arizona."
Tucson-based Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria posted a photo on its Facebook page of a sign with a message for state lawmakers: "We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators."
"It's a ridiculous bill," pizzeria manager Evan Stevens told CNN on Friday. "Arizona has much bigger problems than allowing businesses to discriminate against people."

In a statement, Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said: "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, in a letter to Brewer on Friday, urged the governor to veto Senate Bill 1062, saying the "legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come."
"The legislation places businesses currently in Arizona, as well as those looking to locate here, in potentially damaging risk of litigation, and costly, needless legal disputes," council President Barry Broome wrote, adding that four unidentified companies have vowed to locate elsewhere if the legislation is signed.
He added, "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world's stage. This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

On CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, said the bill would not allow hotel clerks or waiters, for instance, to turn away customers, unless there was a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy (https://www.votervoice.net/CAP/campaigns/34780/respond), a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group has justified the measure on grounds that the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts.
"As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty," the group said on its website, asking people to contact Brewer and urge her to sign the bill. "The great news is that SB 1062 protects your right to live and work according to your faith."
Cathi Herrod, the center's president, told CNN on Friday, "The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."
Herrod said the bill's opponents are "showing unbelievable hostility toward religious beliefs."
"America still stands for the principle that religious beliefs matter (for) something in this country, that we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs," she said.

But Robert Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State (https://www.au.org/), told CNN the legislation would "fling the door wide open to discrimination, not just against gay people, but basically to any class of individuals that a religious fundamentalist decides he or she doesn't want to deal with."
He added, "A woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, for example, 'Well, out the door, you don't get served in my business."

The Arizona legislation was passed as conservative states work to counter laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Arizona voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called the bill "unnecessary and discriminatory."
"What today's bill does is allow private individuals and businesses to use religion to discriminate, sending a message that Arizona is intolerant and unwelcoming," the group said in a statement.
Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

"It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.
He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now."

Bigfella
22 Feb 14,, 07:08
The logical next step is to extend this to every one else. Just claim that your religion prevent you from serving blacks, catholics, Muslims, protestant, Jews, women who uncover any part of their body, Jews, Hindus, single women, etc etc. In the past people have campaigned against 'special rights' for homosexuals. I assume they would want to extend this to everybody.

Doktor
22 Feb 14,, 08:40
BF, the solution is much simpler and already implemented.

35642

bigross86
22 Feb 14,, 11:36
The logical next step is to extend this to every one else. Just claim that your religion prevent you from serving blacks, catholics, Muslims, protestant, Jews, women who uncover any part of their body, Jews, Hindus, single women, etc etc. In the past people have campaigned against 'special rights' for homosexuals. I assume they would want to extend this to everybody.

Got something against us Joos? :biggrin:

Doktor
22 Feb 14,, 11:41
Just in case if there are two tables occupied by Jews.

Mihais
22 Feb 14,, 12:36
In this day and age you would think people would have better things to do and the state other issues to deal with. Well at least Putin can feel comfortable visiting Arizona should any kind of boycott erupt. Amazes me so much about the only thing I can say is "you got to be kidding me"


There would have been no issue if people would have been peviously allowed to freely associate to whomever they wanted.Previous law was tyrannical,because it forced people to do bussiness with someone they didn't wanted to.Gay community is not discriminated against.They can do bussiness with those who like them and their money.Let anti-gay suffer financially.Otherwise you finance ''bigotry'' :rolleyes:

If the state can force you to do bussiness with certain people,why not force you to accept unwelcomed guests in your house?

Bigfella
22 Feb 14,, 13:02
Got something against us Joos? :biggrin:

Sorry BR, I must like you guys so much I included you twice. :biggrin:

Alternatively, I probably assumed subconsciously that more than one group would want to exclude you. When it reaches the point where you get East Asians rambling on about 'the joos' I'm not sure how much hope there is for humanity. :rolleyes:

Bigfella
22 Feb 14,, 13:16
BF, the solution is much simpler and already implemented.

35642

This isn't actually all that surprising.


The first national King holiday was observed in 1986 by a decision of President Ronald Reagan. That same year, Gov. Bruce Babbitt decided the same for Arizona.

When Gov. Evan Mecham succeeded Babbitt in 1987, however, he rescinded Babbitt's decision, saying that Babbitt, as governor, did not have the authority to single-handedly declare a paid state holiday......

The question would be left to the people of Arizona.

In 1990, voters went to the polls. They considered two ballot propositions that would have created a paid state holiday. On one, the vote was close. But in the end, both failed.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/20120112martin-luther-king-holiday-dilemma.html?nclick_check=1#ixzz2u3IGACNN

They changed their minds when the NFL pulled a proposed Superbowl in Phoenix. Classy.

zraver
22 Feb 14,, 13:27
This law as well as ones considere din Kansas and Kentucky are predictable backlashes for the revenge seeking of activits gays in Colorado who went after a Baker who refused to make them a wedding cake (but would make them any other cake) base don his religious convictions. They with their ACLU allies took it to the state civil rights commission. The ruling there seems to open the door for activist gays to begin suing whom ever they want- small business owners, churches, pastors....

Hence the rise of religious shield laws. How did we come to a point where someone can be sued for their religion? So I guess the neighborhood market is now antisemitic if they don't stock Kosher foods? How about the local texmex joint not stocking Halal? Non-stocking a minorities food is tantamount to refusing them service. People need to leave each other alone. Stop using the government to reward and punish.

Bigfella
22 Feb 14,, 14:05
This law as well as ones considere din Kansas and Kentucky are predictable backlashes for the revenge seeking of activits gays in Colorado who went after a Baker who refused to make them a wedding cake (but would make them any other cake) base don his religious convictions. They with their ACLU allies took it to the state civil rights commission. The ruling there seems to open the door for activist gays to begin suing whom ever they want- small business owners, churches, pastors....

Hence the rise of religious shield laws. How did we come to a point where someone can be sued for their religion? So I guess the neighborhood market is now antisemitic if they don't stock Kosher foods? How about the local texmex joint not stocking Halal? Non-stocking a minorities food is tantamount to refusing them service. People need to leave each other alone. Stop using the government to reward and punish.

No, they are anti-semitic if they refuse to provide a cake for a bar mitzvah because it is a Jewish rite. That is the appropriate comparison.

bigross86
22 Feb 14,, 15:14
Just so I understand: A restaurant can hang a sign saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As far as I understand it, that means they are allowed to refuse service, aside from based on race, sex, nationality or religion.

In today's day and age, there are still people uncomfortable with gays, for whatever reason. I know some people who are fully supportive of gay rights, including gay marriage, but are uncomfortable around them. Being uncomfortable around gays does not equal homophobia. I have friends in NY that work alongside blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but won't walk in certain parts of NYC because they are afraid. They are not racist, they are just being prudent.

So, the question is, why do gays feel that it is ok for them to push themselves on people who aren't necessarily against them, but choose not to be around them? If you ask me, a move like this is actually more likely to turn people against gays. Everyone remembers that one kid in school that was kinda ok, but didn't really connect to any of the groups. If the teacher made kids hang out with the first kid, they would just come to resent him, even make fun of him behind his back, or worse, to his face.

I'm not saying this law is any better or any worse than the status quo, I'm just wondering what was being done by the gays that it led Arizona feeling that a law like this needed to be enacted. In the end, I see no winners here, only losers.

Bigfella
22 Feb 14,, 15:41
BR,

I get the point you are making, but disagree with putting it back on the minority not to irritate people by wanting equal treatment. There is a long history of people responding in much the same way to other groups trying to assert equal rights.

chakos
22 Feb 14,, 15:57
What kind of daft business owner would turn down business due to someones sexual status?

Bigotry aside, are these people aware that homosexuals on average have FAR higher amounts of disposable business?

Gun Grape
22 Feb 14,, 17:27
This law as well as ones considere din Kansas and Kentucky are predictable backlashes for the revenge seeking of activits gays in Colorado who went after a Baker who refused to make them a wedding cake (but would make them any other cake) base don his religious convictions. They with their ACLU allies took it to the state civil rights commission. The ruling there seems to open the door for activist gays to begin suing whom ever they want- small business owners, churches, pastors....

Hence the rise of religious shield laws. How did we come to a point where someone can be sued for their religion? So I guess the neighborhood market is now antisemitic if they don't stock Kosher foods? How about the local texmex joint not stocking Halal? Non-stocking a minorities food is tantamount to refusing them service. People need to leave each other alone. Stop using the government to reward and punish.

I would have no problem if the small owners would practice their religious discrimination across the board,. But they don't. They use their religion to justify their own hates and prejudices.

Why target Gays. Did the woman that claimed "It violates my religion to bake gays a cake" also refuse to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples? How about people that wanted a cake for their second marriage after a divorce? The mentioned in the article, unwed mother. And a whole host of other reasons not to serve people. Or if she also closes down when on that "Time of the month" since she would be unclean and barred from the kitchen.

If she did. Fine She is being consistent with her religious beliefs and practices.

If she applied her religion only against Gays then she deserves no protection under the law.


Of course this is the State that voted to bar implementing Dept of Education Common Core standards. Because as one Legislator said the program uses "fuzzy math,'' substituting letters for numbers in some examples.

Oops left out the link

http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/az-senate-panel-votes-to-bar-common-core-standards/article_f2652e82-9a81-11e3-98e7-0019bb2963f4.html

antimony
22 Feb 14,, 18:04
What kind of daft business owner would turn down business due to someones sexual status?

Bigotry aside, are these people aware that homosexuals on average have FAR higher amounts of disposable business?

It is perhaps instructive to note that actual business owners are protesting this asinine law. Only politicians with an agenda Seem to be promoting itr I think the bigoted business owners will quickly find out to their disadvantage that discrimination is not a good business practice

GVChamp
22 Feb 14,, 18:19
What protection from the law, Gun Grape? The default state in any private transaction is the right to refuse. The legal protection, in this class, applies to certain classes of people that cannot be discriminated against, like racial minorities, women, the elderly, etc. That's why they are called "protected" classes. They are the ones receiving legal protection. The business owner is asking for immunity from legal compulsion, which is the opposite of legal protection.

If you wish to use the long-arm of the law to protect certain classes and compel businesses to provide services to them, very well, but the initiation of force (using libertarian language), is quite clear here. As for her own standards, who cares? Suggest an alternate example: I am a Muslim, and I object you to a government law compelling me to eat bacon on every Sunday. You point to my violation of Muslim doctrine by drinking myself to a stupor every Saturday evening. Question: exactly what the difference does this make in your right to compel me to eat bacon? Exactly who made anyone else the arbiter of what my religion says or does not say, and when did No True Scotsmen become the basis of legislation?

bonehead
22 Feb 14,, 20:08
What kind of daft business owner would turn down business due to someones sexual status?

Bigotry aside, are these people aware that homosexuals on average have FAR higher amounts of disposable business?

We are talking about 4% of the population, even less for places like Arizona. For the most part no one could exclude because they simply would not know if they were homosexual if they acted normal.

astralis
22 Feb 14,, 20:17
bonehead,


For the most part no one could exclude because they simply would not know if they were homosexual if they acted normal.

well i think you sound pretty gay to me, so it violates my religious freedom to keep you around this board.

====

do you see how ridiculous this "if they acted normal" argument is?

GVChamp
22 Feb 14,, 22:08
do you see how ridiculous this "if they acted normal" argument is?

I am not sure how what you say pertains to what he said. You think that the standard of "acting gay" is ridiculous. Great. So do I. That doesn't change whether Arizona businesses use that standard and how it might affect their sales.

zraver
22 Feb 14,, 23:05
Ju I'm just wondering what was being done by the gays that it led Arizona feeling that a law like this needed to be enacted. In the end, I see no winners here, only losers.

In Colorado a small bakery owner who was willing to make a gay couple any cake they wanted but a wedding cake was sued by activist gays backed by the ACLU. The ruling handed down by the state civil rights commission opens the flood gates for vexatious lawsuits by stripping those who oppose the idea of gay marriage of constitutional protections. They are not allowed the free exercise of their religion and can be compelled under threat of force to work for others violating the 13th. The ruling also apparently applies to pastors and churches.

That is why these religious shield laws are springing up.

Personally the idea of government setting "appropriate" doctrine for religious groups is fucking scary.

Officer of Engineers
22 Feb 14,, 23:16
bonehead,



well i think you sound pretty gay to me, so it violates my religious freedom to keep you around this board.

====

do you see how ridiculous this "if they acted normal" argument is?Only thing is neither the GS nor I have any protection other than your good graces.

bonehead
23 Feb 14,, 04:51
In Colorado a small bakery owner who was willing to make a gay couple any cake they wanted but a wedding cake was sued by activist gays backed by the ACLU. The ruling handed down by the state civil rights commission opens the flood gates for vexatious lawsuits by stripping those who oppose the idea of gay marriage of constitutional protections. They are not allowed the free exercise of their religion and can be compelled under threat of force to work for others violating the 13th. The ruling also apparently applies to pastors and churches.

That is why these religious shield laws are springing up.

Personally the idea of government setting "appropriate" doctrine for religious groups is fucking scary.

The same thing happened in Oregon. A couple wanted a wedding cake for their homosexual wedding then raised a stink because the cake was denied on religious grounds. Hell Oregon doesn't even allow homosexual weddings. The owners were willing to make any other item and serve…just not a wedding cake. The state attorney general went after the shop. Turns out the attorney general is a lesbian and now she wont defend the will of the people and the states gay marriage ban. The government is also setting social doctrine for deviants. That is effin scary.

bonehead
23 Feb 14,, 05:00
bonehead,



well i think you sound pretty gay to me, so it violates my religious freedom to keep you around this board.

====

do you see how ridiculous this "if they acted normal" argument is?

Apparently not. Many business owners simply do not have the time to interview every perspective customer so as long as the customers are fitting in and acting normal they are going to get served. Nothing ridiculous in that. I know this from first hand experience. When I was…not 21 yet, if I acted like a teenager there was no way in hell I could go to the bar and get a beer. If I acted old enough…..no problem. Now the ploy no longer works because they card everyone under 40. God forbid you have to act according to community standards.

zraver
23 Feb 14,, 05:04
The same thing happened in Oregon. A couple wanted a wedding cake for their homosexual wedding then raised a stink because the cake was denied on religious grounds. Hell Oregon doesn't even allow homosexual weddings. The owners were willing to make any other item and serve…just not a wedding cake. The state attorney general went after the shop. Turns out the attorney general is a lesbian and now she wont defend the will of the people and the states gay marriage ban. The government is also setting social doctrine for deviants. That is effin scary.

I'm Libertarian- both sides need to leave each other alone- period full stop. Both sides want to use the power of government to squash the other in a never ending see saw battle royale...

Triple C
23 Feb 14,, 06:33
Would it be religious intolerance of a hypothetical employer, say cakes-are-us, refuse to hire people who takes exception to serving gays on religious grounds?

Gun Grape
23 Feb 14,, 07:38
If you wish to use the long-arm of the law to protect certain classes and compel businesses to provide services to them, very well, but the initiation of force (using libertarian language), is quite clear here. As for her own standards, who cares? Suggest an alternate example: I am a Muslim, and I object you to a government law compelling me to eat bacon on every Sunday. You point to my violation of Muslim doctrine by drinking myself to a stupor every Saturday evening. Question: exactly what the difference does this make in your right to compel me to eat bacon? Exactly who made anyone else the arbiter of what my religion says or does not say, and when did No True Scotsmen become the basis of legislation?

That is a BS argument. At no time did anyone say that the Christian had to perform a lesbian act. What they said was If you are going to offer a service to the public, than you must offer it to every one of your customers.

tbm3fan
23 Feb 14,, 08:47
Would it be religious intolerance of a hypothetical employer, say cakes-are-us, refuse to hire people who takes exception to serving gays on religious grounds?

It is a Pandora's Box right there with no ending. I agree with Zraver in that people need to just leave each other alone. To me this law, and anything like it, is essentially legalizing discrimination by giving it a cover. If a gay person walked into my store to spend $500 on a cake I'd say no problem. If a gay person walked into my office and asked to get contact lenses I would say no problem and have. People are people for crying out loud.

However, I am not perfect and would probably refuse to fit a AZ legislator. I have to admit I have a problem with stupid people and as a result couldn't help them out of fear that they would be unable to follow instructions and therefore harm themselves. Then I would probably get sued.

zraver
23 Feb 14,, 15:15
That is a BS argument. At no time did anyone say that the Christian had to perform a lesbian act. What they said was If you are going to offer a service to the public, than you must offer it to every one of your customers.

Which is itself complete bullshit.... Try walking into a dress shop as a man and see how far you get. Try finding an employee who can sign you the lyrics of a song to deaf people at a disco, try finding halal foods in most grocery stores...

For small businesses that actually compete for business the market will decide.

Gun Grape
23 Feb 14,, 16:01
Which is itself complete bullshit.... Try walking into a dress shop as a man and see how far you get.

All the way to the check out counter then out the door after paying for a purchase.


Try finding an employee who can sign you the lyrics of a song to deaf people at a disco,

Really trying hard to find something huh? A Disco is a place where people go to dance. Not learn the words to songs. I doubt you could go to any disco and have songs translated to other languages.



try finding halal foods in most grocery stores...

You will if they market themselves as a Halal food market.

You completely ignore my point. And bring up more BS "examples.

Does the disco offer translation services for the deaf but then excludes a individual because they are "Different"?

Does the grocery store stock Halal foods but refuses to sell it because you are not Islamic?

Thats what happened to the cake store. Decided not to sell her product to a person because they didn't fit her narrow minded belief. In one of the examples the baker would allow them to buy any of her other products, just not a wedding cake.

GVChamp
23 Feb 14,, 16:56
What they said was If you are going to offer a service to the public, than you must offer it to every one of your customers.

Who is "they"? Because "they" did not say that, if "they" is the federal government. The federal government does not say you have to offer a service to everyone if you offer it to anyone. The federal government says you are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of color, race, sex, disability, veteran status, familial status, etc. Other than that, you can refuse service on any basis you damn well please, including anyone who wears purple shirts, people who like Journey, and anyone who thinks the Earth revolves around the Sun. You can also refuse service to anyone exercising their legal right to carry a firearm. And yes, you can refuse service to people on the basis of their sexual preference, at least under federal law.

As for performing a lesbian act, who cares about the specifics? You are still compelling people to perform an act they morally disagree with because of the line of business they are in. And we aren't talking about doctors refusing to perform surgery on gay people, we're not talking about separate educational facilities, we're not talking about inability to get a job, we're not even talking about being able to do your laundry, we're talking about baking a wedding cake. And specifically, a wedding cake, not even a birthday cake.

What's the public interest argument here?

Gun Grape
23 Feb 14,, 17:17
So How long have you been a business owner?

I've owned a business for over 10 years . If you decide to single someone out to not provide a service there better be a dame good reason.

bonehead
23 Feb 14,, 19:31
I'm Libertarian- both sides need to leave each other alone- period full stop. Both sides want to use the power of government to squash the other in a never ending see saw battle royale...

That is the times we live in. You have to use everything you can or be crushed by the opposition. The "live and let live" has been thrown under the bus in favor of "my way or the highway".

Mihais
23 Feb 14,, 19:37
So How long have you been a business owner?

I've owned a business for over 10 years . If you decide to single someone out to not provide a service there better be a dame good reason.

In your case,it seems you could be sued for refusing a service.

I don't know how you see it,but to me it seems very unfair.If you don't want to do bussiness with gays,blacks,pinks or people with Che Guevara on a T-shirt,it should be simply up to you.

zraver
23 Feb 14,, 21:33
What's the public interest argument here?

For lefties- to attack religion. The Colorado ruling opens up the door to go after pastors and churches and institute government control of religion.

Gun Grape
23 Feb 14,, 21:51
In your case,it seems you could be sued for refusing a service.

I don't know how you see it,but to me it seems very unfair.If you don't want to do bussiness with gays,blacks,pinks or people with Che Guevara on a T-shirt,it should be simply up to you.

I have no problem with it. One of the founding principles of my country is that "All men are created equal"

Its a shame that some want to hide behind religion to commit unAmerican acts of discrimination.

Mihais
23 Feb 14,, 22:03
I have no problem with it. One of the founding principles of my country is that "All men are created equal"

Its a shame that some want to hide behind religion to commit unAmerican acts of discrimination.

One of the founding principles of freedom everywhere is freedom of association.You support a tyrannical law,that denies people just that.

bigross86
23 Feb 14,, 22:10
GG, when Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", don't you think that also covers a person's right to not serve gays if it goes against their religious beliefs?

Or do you only defend their right to say things that you agree with?

zraver
23 Feb 14,, 22:18
I have no problem with it. One of the founding principles of my country is that "All men are created equal"

Its a shame that some want to hide behind religion to commit unAmerican acts of discrimination.

One of the found American principals is that all rights not expressly given to the government belong to the people. Where exactly do you find- the government shall pick the winners and losers in the constitution? How do you square this with the first amendment right to practice your religion as you see fit.

bonehead
23 Feb 14,, 22:23
I have no problem with it. One of the founding principles of my country is that "All men are created equal"

Its a shame that some want to hide behind religion to commit unAmerican acts of discrimination.

Couple of questions.

1) What if the person wasn't religious and still didn't believe in gay marriages so refused to make one for the occasion.

2) Just to be clear….. if a man murdered your wife and children then got off scott free on a technicality and came back to you have you build him a house you wouldn't be un american and tell him to feck off, instead you would build him one to the best of your ability?

Gun Grape
23 Feb 14,, 22:25
GG, when Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", don't you think that also covers a person's right to not serve gays if it goes against their religious beliefs?

Or do you only defend their right to say things that you agree with?

I believe that she has the right not to be forced to serve Gays in her home. Or has the right to make a private company , with membership restrictions (ie, all orders must come from a church and she provides baked goods through those churches)

Its once she enters the public arena and opens a business that serves the general public that I have a problem with her refusal. Especially the one that would bake them any other of her products but refuses one specific item. She disagrees with homosexuality, but it doesn't disgust her/go against her moral principles to take their money for some items.

You can be as prejudiced as you want and I don't care. Until you bring those prejudices into action and discriminate in the public arena.

Gun Grape
23 Feb 14,, 22:31
Couple of questions.

1) What if the person wasn't religious and still didn't believe in gay marriages so refused to make one for the occasion.

Same applies.


2) Just to be clear….. if a man murdered your wife and children then got off scott free on a technicality and came back to you have you build him a house you wouldn't be un american and tell him to feck off, instead you would build him one to the best of your ability?

Really??? Really?? How Frickin far do you have to reach on this one???

bigross86
23 Feb 14,, 22:34
Its once she enters the public arena and opens a business that serves the general public that I have a problem with her refusal. Especially the one that would bake them any other of her products but refuses one specific item. She disagrees with homosexuality, but it doesn't disgust her/go against her moral principles to take their money for some items.

Her moral principles weren't against their way of life, or against them as people. It was against their decision to get married, and that's her right and her opinion. She is allowed to express her opinion and her desire not to do anything that will help bring forward something she doesn't agree with.

What if the cake was for a Klan meeting, or just a plain old "kick out all the wetbacks" gathering?

You're honestly trying to tell me that you would rather she refuse ALL service to ALL homosexuals, instead of just refusing one specific service to certain specific homosexuals that asked for that one specific service, most likely knowing they would be refused?

So, in other words, you're okay with someone in the public sphere being a bigot, as long as they are a complete and total bigot, sticking to their bigotry guns and being a bigot to everyone, but have a problem with someone refusing a few specific members of one specific subgroup one specific service?

Doktor
23 Feb 14,, 22:36
This is what you get with extreme discussions.

Gunny, what is the problem if they refuse to sell me some goods? If they don't want my money, I am surely not giving them any.

Albany Rifles
24 Feb 14,, 01:01
So I gotta ask....why does the translation of a 4th Century document translated from Aramaic into several languages, makes its way though Old English, to Middle English to New English is used in 21st Century United States to tell a some of its citizens "all men are created equal".....except for you.

Marriage is a religious institution but it is also a secular governmental governmental institution. I know that personally because I was married by a a justice of the peace. However my late brother could not receive the same secular consideration because he was gay (I say was because he died years ago).

So I gotta ask WTF does ANY religious point of view belong in making public sector secular laws?

So if Arizona "law" makers want to stop same sex marriage on grounds based other than the Constitution (which, ya know, does not include marriage definition in it) then they are using religion. Wrong answer and unconstitutional.

But if they decide NOT to define marriage for civil marriages along straight/gay lines and allow business to operate within government safety guidelines then I am fine with that.

But they ain't.

I am fine with leaving all alone....so long as ALL have the same rights.

That is not the case here. N

Doktor
24 Feb 14,, 01:19
So, to reiterate Benny's notion.

If an atheist refuses to serve a gay couple, then what?

If it was me, I'd sell the cake to polygamist Martians who merry their own children. However, if they don't want the gay people's money, fine, they wont have it. How hard is it to buy a cake in Arizona?

Parihaka
24 Feb 14,, 02:06
How easy should it be to refuse service based on colour/ethnicity/religion? If all the petrol stations refuse to sell you petrol because your black? If all the supermarkets refuse to serve you because you're Jewish? If all the banks refuse to give you a credit card because you're Mexican?

Albany Rifles
24 Feb 14,, 02:09
Doktor


My point is religion has no place in the government or the marketplace.

Parihaka
24 Feb 14,, 02:09
What if it's a corporation that refuses service because of ethnicity/religion/race? Should a corporation be forced to serve all clients, but a single owner/operator not?

zraver
24 Feb 14,, 02:25
How easy should it be to refuse service based on colour/ethnicity/religion? If all the petrol stations refuse to sell you petrol because your black? If all the supermarkets refuse to serve you because you're Jewish? If all the banks refuse to give you a credit card because you're Mexican?

Should churches be able to sue contractors who do not bid on contracts they offer. Its the same thing- refusal of service. What about doctors who turn away seniors because they don't want to deal with medicare? That happens all the time- not illegal.

AR, government has no place in religion either. The set up in Colorado now seems to give the states civil rights commission control over and ability to determine "appropriate" religious doctrine. I'm waiting for the backlash in Colorado. Some Christian couple is going to be turned down when they want to rent out a Mosque for a Christian wedding, get turned down and sue for discrimination since discernment along religious lines is no longer allowed...

Parihaka
24 Feb 14,, 02:58
Should churches be able to sue contractors who do not bid on contracts they offer. Its the same thing- refusal of service.
Only if the contractor states a reason for not bidding.

Doktor
24 Feb 14,, 03:04
How easy should it be to refuse service based on colour/ethnicity/religion? If all the petrol stations refuse to sell you petrol because your black? If all the supermarkets refuse to serve you because you're Jewish? If all the banks refuse to give you a credit card because you're Mexican?

Pari, how viable is that option? Why not a single minority has been extinguished then?

zraver
24 Feb 14,, 03:08
Only if the contractor states a reason for not bidding.

So to you discrimination isn't the failure to provide a service but saying you are not going to provide it....

Albany Rifles
24 Feb 14,, 03:11
What if it's a corporation that refuses service because of ethnicity/religion/race? Should a corporation be forced to serve all clients, but a single owner/operator not?

Pari that is a good point.

If it a private company it can do as it wishes within the law and suffer the consequences of the market.

But if it is a publicly traded company it must do what it shareholders want....and then further suffer the whims of the market.

My issue is not with businesses....it's with government stepping in and taking a part on behalf of some businesses.

Doktor
24 Feb 14,, 03:12
Doktor


My point is religion has no place in the government or the marketplace.

It doesn't. But same goes for the government. They can set the rules, enforce them and that's it.
The Government can't (or shouldn't be able to) force me to do something against my beliefs.

I am with Gunny on this one, if she can prove she hold the same religious standards for divorced people who needed cake for their third wedding or for newborns out of marriage, let her be. I doubt it tho.

Is she court material? I have a feeling you can spend the costs more wisely.

bonehead
24 Feb 14,, 04:38
Same applies.


Really??? Really?? How Frickin far do you have to reach on this one???

Not far at all. i just wanted to see if you had a line and apparently you do. it is just drawn at a different place than others.

bonehead
24 Feb 14,, 04:47
So I gotta ask WTF does ANY religious point of view belong in making public sector secular laws?

So if Arizona "law" makers want to stop same sex marriage on grounds based other than the Constitution (which, ya know, does not include marriage definition in it) then they are using religion. Wrong answer and unconstitutional.



1) Religious views are all over our laws and have been since the beginning. It goes with the territory when you have religious people in office making those laws.

2) The Constitution doesn't specifically address the concept of gay marriage or give the right to the Feds to do so but it does give that right to the states via the tenth Amendment. Right now the federal judges overturning the states bans would be unconstitutional.

bonehead
24 Feb 14,, 04:50
So, to reiterate Benny's notion.

If an atheist refuses to serve a gay couple, then what?

If it was me, I'd sell the cake to polygamist Martians who merry their own children. However, if they don't want the gay people's money, fine, they wont have it. How hard is it to buy a cake in Arizona?

It is not that hard. The issue is whether or not a small deviant minority should be able to force people to change their long held and sacred beliefs and sell them a wedding cake.

bonehead
24 Feb 14,, 04:53
How easy should it be to refuse service based on colour/ethnicity/religion? If all the petrol stations refuse to sell you petrol because your black? If all the supermarkets refuse to serve you because you're Jewish? If all the banks refuse to give you a credit card because you're Mexican?

Its not easy. But these are races,colors, etc and such which have protections. Homosexuality is a behavior.

bonehead
24 Feb 14,, 04:57
Pari that is a good point.

If it a private company it can do as it wishes within the law and suffer the consequences of the market.

But if it is a publicly traded company it must do what it shareholders want....and then further suffer the whims of the market.

My issue is not with businesses....it's with government stepping in and taking a part on behalf of some businesses.



So you think it is OK for the government to step in and force an owner to do something against his beliefs but it is not ok for the same government to step in and protect those beliefs?

Officer of Engineers
24 Feb 14,, 08:45
Bars can refused service to assholes. Doctors, however, cannot refuse to treat assholes.

Mihais
24 Feb 14,, 08:54
How easy should it be to refuse service based on colour/ethnicity/religion? If all the petrol stations refuse to sell you petrol because your black? If all the supermarkets refuse to serve you because you're Jewish? If all the banks refuse to give you a credit card because you're Mexican?

Easier.First of all there would be no need for a law,with all the added cost a law implies.Second,US is not the only multiethnic country.In the Hungarian regions I was once refused service for not speaking the language.The owner found quite soon that I could speak a little,about several body parts,ancestors and various sexual perversions.I also took my money elsewhere.
Was I pissed of?You bet.But I'd rather have him respect his principles than drive him in frustration to take up arms.

The moment you need a law to integrate people,there are issues in society.Law is force and force is oppression.As long as there is competition,a black a Jew or Mexican will find a way to buy whatever he needs.And if nobody welcomes his money,the problem is him.Maybe he doesn't belong there.Maybe he should seek his fortune elsewhere.
At times,society suffers upheavals.All that frustration that accumulates right now will erupt if/when there wil be an opportunity.And then we'll wonder how it is possible for people to do this or that.

Monash
24 Feb 14,, 11:55
Interesting. How is a store or business supposed to know if someone is gay? Is there a form I have to sign with a legally binding declaration re: sexuality? Perhaps an entry exam with a pass mark? Are gays in Arizona issued with a special ID card? It's one thing to draft and legislate a stupid law, its another thing to actually enforce it.

Doktor
24 Feb 14,, 12:11
I bet they asked for a cake with two same sex figures on the top ;)

sated buddha
24 Feb 14,, 14:19
Bars can refused service to assholes. Doctors, however, cannot refuse to treat assholes.

Depends Colonel. In today's age of specializtion, if assholes are not his specialty, he can and will legally (and ethically) refer.

Doktor
24 Feb 14,, 14:24
Depends Colonel. In today's age of specializtion, if assholes are not his specialty, he can and will legally (and ethically) refer.

Yes but should direct them to the a$$hole expert, who in turn can't deny service.

sated buddha
24 Feb 14,, 14:30
In India we normally see this board put up in clubs, pubs, restaurants, etc. "Rights of Admission Reserved." Always wondered what it implies and how one can be given a license under the Shops and Establishments Act and still refuse a potential customer. Maybe the lawyers who know something of our laws would be able to comment if there is a parallel here.

Albany Rifles
24 Feb 14,, 14:41
It doesn't. But same goes for the government. They can set the rules, enforce them and that's it.
The Government can't (or shouldn't be able to) force me to do something against my beliefs.

I am with Gunny on this one, if she can prove she hold the same religious standards for divorced people who needed cake for their third wedding or for newborns out of marriage, let her be. I doubt it tho.

Is she court material? I have a feeling you can spend the costs more wisely.

Then we are in agreement.

Albany Rifles
24 Feb 14,, 14:54
1) Religious views are all over our laws and have been since the beginning. It goes with the territory when you have religious people in office making those laws.

2) The Constitution doesn't specifically address the concept of gay marriage or give the right to the Feds to do so but it does give that right to the states via the tenth Amendment. Right now the federal judges overturning the states bans would be unconstitutional.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. The Tenth Amendment is not sacrosanct...the ACW proved that. And 2 Supreme Court decisions from early in the days of the Republic while the founders were still alive to comment further reinforces the right for the federal court to overturn state law when it is found to be inviolation of state law. Marbury established the right of judicial review and McCulloch established the right of the federal to overturn state law. Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland)

Additionally, federal courts decisions are based on the 14th Amendment so I am not buying the unconstitutional argument.

omon
24 Feb 14,, 16:58
Only if the contractor states a reason for not bidding.

i did not bid on many jobs, that i saw no profit in, no one has any right to ask me a reason i did not, not in USA.

refuse to bid, is in no way similar to refuse service.

bonehead
24 Feb 14,, 17:47
Bars can refused service to assholes. Doctors, however, cannot refuse to treat assholes.

Doctors can refuse abortions citing abortions are against their religion.

zraver
24 Feb 14,, 18:41
It doesn't. But same goes for the government. They can set the rules, enforce them and that's it.
The Government can't (or shouldn't be able to) force me to do something against my beliefs.

I am with Gunny on this one, if she can prove she hold the same religious standards for divorced people who needed cake for their third wedding or for newborns out of marriage, let her be. I doubt it tho.

Is she court material? I have a feeling you can spend the costs more wisely.

Thats still government setting standards for religion. The person claiming religious exemption should only be required to show consistency in their standards, not government. Divorce and re-marriage are not major issues for American Protestantism. Its a false equivalency. I don't want government deciding what is and, isn't good religious doctrine- nothing absolutely nothing could be more un-American than that..

astralis
24 Feb 14,, 19:39
but is forbidding the refusal of service on account of nebulous religious beliefs the same as "deciding what is/isn't good religious doctrine"?

to use a similar example, a conservative Muslim woman wears a hijab to court. the judge asks her to take it off, citing the need to see if the person is telling the truth. she refuses. judge says "take it off or face dismissal of the case".

in this case is the judge deciding what is good religious doctrine?

tbm3fan
24 Feb 14,, 20:11
Ok, I would like to know what "religious beliefs" these might be?

While I am not religious, much less believe in God, I did happen to spend 12 years in Catholic Schools as per my parents. Religion class was never my favorite class by a wide margin but it doesn't mean I didn't learn anything in there about the Bible and Jesus. In that Bible and reading the accounts of the life of Jesus he was not once discriminatory towards anybody. That is what he preached and the Catholic religion is supposed to stem from that. So for anyone Catholic not to follow what Jesus preached then they are simply a bigot pure and simple. There is no hiding behind "religious beliefs" here since those beliefs have no connection with Jesus.

So I imagine these people probably prefer to call themselves Christians. From what I see that term is so loosely applied to be almost meaningless. Are they saying they believe in the New Testament and Jesus Christ? If so then they need to live as Jesus proscribed and lived his life as their example. I know my wife does as she calls herself Christian and at their Sunday Mass always thank the Lord God and read the Bible. Interesting thing here is that she is Filipina and I can say they truly do not discriminate against anyone. They frown on it quite a bit. So if you are a T-bird or bakla no problem whatsoever.


There are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict.[2][3] However, "Whatever else they might disagree about, Christians are at least united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance.”[2] The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[4] It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices.[5]

Alright since Christians are united in believing that Jesus had a unique significance then why do some then turn around and ignore it? Why do they cherry pick what they will believe and adhere to?

Mankind has always had bigotries since the beginning of time. Religion, particularly Jesus Christ, was created to overcome those bigotries and treat everyone as a child of God. I do not believe God discriminates against his children. If those who do not want to associate with gays simply come out and say we just don't like you, and yes we are bigoted, so there. I would have no problem with that. Being a country of free speech I am sure they will hear from the other side.

However, it is an insult of the highest order, to use "religious beliefs" as a cover for their bigotries. It is an insult to God, Jesus and the New Testament to imply that they have clearance from them to act that way. That is what burns me up. Leave God out of it and man up that you are simply using religion, like so many do, for your own personal views. Otherwise you are a coward deflecting your stance towards someone else namely God.

zraver
24 Feb 14,, 20:16
but is forbidding the refusal of service on account of nebulous religious beliefs the same as "deciding what is/isn't good religious doctrine"?

Yes, take it to its logical end- mosques or churches being forced to rent out their holy places to people of other faiths or no faiths for practices they disagree with or face legal ruin including jail. The only solution is to not rent out space at all which could pose a significant burned on the membership or limit access to spaces for wide and diverse groups like boy scouts, 12 step meetings and other small groups that rely on the low cost rents (vs commercial buildings) to use spaces in churches.


to use a similar example, a conservative Muslim woman wears a hijab to court. the judge asks her to take it off, citing the need to see if the person is telling the truth. she refuses. judge says "take it off or face dismissal of the case".

I think that would fall under a public safety exception. No one is alleging that letting gays control the business choices of those who have religious differences with them is being done for public safety.


in this case is the judge deciding what is good religious doctrine?

See above

zraver
24 Feb 14,, 20:21
Ok, I would like to know what "religious beliefs" these might be?

It doesn't matter, the person gets to decide what their free expression is not you. So long as they can demonstrate sincerity if challenged (not before as others want). An example from a parallel attack on religious freedom is Hobby Lobby v Obama. Hobby Lobby has for years closed on religious holidays and more importantly- Sunday the second busiest shopping day of the week forgoing billions in sales to maintain a business model they sincerely feel is base don their religious principles. So a small business owner this test might be no more complex than finding out if they are a church goer and open on their religions day of rest. The net that ensnares religious freedom should be small and carefully targeted.

omon
24 Feb 14,, 20:27
in this case is the judge deciding what is good religious doctrine?
no, it is not.

that is the case when a religion clashes with state prosedures, if she refuses judge can dismiss the case. or hold her in contempt.

what if my relegion says only god can judge me, should i be released, cuz my religion forbids me to sand trial?

astralis
24 Feb 14,, 20:47
precisely.

in this case the difference between this and the refusal of service case is that of degree, not of kind.

let's put it in yet another light. "i refuse to serve black people on account of my religion." state shoots this down. is this an example of the state trampling on religious freedoms?

i'd say most people (outside of rand paul) would disagree with this assessment.

Parihaka
24 Feb 14,, 20:49
So to you discrimination isn't the failure to provide a service but saying you are not going to provide it....

Precisely. Justification is all.

astralis
24 Feb 14,, 20:57
exactly so. businesses can state "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

turning this into "we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals" or "we reserve the right to refuse service to black people" through the guise of "religious freedom" is another kettle of fish.

omon
24 Feb 14,, 21:00
precisely.

in this case the difference between this and the refusal of service case is that of degree, not of kind.

let's put it in yet another light. "i refuse to serve black people on account of my religion." state shoots this down. is this an example of the state trampling on religious freedoms?

i'd say most people (outside of rand paul) would disagree with this assessment.

but no one trys to refuse service based on race,

religion is belif, being gay is behavior, choices or behavior, are not something you are born with and have no control over. being black\white\yellow. is neither choice not behavior.

is refusing service based on my zip code fair? no, but it happes all over the place in insurance industry, few years ago geico would not sell me a policy based on my zip.

Parihaka
24 Feb 14,, 21:00
Homosexuality is a behavior.Which is a critical point under law. She'd have to demonstrate that they indulged in homosexual behaviour in front of her to use that excuse.

omon
24 Feb 14,, 21:05
Which is a critical point under law. She'd have to demonstrate that they indulged in homosexual behaviour in front of her to use that excuse.

lol she better not, that would get her arreasted for disorderly conduct, and lewd bahavior.

Bigfella
24 Feb 14,, 21:08
religion is belif, being gay is behavior, choices or behavior, are not something you are born with and have no control over. being black\white\yellow. is neither choice not behavior.

You have a choice on religion. You have control over what religion you are or whether or not you even have a religion. People change religions all the time. Does that mean it is OK for someone to refuse service to someone based on their religion? What about specific behaviours? Can you ban unaccompanied women or women who reveal their faces/arms/legs from your store? How about banning unmarried couples? Or unmarried women who have children? How about interracial couples?

There are almost endless examples of 'behaviour' or 'choices' hat someone might decide their religion finds offensive. Where does it end?

astralis
24 Feb 14,, 21:10
pari,


She'd have to demonstrate that they indulged in homosexual behaviour in front of her to use that excuse.

even then that could be problematic. it'd have to scale to what's deemed acceptable in that context.

IE if it's a restaurant on Valentine's Day and other couples are canoodling, would it be legal to kick out a homosexual couple for doing the same?

omon
24 Feb 14,, 21:19
You have a choice on religion. You have control over what religion you are or whether or not you even have a religion. People change religions all the time. Does that mean it is OK for someone to refuse service to someone based on their religion?

it does not matter.
you pick religion, and you follow everything your religion preaches, you act the way your chosen religion tells you to. wheather it favors you or not. yes it is ok to refuse based on relegion. yes it is ok to refuse based on your behavior, if my religion, does not favor your beahvior.

Officer of Engineers
24 Feb 14,, 21:50
There are almost endless examples of 'behaviour' or 'choices' hat someone might decide their religion finds offensive. Where does it end?It ends with me. I don't want to do business with you. Period. Full stop.

Parihaka
24 Feb 14,, 21:57
pari,



even then that could be problematic. it'd have to scale to what's deemed acceptable in that context.

IE if it's a restaurant on Valentine's Day and other couples are canoodling, would it be legal to kick out a homosexual couple for doing the same?
Yes indeed. A whole world of hurt. Everyone has prejudices, it's the public control of those prejudices that glues society together.

Wooglin
24 Feb 14,, 22:01
In Colorado a small bakery owner who was willing to make a gay couple any cake they wanted but a wedding cake was sued by activist gays backed by the ACLU. The ruling handed down by the state civil rights commission opens the flood gates for vexatious lawsuits by stripping those who oppose the idea of gay marriage of constitutional protections. They are not allowed the free exercise of their religion and can be compelled under threat of force to work for others violating the 13th. The ruling also apparently applies to pastors and churches.

That is why these religious shield laws are springing up.

Personally the idea of government setting "appropriate" doctrine for religious groups is fucking scary.

I'm wondering how opinions will change when the black owned catering service is sued for refusing to cater the annual KKK dinner. That's where this is headed.

Albany Rifles
24 Feb 14,, 22:35
but no one trys to refuse service based on race,

OMON, you could not be more wrong.

Come visit me in rural Southside Virginia and I can show you plenty of establishments who do this on a regular basis.

omon
24 Feb 14,, 23:04
do what on regular basis?

antimony
24 Feb 14,, 23:59
but no one trys to refuse service based on race,

religion is belif, being gay is behavior, choices or behavior, are not something you are born with and have no control over. being black\white\yellow. is neither choice not behavior.


Being gay is "behaviour" ? I thought that canard got thrown out a long time ago.

Gun Grape
25 Feb 14,, 00:08
Doctors can refuse abortions citing abortions are against their religion.

But unlike the Cake Lady ObGyns that don't do abortions don't offer that as one of their services.

GVChamp
25 Feb 14,, 01:26
I'm wondering how opinions will change when the black owned catering service is sued for refusing to cater the annual KKK dinner. That's where this is headed.

"that's different because...."
Which is true, no two situations are the same. There are legitimate different points of view. Plus, things lead in unexpected directions. For instance, Lawrence V. Texas has led to the de facto legalization of polygamy in Utah.
In terms of protected classes, you get weirdness like the Vermont case, where a company fired a woman, hired a man and gave him a signing bonus and high wage to entice him to move to Vermont, and then the judge ordered backpay to the woman because superior negotiation skills do not excuse sex discrimination.

Albany Rifles
25 Feb 14,, 02:54
do what on regular basis?

Note the bold copied from your post.

Bigfella
25 Feb 14,, 07:42
it does not matter.
you pick religion, and you follow everything your religion preaches, you act the way your chosen religion tells you to. wheather it favors you or not. yes it is ok to refuse based on relegion. yes it is ok to refuse based on your behavior, if my religion, does not favor your beahvior.

So you're good with shops putting up 'No Jews allowed' or 'No women with uncovered faces'? OK. If you say so. I guess it is easy to argue for something that you know damned well would be punished heavily (and therefore probably not happen) in order to support actual discrimination.

Alternatively, what if your religion tells you to not to serve a particular race? You sort of dodged that with the 'its all about behaviour' excuse. If this is really about religious freedom then why force people to serve others from other faiths? Surely that impinges religious freedom as much as forcing them to serve people whose behaviour they dislike.

Triple C
25 Feb 14,, 08:07
GVCamp,
Utah decriminalized polygamy--the State did not recognize the legality of plural marriages. I know that sounds like a nit-pick, but by the same standard "gay marriage" was legalized a long time ago since gays living together is no longer a crime after Lawrence.

Wooglin,
While I would argue the Arizona bill opens a can of worms for employers and might fail on the face of equal protection without giving gays the protected class status, the short answer to your question is the Protected Class doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). You can't force people of color out your establishment or give them separate accommodations, for example. The court's argument would be that the KKK is a political affiliation, not a core to a person's identity that is also resistant to change. By the same token, you can throw out a dude or a girl out of your establishment because you personally dislike them. But you can't deny service to people because of who they are. Kennedy's ruling in Windsor v. U.S., the challenge that sunk DOMA, did not answer the question whether sexuality is now a Protected Class.

zraver
25 Feb 14,, 14:28
So you're good with shops putting up 'No Jews allowed' [/qupte]

Not serving Kosher amounts to the exact same thing as these cake cases.

[quote]or 'No women with uncovered faces'? OK.

There are multiple religious sects in the US that require female members to go with some sort of head covering.


If you say so. I guess it is easy to argue for something that you know damned well would be punished heavily (and therefore probably not happen) in order to support actual discrimination.

Actual discrimination is using lawyers to target religious individuals for destruction because they choose to remain true to their faith. It was wrong t deny gays marriage and its wrong to target the devout for financial ruin out of revenge.


Alternatively, what if your religion tells you to not to serve a particular race? You sort of dodged that with the 'its all about behaviour' excuse. If this is really about religious freedom then why force people to serve others from other faiths? Surely that impinges religious freedom as much as forcing them to serve people whose behaviour they dislike.

In SC recently a well known racist died. He was a Barbecue restaurant owners. He famously had a sign in his window- the law makes us serve ******s but every dime from them goes to the KKK. Should those with religious views do the same- the law makes us serve gays, but every dime from them goes for conversion therapy.... Both sides just need to leave each other alone.

Albany Rifles
25 Feb 14,, 14:28
Bump

Mihais
25 Feb 14,, 14:36
In SC recently a well known racist died. He was a Barbecue restaurant owners. He famously had a sign in his window- the law makes us serve ******s but every dime from them goes to the KKK.


I don't give a damn about his politics but I like the spirit of defiance and the approach.

Doktor
25 Feb 14,, 14:57
I don't give a damn about his politics but I like the spirit of defiance and the approach.

Imagine the irony if a there is only one cemetery on 100 miles radius and the owner is Afro-American.

Wooglin
25 Feb 14,, 15:40
GVCamp,
Utah decriminalized polygamy--the State did not recognize the legality of plural marriages. I know that sounds like a nit-pick, but by the same standard "gay marriage" was legalized a long time ago since gays living together is no longer a crime after Lawrence.

Wooglin,
While I would argue the Arizona bill opens a can of worms for employers and might fail on the face of equal protection without giving gays the protected class status, the short answer to your question is the Protected Class doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). You can't force people of color out your establishment or give them separate accommodations, for example. The court's argument would be that the KKK is a political affiliation, not a core to a person's identity that is also resistant to change. By the same token, you can throw out a dude or a girl out of your establishment because you personally dislike them. But you can't deny service to people because of who they are. Kennedy's ruling in Windsor v. U.S., the challenge that sunk DOMA, did not answer the question whether sexuality is now a Protected Class.

My post was with regards to the Colorado ruling, not Arizona, and your argument is backwards. Read my example again. "People of color" aren't being denied service in my example. Quite the opposite.

sated buddha
25 Feb 14,, 15:55
Wooglin that's a lovely dog man. Yours? Collie?

GVChamp
25 Feb 14,, 17:06
GVCamp,
Utah decriminalized polygamy--the State did not recognize the legality of plural marriages. I know that sounds like a nit-pick, but by the same standard "gay marriage" was legalized a long time ago since gays living together is no longer a crime after Lawrence.

If we're going to nitpick:
1. Background: Man lives with multiple women. Utah prosecuted this family under their cohabitation law. The man does not maintain multiple marriage licenses.
2. Man files suit with the federal government.
3. Federal judge strikes down Utah's cohabitation law as unconstitutional, citing Lawrenece.

So:
1. Utah didn't do anything. The federal government did.
2. The federal government did not decriminalize anything. They legalized cohabitation, as a constitutional right.

De Jure polygamy, IE multiple marriage licenses, is still illegal. De Facto polygamy, IE living with multiple people, is currently legal anywhere that court has jurisidction. Not decriminalized, fully legal.

Doktor
25 Feb 14,, 17:45
Can those multiple people enjoy the same benefits as if they had marriage licenses?

Wooglin
25 Feb 14,, 18:22
Wooglin that's a lovely dog man. Yours? Collie?

Sheltie actually. Have 3 of them. Caught this picture mid yawn and it just came out evil looking. Thought it was funny.

bonehead
25 Feb 14,, 18:48
But unlike the Cake Lady ObGyns that don't do abortions don't offer that as one of their services.

Doctors can even deny an abortion if it will save the mother. How many homosexuals will die if they can't get married?

gunnut
25 Feb 14,, 20:01
I just want to see homosexual muslims demand to be married in a mosque.

antimony
25 Feb 14,, 20:53
I just want to see homosexual muslims demand to be married in a mosque.

And I would like to see the for the Catholic church. But what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

bigross86
25 Feb 14,, 21:40
Because that's the logical conclusion of where this is heading, if you force people to supply services to people they don't want to work with over religious reasoning.

I'd like to bring up what Z said earlier: My dad lives in a prominently Jewish area of Queens, NYC. In this extremely Jewish area, there are dozens of places that aren't kosher and Jews can't eat in them. So what happens now? Will these restaurants be forced to suddenly go through a drastic, extremely expensive change just so if a Jew wants to eat in that establishment, the option will be available to them?

astralis
25 Feb 14,, 22:12
i think bottom-line, there are reasonable restrictions to be had without going all reductio ad absurdum.

business owners have SOME leeway in terms of which customers they choose not to serve. i pointed out the whole "no shirt, no shoes, no service", or "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs.

this does NOT imply that they have complete leeway. things such as the Civil Rights act, americans with disability act, etc are all settled law.

vice versa, of course, with the laws that govern them.

antimony
25 Feb 14,, 22:38
Because that's the logical conclusion of where this is heading, if you force people to supply services to people they don't want to work with over religious reasoning.


Are you saying that businesses are the same as religious institutions? If that were so, can we regulate religious institutions the same way we do to businesses and also take away any special privileges they enjoy? I am a-ok with that.

Unless you are saying that, bringing the example of what a religious institution would do, in a thread about businesses, is disingenuous

gunnut
25 Feb 14,, 23:11
Are you saying that businesses are the same as religious institutions? If that were so, can we regulate religious institutions the same way we do to businesses and also take away any special privileges they enjoy? I am a-ok with that.

Unless you are saying that, bringing the example of what a religious institution would do, in a thread about businesses, is disingenuous

We already do. Obamacare and birth control for the people working for Catholic organizations.

GVChamp
26 Feb 14,, 00:13
And the adminstration attempted to remove the minster exemption for religious organizations. By this I mean, religious organizations have full right to choose who should be their own ministers. The EEOC argued that this was illegal and that religious organizations should have no right to this.
The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, of course.
But:

Unless you are saying that, bringing the example of what a religious institution would do, in a thread about businesses, is disingenuous
Sorry, broseph, that's what EEOC said!

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 00:22
Ok, I would like to know what "religious beliefs" these might be?

While I am not religious, much less believe in God, I did happen to spend 12 years in Catholic Schools as per my parents. Religion class was never my favorite class by a wide margin but it doesn't mean I didn't learn anything in there about the Bible and Jesus. In that Bible and reading the accounts of the life of Jesus he was not once discriminatory towards anybody. That is what he preached and the Catholic religion is supposed to stem from that. So for anyone Catholic not to follow what Jesus preached then they are simply a bigot pure and simple. There is no hiding behind "religious beliefs" here since those beliefs have no connection with Jesus.

Any religious justification for discrimination against homosexuals is usually based on the proscriptions contained in the Old Testament aka Leviticus, not the New Testament. To the best of my knowledge there is no record of Jesus ever addressing homosexuality directly which is perhaps not surprising given the fact cultural norms would have prevented most people from raising the issue in public. On the few occasions when he does address 'sexual immorality' directly after being confronted his general exhortation is as per John 8; 1-11 to "go, and sin no more". This was FYI more or less his standard response to those in need of help or forgiveness i.e. you are forgiven no go away and start your life anew. As far as we are aware then he would probably have said same thing to a practicing homosexual of the time. What happens after that ???

Gun Grape
26 Feb 14,, 00:24
Thats still government setting standards for religion. The person claiming religious exemption should only be required to show consistency in their standards, not government. Divorce and re-marriage are not major issues for American Protestantism. Its a false equivalency. I don't want government deciding what is and, isn't good religious doctrine- nothing absolutely nothing could be more un-American than that..

Why is that? you get to pick and choose which sin you can discriminate against?

Luke 16:18 says:Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

There the Bible identifies remarriage as Adultery.

And 1 Corinthians 9-10 says:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Seems to me that both sins are equal. Both being stated in the same verse as ways not to get to heaven. No false equivalent there. A very real equivalent. At least according to the Bible.

Or are you saying that you get to pick and choose who offends your religious sensibilities according to your own prejudices not according to what the Bible teaches?

By refusing to serve homosexuals but serving people who are on their 2d or 3d marriage is not showing consistency with what the Bible teaches. It fails your standard.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 00:32
We already do. Obamacare and birth control for the people working for Catholic organizations.

No we don't, that has hit a wall at the courts.

Even if it did, you simply cannot convince me that religious institutions are treated the same way as for profit businesses.

Gun Grape
26 Feb 14,, 00:34
Because that's the logical conclusion of where this is heading, if you force people to supply services to people they don't want to work with over religious reasoning.

I'd like to bring up what Z said earlier: My dad lives in a prominently Jewish area of Queens, NYC. In this extremely Jewish area, there are dozens of places that aren't kosher and Jews can't eat in them. So what happens now? Will these restaurants be forced to suddenly go through a drastic, extremely expensive change just so if a Jew wants to eat in that establishment, the option will be available to them?

Do those restaurants say they provide kosher food? But refuses to serve Jews? No? Then they are fine.

Its when you offer a service "I make wedding cakes" but then refuse to make wedding cakes for one particular group of people that you get in trouble.

The law isn't going to force you to provide a service/product that you never advertised. Its only going to make you provide the services that you do advertise to everyone.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 00:34
Sorry, broseph, that's what EEOC said!

See above



Even if it did, you simply cannot convince me that religious institutions are treated the same way as for profit businesses.

Lets treat religious institutions in exactly the same way as businesses. Lets remove all that tax exemption and other perks they enjoy. Then I will concede with your point. Also, I understand the larger point that Gunnut is making. He is trying to say that the naysayers to this new law will pipe down in the case of Muslims, for Political correctness reasons.

I say screw PCness, if someone is wrong call them out.

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 01:37
See above



Lets treat religious institutions in exactly the same way as businesses. Lets remove all that tax exemption and other perks they enjoy.

The only problem with that would be that some other form of charitable institution (or the Government) would have to pick up the slack. Like it or not Religious institutions do provide free or subsidized services to the community in the form of education, medical clinics, refuges and other similar things. Take way their tax exemption and the amount of services they can provide declines by the amount of tax they now have to pay. The result can be only one of the following. Either the charitable donations previously given to religious charities are re-directed to non-religious bodies with exactly the same agendas (no net gain in tax revenue there), the amount of services provided declines with offsetting social costs or the religious charities separate their charitable arms from their religious ones using the various legal entities available to private enterprise and you are back at square one. Even non-religious charities are for the most part going to have some aspect of their agendas/mission that various portions of the population may not agree with be it aid to foreigners, environmental lobbying or whatever. If you start cancelling tax detectability just because some % of the population objects to the aims of a particular charity you'll pretty much end up cancelling them for everyone.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 02:17
The only problem with that would be that some other form of charitable institution (or the Government) would have to pick up the slack. Like it or not Religious institutions do provide free or subsidized services to the community in the form of education, medical clinics, refuges and other similar things.

Personally, I have no problem is secular society picking up the slack, if it means that religious institutions take their drivel out of the public sphere.

However, that is irrelevant.

GN was arguing that religious institutions are given the same status as for profit businesses, and I disagree. I think you just proved my point.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 02:21
To the best of my knowledge there is no record of Jesus ever addressing homosexuality directly which is perhaps not surprising given the fact cultural norms would have prevented most people from raising the issue in public.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical record that Jesus actually ever did anything including, you know, exist.

Parihaka
26 Feb 14,, 02:41
To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical record that Jesus actually ever did anything including, you know, exist.

The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX - Wikisource, the free online library (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_9)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15#44

zraver
26 Feb 14,, 02:45
i think bottom-line, there are reasonable restrictions to be had without going all reductio ad absurdum.

business owners have SOME leeway in terms of which customers they choose not to serve. i pointed out the whole "no shirt, no shoes, no service", or "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs.

this does NOT imply that they have complete leeway. things such as the Civil Rights act, americans with disability act, etc are all settled law.

vice versa, of course, with the laws that govern them.

Religious minorities are a protected class, yet Kosher is not required to be on the menu... Why do gay get cakes on demand?

zraver
26 Feb 14,, 02:47
To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical record that Jesus actually ever did anything including, you know, exist.

He is as real as any figure from antiquity can be. There are enough credible reports from those who knew him that he is at least as well established as having existed as anyone else.

tbm3fan
26 Feb 14,, 03:06
Any religious justification for discrimination against homosexuals is usually based on the proscriptions contained in the Old Testament aka Leviticus, not the New Testament. To the best of my knowledge there is no record of Jesus ever addressing homosexuality directly which is perhaps not surprising given the fact cultural norms would have prevented most people from raising the issue in public. On the few occasions when he does address 'sexual immorality' directly after being confronted his general exhortation is as per John 8; 1-11 to "go, and sin no more". This was FYI more or less his standard response to those in need of help or forgiveness i.e. you are forgiven no go away and start your life anew. As far as we are aware then he would probably have said same thing to a practicing homosexual of the time. What happens after that ???

The Center for Arizona Policy says:Established in 1995 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening Arizona families through policy and education, CAP has worked with elected officials and members of the community to make Arizona the most welcoming state to raise a family.


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” In these simple words, our right to freely live and practice our faith is protected. Yet, few people realize the serious threats to our religious freedom and the consequences of those threats.


Efforts by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are underway to restrict our right to hold to our religious beliefs at work, on a school or university campus, at church, or even when you turn out to vote your values. If successful, these attacks on our religious liberty could greatly restrict our ability to respond to the Great Commission and share the Gospel. At Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), we are committed to protecting the right of every Arizonan to freely live their faith.

So they want to practice their faith and share the Gospel. Well exactly whose Gospel are they sharing?

I see this:
Would Jesus discriminate? (http://lifejourneychurch.cc/go/wouldjesus.html)



Instinctively, we all sense that the answer must be a resounding No!
Yet we live in a time when many churches are leading the effort to deny gay and transgender people equal protection under the law.
Just last year, Indiana's legislature initiated a four-year process to amend our State Constitution to ensure that gay couples never gain access to the same legal rights as straight couples. This is the first time since the slavery era that Indiana's legislature has singled out a specific group of people for exclusion from Indiana's Equal Protection Clause. The practical effect of the proposed amendment would be to deprive gay couples of basic rights -- such as being able to visit each other in a crisis in the emergency room or inheriting property from each other.
Since so many churches are invoking the name of Jesus to justify their assault on the rights of gay and transgender people, we invite thoughtful people everywhere to ask this simple question:
What would Jesus do?
The answer is not hard to find. One of the themes of Jesus' ministry was a recurring conflict with the Pharisees, a powerful group of legalistic religious leaders. The Pharisees were waiting for the Messiah to come, and they believed that would happen only when their entire nation became righteous. So, in their minds, anyone who failed to follow their particular set of rules was bringing down a curse on their nation and worthy of contempt.
Sound familiar?
The list of people despised by the Pharisees was long:


The Samaritans were considered religious heretics and ethnically impure.
Sick people were believed to be sinners whom God was punishing.
Women were deemed unworthy of discipleship.
Tax collectors and Roman soldiers were regarded as the enemy.
The poor, who had neither the time nor resources to maintain rigorous rites of religious purity, were thought to be beyond God's grace.

Jesus emphatically rejected each one of these prejudices. You can read the stories yourself in your own Bible. E.g., John 4:1-42; Luke 10:29-37; John 9:1-34; Luke 8:1-3; Matthew 11:16-19; Matthew 5:38-48; and Matthew 9:18-26.
A classic example is provided in Matthew 8 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+8:5-13). There, a Roman soldier asked Jesus to heal his "pais." This is a Greek term often used in ancient times to refer to a servant who was his master's same-sex partner. K.J. Cover, Greek Homosexuality (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978), p. 16. When the soldier said, "Lord, my 'partner' is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress," Jesus was immediately compassionate and spoke no words of exclusion or condemnation. He simply said, "I will come and heal him."
In the dialogue that followed, Jesus commended this Roman solider for having more faith than anyone he had ever met and assured him that he would sit down in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.By this miracle of healing, Jesus preserved this loving same-sex relationship. (For more information about the Greek term referred to above and how it should be translated, see the book (http://lifejourneychurch.cc/resource/free.html) recommended below.)
The Gospels are clear. Jesus refused to be bound by cultural prejudice. Repeatedly, he took up the cause of the oppressed and defended them against narrow-minded religious leaders.
A Simple History Lesson
Unfortunately, the Church has often failed to live up to Jesus' example. Too often in the past we have misused the Bible to justify discrimination, acting more like Pharisees than followers of Jesus. We now look back with shame on these incidents. Consider the following examples.


Slavery – Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God. . . . It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation. . . . It has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Women's Right To Vote – Justin Fulton, writing in 1869:

"Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class. There may be exceptions, but the majority prefer an infidel's cheer to the favor of God and the love of the Christian community. It is because of this tendency that the majority of those who contend for the ballot for woman cut loose from the legislation of Heaven, from the enjoyments of home, and drift to infidelity and ruin."
Interracial Marriage – a Virginia trial judge writing in 1959 in defense of laws prohibiting such marriages:

"Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."

For a fuller discussion of these historical examples, visit www.faithinamerica.com (http://www.faithinamerica.com)
Looking back, it's difficult to imagine that so many Christians could have defended such shameful discrimination. These examples ought to cause every thoughtful Christian to step back and think – is it possible we are repeating the same terrible mistake with gay and transgender people?


This:

Question: "What does the Bible say about racism, prejudice, and discrimination?"

Answer: The first thing to understand in this discussion is that there is only one race—the human race. Caucasians, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, and Jews are not different races. Rather, they are different ethnicities of the human race. All human beings have the same physical characteristics (with minor variations, of course). More importantly, all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%201.26-27)). God loved the world so much that He sent Jesus to lay down His life for us (John 3:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%203.16)). The “world” obviously includes all ethnic groups.

God does not show partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deuteronomy%2010.17); Acts 10:34 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2010.34); Romans 2:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%202.11); Ephesians 6:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%206.9)), and neither should we. James 2:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%202.4) describes those who discriminate as “judges with evil thoughts.” Instead, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (James 2:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%202.8)). In the Old Testament, God divided humanity into two “racial” groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations. Instead, for the most part, the Jews became proud of their status and despised the Gentiles. Jesus Christ put an end to this, destroying the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%202.14)). All forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are affronts to the work of Christ on the cross.

Jesus commands us to love one another as He loves us (John 13:34 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2013.34)). If God is impartial and loves us with impartiality, then we need to love others with that same high standard. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2025) that whatever we do to the least of His brothers, we do to Him. If we treat a person with contempt, we are mistreating a person created in God’s image; we are hurting somebody whom God loves and for whom Jesus died.

Racism, in varying forms and to various degrees, has been a plague on humanity for thousands of years. Brothers and sisters of all ethnicities, this should not be. Victims of racism, prejudice, and discrimination need to forgive. Ephesians 4:32 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%204.32) declares, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Racists may not deserve your forgiveness, but we deserved God’s forgiveness far less. Those who practice racism, prejudice, and discrimination need to repent. “Present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Romans 6:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%206.13)). May Galatians 3:28 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28) be completely realized, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Read more: What does the Bible say about racism, prejudice, and discrimination? (http://www.gotquestions.org/racism-Bible.html#ixzz2uO6FcT2S)



Last
Would Jesus Discriminate? - Biblical Evidence (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html)


Biblical evidence

Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?
As we grapple with this question, we will look at two sets of Scriptures: those that affirm gay and lesbian people, and those that are traditionally used to condemn gay people.
Affirmation in Scripture

On this web site we discuss five passages of Scripture that affirm gay people and their relationships.
These stories, which the writers of the Bible included under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are amazingly gay-positive. Odds are, you have never heard about these passages and their meaning for sexual minorities. The truth of these texts threatens some of our society’s deepest prejudices, and their positive messages are usually ignored. It is our hope they will bring comfort and refreshment to many.
Are there really only six?

Given how often some Christians preach against homosexuality, you would think there must be hundreds of Scriptures on the subject. In fact, there are only six traditional (negative) passages, and none of them speaks to the situation of twenty-first century gay people who desire to live in loving relationships with the blessing of God. On this web site, we carefully walk through each of these passages and document what they do and don't say.
Prejudice can influence how we read the Bible -- An example from the recent past.

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, young Huck’s father is thought to be dead, and a woman named Widow Douglas takes him in. Widow Douglas is portrayed as a kindly Christian who takes care of Huck out of goodness, with no thought of reimbursement. The Widow Douglas tries to “civilize” Huck, teaching him Bible stories and urging him to live a good life and pray often. She is a loving woman who studies her Bible and wants to always do the right thing. She is also a slave owner.
Later in the story, Huck runs away and happens upon Jim, a slave belonging to Widow Douglas’s sister, Miss Watson. The sister had intended to sell Jim to a trader in New Orleans. So, fearing he would never see his wife and children again, Jim runs away. He plans to escape to freedom, make some money, and buy his wife and children out of slavery. Huck and Jim’s adventures as they travel together down the Mississippi make up the rest of the book.
At every turn, Huck finds himself feeling guilty for “stealing” Miss Watson’s “property.” He believes he will go to hell for helping Jim escape, and it is clear his Christian education under Widow Douglas is part of the reason he believes this. For all her kindness and goodness, Widow Douglas reads the Bible the same way most of her friends do. She believes slavery is an institution approved by God. She probably believes all African Americans are descended from Ham and the curse recorded in Genesis 9:25-27 demonstrates why they deserve slavery. She sees nothing wrong with buying and selling people because her interpretation of the Bible tells her this is the proper role of those of European descent. In short, she allows her prejudices to mold the way she reads the Bible.
This may seem like an extreme example. Only the most bigoted Christian would argue today that the Bible endorses slavery or that Genesis 9:25-27 is a curse against Africans. But Huck’s story illustrates how thoroughly we are creatures of our culture and how that culture can create prejudices that get in the way of what God wants to teach us.
The information on this site will challenge some of the deepest prejudices of our culture, prejudices that even gay people have often internalized. We will look at Scriptures that dispute some of our most deeply held beliefs, and we must be willing to let God move. In the end, our response will decide if our prejudices mold the Bible, or if we are willing to let the Bible mold us.
The good news at the end of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is that Miss Watson, who always felt guilty for almost selling Jim, freed him in her will. Perhaps she was able to read the Bible with a fresh perspective. Perhaps she listened to the tugging of God’s Spirit on her soul. Whatever the cause, she and Jim were both finally free.
As you read the pages of this web site, try to set aside any prejudices you may have about the subject. Listen to the Spirit of God speaking through these Scriptures. And perhaps you, like Miss Watson and Jim, will be freed.
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/assets/images/billboard-images/th-wjd-billboard-affirmed.jpg (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html) Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Matthew 8:5-13 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html)

The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html).

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/assets/images/billboard-images/th-wjd-billboard-ruth-naomi.jpg (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html) Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. Genesis 2:24, Ruth 1:14 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html)

The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are suppose to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned. And throughout Christian history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html).

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/assets/images/billboard-images/th-wjd-billboard-born-gay.jpg (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html) Jesus said some are born gay. Matthew 19:10-12 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html)

Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html).

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/assets/images/billboard-images/th-wjd-billboard-early-church.jpg (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html) The early church welcomed a gay man. Acts 8:26-40 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html)

In the ancient world, eunuchs were widely associated with homosexuality. Here a self-avowed eunuch is welcomed in to the early church without any concerns about his sexual orientation. He was welcomed on the same basis as other people -- his faith in Jesus Christ. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html).

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/assets/images/billboard-images/th-wjd-billboard-david-jonathan.jpg (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/david_jonathan.html) David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/david_jonathan.html)

At Jonathan’s funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman. This is just one of several Bible passages that describe and celebrate an intense love between these two men that went well beyond friendship. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/david_jonathan.html).
Idol Worship and Rejection of God. Romans 1:21-28 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/romans_1_21.html)

In these verses, Paul condemns idol worshippers and God haters. According to Paul, these “God haters” experiment with gay sex only as a way of seeking new thrills or in cultic worship. Clearly, he is not speaking about innately gay and lesbian people, who love God and want to honor God while living with integrity as who they are. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/romans_1_21.html).

Israel's Holiness Code. Leviticus 18 and 20 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/leviticus.html)

The chapters that contain these verses are clearly identified as speaking against practices involved in cultic idol worship. The entire passages are generally accepted as not applying to modern Christian life. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/leviticus.html).

Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 19 & Jude 7 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html)

The Genesis 19 account of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story of attempted gang rape of two "outsiders." It says nothing about loving gay relationships, and actually condemns the sort of violence sometimes done to gays and lesbians. Jude 7 talks about a first century Jewish legend that the women of Sodom had sex with male angels. Since it is about heterosexual sex between angels and humans, it clearly has nothing to do with gay relationships. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html).

No Fems? No Fairies? I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10 (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html)

The words often translated "effeminate" and “homosexual” in these passages are obscure and difficult to translate. The first word identifies someone who is morally weak, and has nothing to do with nellie gay men. The second word probably means “people who use power to obtain sex,” though the word is so rare that a confident translation is impossible. Neither word refers specifically to gay men or lesbians. Get more information (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html).

What I have found in relation to whether Jesus hates gays is people citing the Old Testament and they are referring to God. Well the Old Testament just a bunch of guys on a power trip trying to tell you what you can and cannot do. Seems it is very hard to find something that can be attributed directly to Jesus.


Quite obviously the Center for Arizona Policy and their members are Pharisees intent on using religion as a excuse to foster their beliefs on society in general and to give them cover to legally discriminate against anyone now or in the future.

The is the same stupid thing as the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma. It belongs there because of it's historical and "religious" significance. Fine, but watch out for that huge Pandora's Box that you are going to open when others want to use the same instruments, for their purposes, that you used.

As I said I don't believe in God/Jesus and therefore am not bound by his teachings although common sense tells me discrimination is wrong. However, those who call themselves Christian are bound to his teachings when they say they follow Jesus and his Gospel. To do anything different is to behave like Peter when he denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed.

Gun Grape
26 Feb 14,, 03:06
Religious minorities are a protected class, yet Kosher is not required to be on the menu... Why do gay get cakes on demand?

Because cakes were on the menu.

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 03:14
To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical record that Jesus actually ever did anything including, you know, exist.

antimony the response below is an edited version of a response I wrote on another forum to this same question.

If the standard of proof required for historical validity is solely based upon the existence of contemporary evidence then for most figures in classical history we have a problem because there is a paucity of such records. In general the availability (and quantity) of contemporary historical evidence re: the birth/death/actions of various figures increases as the era they lived in approaches the modern age. So while for instance I can almost certainly prove that Napoleon was real person using the standard of proof you propose I can't prove that someone like say Sun Tzu existed.

In fact with the exception of a few key figures from that period (e.g. mostly famous generals or kings etc ) almost no historical figure from the time will have contemporary records that prove they existed. Do we then remove some of the great and almost all minor figures of antiquity from the History Books because we can't 'prove' they existed? In Christ's case his impact on history did not even begin to become apparent until many decades after his death so the non existence of contemporary records dating from his life is hardly surprising. At the time of his death in an obscure Roman province he was after all just a carpenter and common criminal! How many farmers and craftsmen from the period do you know of via contemporary records?

Consider someone as famous as Plato for instance. Can you 'prove' that Plato existed or do we have to remove him from History? For the record historians are uncertain as to Plato's exact place and date of birth as well as to circumstances of his death. There are is an extensive body or written work ascribed to him but no original manuscripts written in his hand exist today and we have no known burial site/crypt to examine so direct proof of his existence is out of the question. Plato does refer to some of his contemporaries in his writings but most of the surviving references to his work come from later authors and errors/additions could have occurred over time. (Sound familiar? ) According to your rules then does this mean Plato never existed?

Finally the methods and techniques applied by Historians when studying and writing history is known as historiography. These methods include the use of primary sources where they exist and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology. Like it or not the existence of Christ as a historical figure is generally regarded as having passed these tests. As a result you can't write just him off as a fairy tale because you may not like what other people say or do in his name, question his divinity - go for it if you want, question his existence as historical figure? almost certainly not.

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 04:12
What I have found in relation to whether Jesus hates gays is people citing the Old Testament and they are referring to God. Well the Old Testament just a bunch of guys on a power trip trying to tell you what you can and cannot do. [/LEFT]

Actually it was a bit more complex than that. Read the relevant texts in detail and you quickly realize that a lot of the rabbinical laws have a direct effect on such things as maintaining public health, reducing incest and maintaining public order/reducing feuds and vendettas etc . All of which would have been of vital importance to close knit nomadic tribes under constant threat of attack from their neighbors.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 04:38
antimony the response below is an edited version of a response I wrote on another forum to this same question.


You mentioned a bunch of names. How many billions of people live and die in their names?

Jesus is different. Extraordinary claims have been made in his name, based on deeds that he supposed to have done or words he supposedly said. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 04:41
He is as real as any figure from antiquity can be.

For someone whose name has caused so much violence and grief, that is not good enough.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 04:44
The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX - Wikisource, the free online library (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_9)
The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 15 - Wikisource, the free online library (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15#44)

This is all we have? An account of someone who would have been born after Jesus died?

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 05:08
You mentioned a bunch of names. How many billions of people live and die in their names?

Jesus is different. Extraordinary claims have been made in his name, based on deeds that he supposed to have done or words he supposedly said. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof

antimony. The claims you are referring to were made about Jesus after his death. You are confusing the deeds and actions attributed to him with the question of whether or not he existed at all. These two factors are entirely separate issues and Historians treat them as such. In order to be regarded as a historical figure someone must pass the various rules/tests that Historians apply in their field of expertise and they apply those measures equally to everyone. You don't like it? Take it up with the Historians your beef is with them, not me.

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 05:12
This is all we have? An account of someone who would have been born after Jesus died?

Sigh! See my previous re; Plato. Most of the time with history that is ALL you get. Someone writing about someone else after they have died. What do you want for Gods sake a Polaroid of Caesar crossing the Rubicon?

tbm3fan
26 Feb 14,, 05:21
Actually it was a bit more complex than that. Read the relevant texts in detail and you quickly realize that a lot of the rabbinical laws have a direct effect on such things as maintaining public health, reducing incest and maintaining public/reducing the feuds and vendettas etc . All of which would have been of vital importance to close knit nomadic tribes under constant threat of attack from their neighbors.

Ok, granted that would be most likely.

However, none of that matters in the overall context of whether God actually disapproved of gays. Since we all know the Old Testament was written by prophets who claim to have had visions or talked to God. For all I know they could have been high on something at the time and some may have called them the Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard or David Koresh of their times.

Once Jesus comes onto the scene then things start to change. Of course, if Jesus was real or not matters little to me as I am a non-believer. Yet, for those who are religious, then Jesus is very real to them whether there is historical proof or not. Since he is very real to them then they should behave like he proscribed. Seems pretty simple to me in that you either accept him and what he says or not with no in between.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 05:51
antimony. The claims you are referring to were made about Jesus after his death. You are confusing the deeds and actions attributed to him with the question of whether or not he existed at all. These two factors are entirely separate issues and Historians treat them as such. In order to be regarded as a historical figure someone must pass the various rules/tests that Historians apply in their field of expertise and they apply those measures equally to everyone. You don't like it? Take it up with the Historians your beef is with them, not me.

What makes you think I have any beef with you :confused:

Anyway, I don't see how the existence of Jesus can be separated from a belief in him. We have a god like figure who came down to earth and promised humanity salvation in his name.

I can disbelieve in Plato, Aristotle or even modern figures like Gandhi, MLK and Mandela but as long as I believe in their principles, I am benefiting from their existence and their work. Not so with Jesus, it is not enough that I follow his codes of behavior. I have to specifically believe in him t lead me to salvation. Hence I must believe that he existed, strongly. Yet, there is feeble historical evidence of him, much less any real evidence of the extraordinary deeds associated with him.

And yet, we treat his supposed teachings with enough reverence to use them as a discriminatory tool.

Jesus Discriminates, This I Know, For the Bible Tells Me So*|*Stefanie Williams (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefanie-williams/arizona-religious-freedom-bill_b_4834571.html)

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 05:53
Ok, granted that would be most likely.

However, none of that matters in the overall context of whether God actually disapproved of gays. Since we all know the Old Testament was written by prophets who claim to have had visions or talked to God. For all I know they could have been high on something at the time and some may have called them the Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard or David Koresh of their times.

Once Jesus comes onto the scene then things start to change. Of course, if Jesus was real or not matters little to me as I am a non-believer. Yet, for those who are religious, then Jesus is very real to them whether there is historical proof or not. Since he is very real to them then they should behave like he proscribed. Seems pretty simple to me in that you either accept him and what he says or not with no in between.

Quoting Jesus to support a prohibition on homosexuality is fraught with risk, whether you are a believer or not simply because as far as we aware he didn't address the topic. As for the Levitical prohibition as I noted there was/are contextual issues at play that may or may not be relevant now. Of course if some of the fundamentalists I have read about really want to push that bandwagon then they can't pick and choose. You either impose all the rabbinical laws or none of them - you don't get to choose one and ignore the rest.

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 06:08
[QUOTE=antimony;952887]I can disbelieve in Plato, Aristotle or even modern figures like Gandhi, MLK and Mandela but as long as I believe in their principles, I am benefiting from their existence and their work. Not so with Jesus, it is not enough that I follow his codes of behavior. I have to specifically believe in him t lead me to salvation. Hence I must believe that he existed, strongly. Yet, there is feeble historical evidence of him, much less any real evidence of the extraordinary deeds associated with him.[QUOTE]

Now I'm confused. How can you believe/follow someones 'principles' if you don't believe they existed in the first place and their words are fiction?? I could follow the Star Fleet Academy Handbook as my guiding text but ultimately I'll look pretty silly if I did.

[QUOTE=antimony;952887]And yet, we treat his supposed teachings with enough reverence to use them as a discriminatory tool.[QUOTE]

No, only some people, not everyone and not all the time. I can choose to kill someone with an axe even though that was not its intended purpose. Christ's teachings to the extent they are 'used' at all can be used to justify almost any action you want provided you are prepared to apply selective editing and take the relevant portions out of context. And whats more you can do the same thing with virtually any historical text, work of fiction or instruction manual - the guys at Chernobyl didn't get it wrong because they were going by the book. Humans are good at self justification, it's part of the reason we #*%K up so constantly.

Officer of Engineers
26 Feb 14,, 06:23
I can disbelieve in Plato, Aristotle or even modern figures like Gandhi, MLK and Mandela but as long as I believe in their principles, I am benefiting from their existence and their work. Not so with Jesus, it is not enough that I follow his codes of behavior. I have to specifically believe in him t lead me to salvation. Hence I must believe that he existed, strongly. Yet, there is feeble historical evidence of him, much less any real evidence of the extraordinary deeds associated with him.I'm lost. Your belief in him as the Son of God is completely different than challenging the historic record whether he lived or not. To the Romans, he was nothing more than a carpenter who ran afoul of the local priests, certainly, not the Son of God to Pontius Pilate whom we have documented proof that he lived and was in Judea at the time.

There is no historic proof that Jesus did the godly things he did but there is ample historic proof that he did lived.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 07:09
Now I'm confused. How can you believe/follow someones 'principles' if you don't believe they existed in the first place and their words are fiction?? I could make the follow the Star Fleet Academy Handbook my guiding text but ultimately I'll look pretty silly if I do.


Is the existence of Gandhi necessary for peaceful nonviolent movements. Can someone apply Aristotle's method without being aware of him?



No some people, not everyone and not all the time. I can choose to kill someone with an axe even though that was not its intended purpose. Christ's teachings to the extent they are used at all can be used to justify almost any action you want provided you are prepared to apply selective editing and take the relevant portions out of context. And whats more you can do the same thing with virtually any historical text, work of fiction or instruction manual - the guys at Chernobyl didn't get it wrong because they were going by the book. Humans are good at self justification, it's part of the reason we #*%K up so constantly.

Why single out Christ? Religion has been used for corrupt reasons across geographies and timelines.

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 07:11
I'm lost. Your belief in him as the Son of God is completely different than challenging the historic record whether he lived or not. To the Romans, he was nothing more than a carpenter who ran afoul of the local priests, certainly, not the Son of God to Pontius Pilate whom we have documented proof that he lived and was in Judea at the time.

There is no historic proof that Jesus did the godly things he did but there is ample historic proof that he did lived.

1. Where is this documented proof you speak of?

2. If there is no historic proof that Jesus did godly things then why make him god?

Bigfella
26 Feb 14,, 08:39
There is something about the issue of homosexuality that acts like a 'bad example generator'. Pretty much every time this sort of topic comes up it happens.


Not serving Kosher amounts to the exact same thing as these cake cases.

Gunny has already dealt with this. The appropriate comparison is if you sell cakes but refuse to sell one to someone for Hanukkah because their religion doesn't like Judaism. This is about refusing to offer a service you already offer to someone because they offend your religion.

Another case relating to this is a photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding (technically some sort of commitment ceremony I imagine). The comparison here would be somebody who refuses to photograph an interracial marriage or even a secular, non-church wedding.



There are multiple religious sects in the US that require female members to go with some sort of head covering.

Yes. I know. It should be illegal for a business run by someone from one of those faiths to refuse to serve a woman with an uncovered face.


Actual discrimination is using lawyers to target religious individuals for destruction because they choose to remain true to their faith. It was wrong t deny gays marriage and its wrong to target the devout for financial ruin out of revenge.

Being devout isn't a free pass run a discriminatory business. As I said before, if the 'devout' people here were being sued for refusing to serve blacks based on some interpretation of their faith this legislation wouldn't exist.


In SC recently a well known racist died. He was a Barbecue restaurant owners. He famously had a sign in his window- the law makes us serve ******s but every dime from them goes to the KKK. Should those with religious views do the same- the law makes us serve gays, but every dime from them goes for conversion therapy

If they wish.

Monash
26 Feb 14,, 09:29
Is the existence of Gandhi necessary for peaceful nonviolent movements. Can someone apply Aristotle's method without being aware of him?
Why single out Christ? Religion has been used for corrupt reasons across geographies and timelines.

1) Yes the existence of a person who first puts forward a proposition IS essential to its application. You can't apply a system, method or idea if it isn't proposed by someone in the first place. The reason I have Pirelli tyres on my car is that someone invented the wheel. They didn't suddenly materialize out of this air! Gandhi had to synthesize and spread his ideas, if he didn't you wouldn't be able to apply them. If Aristotle didn't exist the fact that you might be receptive to his ideas is irrelevant.

2) I didn't single out Christ, you did. You made his historical existence an issue in the context of a discussion about the biblical context of Arizona's anti-gay legislation. During the course of this discussion I pointed out that as far as we were aware this was a topic upon which Christ himself was largely mute! (The Old Testament being the texts used to justify anti-gay rhetoric by certain people.)

3) Yes all religions have been used to justify unjustifiable acts. So has nationalism, socialism, (all the other ism's), racial stereotyping, manifest destiny, political expediency, progress, 'business', science and for that matter virtually every other human form of endeavor. So why single out religion as the big baddie?

Officer of Engineers
26 Feb 14,, 11:10
1. Where is this documented proof you speak of?The oral histories of both Christian and non-Christian sources. We found a plaque of Pontius Pilate with his title signifying that he was the Roman Official in Judea at the time of the cruxification.


2. If there is no historic proof that Jesus did godly things then why make him god?Christians made him the Son of God, no one else did. Most certainly, not the Romans at the time. But that is nothing out of the ordinary. Ancient kings, including Alexander the Great, claimed to be gods themselves and up until modern times, all Monarchs, claimed the mandates of heaven. In fact, some still do today.

Albany Rifles
26 Feb 14,, 14:44
Again, to those who claim the Bible as the absolute true words as spoken by Jesus Christ.....a 4th Century Aramaic transcription has survived verbatim and 100% accurate through the varied languages of the world since that time and is absolutely correct in the 21st Centurt King James Bible?

Really?

Not buying it.

astralis
26 Feb 14,, 14:49
dammit AR, i have it on good authority that jesus christ will be coming back with an AR-15 in hand!

Doktor
26 Feb 14,, 16:01
dammit AR, i have it on good authority that jesus christ will be coming back with an AR-15 in hand!

Is this some Mexican Jesus?

astralis
26 Feb 14,, 16:40
doktor,


Is this some Mexican Jesus?

how dare you blaspheme our Lord as an illegal immigrant!

Ex-general William Boykin predicts Jesus will return to Earth carrying an AR-15 - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2014/02/20/Former-US-general-When-Jesus-comes-back-hell-be-carrying-an-AR-15/2301392907371/)

Wooglin
26 Feb 14,, 16:47
doktor,



how dare you blaspheme our Lord as an illegal immigrant!

Ex-general William Boykin predicts Jesus will return to Earth carrying an AR-15 - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2014/02/20/Former-US-general-When-Jesus-comes-back-hell-be-carrying-an-AR-15/2301392907371/)

:eek:

Surely you meant to say, "undocumented savior"

;)

Doktor
26 Feb 14,, 16:53
doktor,



how dare you blaspheme our Lord as an illegal immigrant!

Ex-general William Boykin predicts Jesus will return to Earth carrying an AR-15 - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2014/02/20/Former-US-general-When-Jesus-comes-back-hell-be-carrying-an-AR-15/2301392907371/)

I only asked because the Jesus Christ the God's son has averse to violence. Or so I have been told.

BTW, how dare you to say Jesus will be illegal in the In God We Trust land?

Triple C
26 Feb 14,, 17:03
Antimony,

WRT Jesus, there's always the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus). According to the footnotes, Josephus and Tacitus both recorded the crucifixion as an event. Neither disputed that Jesus the man existed. What were his teachings are often disputed by scholars of Christianity and Antiquity as well as various Christian sects at the time, many of whom had different versions of the gospel. It's a long time since Roman Civ II in college, but I do recall the existence of Jesus was a non-issue.

Triple C
26 Feb 14,, 17:08
I only asked because the Jesus Christ the God's son has averse to violence. Or so I have been told.

BTW, how dare you to say Jesus will be illegal in the In God We Trust land?

Doktor,
A middle-eastern looking man showing up in the country with a AR-15 on a white horse splattered in blood?

Agnostic Muslim
26 Feb 14,, 17:16
In this extremely Jewish area, there are dozens of places that aren't kosher and Jews can't eat in them. So what happens now? Will these restaurants be forced to suddenly go through a drastic, extremely expensive change just so if a Jew wants to eat in that establishment, the option will be available to them?

In the example you provided, businesses are providing certain services (Kosher or non-Kosher - their choice) - the issue here is not the 'kind/type' of services provided by the business (there is an associated discussion on the 'kinds/types' of services provided by businesses that is also being played out, but I'll leave that for later), the issue is whether or not those businesses provide those services to everyone (irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc). The discussion over the rights of businesses to refuse service to homosexual individuals on the basis of religious beliefs is, IMO, strongly analogous to segregationist laws/policies/attitudes in the past, provided we are not still arguing over 'homosexuality is a choice'.

Doktor
26 Feb 14,, 17:21
Doktor,
A middle-eastern looking man showing up in the country with a AR-15 on a white horse splattered in blood?

How is a ME white horse supposed to arrive in USA? On top of it to pass the border with armed horseman?

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 18:22
1) Yes the existence of a person who first puts forward a proposition IS essential to its application. You can't apply a system, method or idea if it isn't proposed by someone in the first place. The reason I have Pirelli tyres on my car is that someone invented the wheel. They didn't suddenly materialize out of this air! Gandhi had to synthesize and spread his ideas, if he didn't you wouldn't be able to apply them. If Aristotle didn't exist the fact that you might be receptive to his ideas is irrelevant.


Do you know or care who invented the wheel? Do you know the method of Aristotle to be true and applicable?

You know where I am going with this. Of course someone came up with these ideas. But the historical accuracy surrounding the inventor/ philosopher is irrelevant in applying said idea.

Not so with Christianity. It is not enough that I follow Christian code of morals. I have to believe in the existence of Christ as a historical figure as well as in him being the son of god, in order to be Christian. And given his existence itself is on shaky grounds, it is weird to me that teaching attributed to him would be taken with any measure of seriousness in this day and age.


If Aristotle didn't exist the fact that you might be receptive to his ideas is irrelevant.


If his ideas work, why do I care if he existed or not?



2) I didn't single out Christ, you did. You made his historical existence an issue in the context of a discussion about the biblical context of Arizona's anti-gay legislation.


And tomorrow, when the town with all Councillors belonging to the Cult of the Celestial Teapot decree that the townspeople shall not socialize with heretical coffee drinkers, I will be up in arms against them too.


During the course of this discussion I pointed out that as far as we were aware this was a topic upon which Christ himself was largely mute! (The Old Testament being the texts used to justify anti-gay rhetoric by certain people.)


Yeah, about that


Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.



Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



Timothy 1:10
the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[a] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[b] doctrine,




3) Yes all religions have been used to justify unjustifiable acts. So has nationalism, socialism, (all the other ism's), racial stereotyping, manifest destiny, political expediency, progress, 'business', science and for that matter virtually every other human form of endeavor. So why single out religion as the big baddie?

Come on, you do not need me to tell you that that is a fallacy. The opposite of blind religious dogma or ideology is not any other blind ideology (the isms you talk about). It is open rational thought, logic and empathy. Also, for any other ism (except possibly fascism) it is clearly said that one must hate or not associate with some groups in order not to burn in hell for eternity?

GVChamp
26 Feb 14,, 18:44
The discussion over the rights of businesses to refuse service to homosexual individuals on the basis of religious beliefs is, IMO, strongly analogous to segregationist laws/policies/attitudes in the past, provided we are not still arguing over 'homosexuality is a choice'.

And per the law, private actors of any kind are allowed to refuse service on the basis of race. What they are NOT allowed to do is impose an unburden on interstate commerce, which has been interpreted as not permitted refusing service based on race.
Nit-picking?
No.
They are two entirely different powers with different results. A government empowered to restrict discrimination can only restrict discrimination. A government empowered to regulate interstate commerce under vague rules has the power to do whatever it wants.
In regards to "what's on the menu": if the government were actually empowered to restrict discrmination, it could not force you to offer Kosher food. But that's not what the government does. The government is empowered to do anything it wants provided it can make a case that it substantially affects interstate commerce.
So, yes, the government can order your restaraunt to serve kosher food if it believes it affects interstate commerce.
Case example: ConLaw in chief and 4 robed justices believe that health insurers can be required to "expand their menu" to suit public health needs. This was not ruled unconstitutional, only the mandate was.
I do not see how baking a wedding cake is an issue for interstate commerce. But I am not aware of any federal cases that pertain to wedding cakes directly. What the government probably would say is that the bakery buys flour from New Mexico or has a credit line with JP Morgan Chase and therefore is engaged in interstate commerce.
Way too expansive a reading for my tastes.

You do not necessarily require legal rules to require integration. Private clubs are immune from Title II rules, but many private organizations have integrated anyways, both by gender and by race. Even some religious organzations have taken to ordaining female ministers. I am more interested in restricting government authority than ensuring social equality (which, as far as I am concerned, is a fictional goal anyways).

Officer of Engineers
26 Feb 14,, 18:46
Not so with Christianity. It is not enough that I follow Christian code of morals. I have to believe in the existence of Christ as a historical figure as well as in him being the son of god, in order to be Christian. And given his existence itself is on shaky grounds, it is weird to me that teaching attributed to him would be taken with any measure of seriousness in this day and age.I am not following your reasoning. For you to be a Christian, you have to believe in Christ as the Son of God (we're all Sons of God btw). That is the definition of Christianity. The same thing for Buddhism. For you to believe in Buddha, you have to believe that Buddha came up with his teachings.

The Eygtians called their pharodes, gods. Archilles was believed to be the son of Zeus. Up until the Russian Revolution, Monarchs ruled by the right of God.

What are you getting at?

antimony
26 Feb 14,, 19:48
I am not following your reasoning. For you to be a Christian, you have to believe in Christ as the Son of God (we're all Sons of God btw). That is the definition of Christianity. The same thing for Buddhism. For you to believe in Buddha, you have to believe that Buddha came up with his teachings.

The Eygtians called their pharodes, gods. Archilles was believed to be the son of Zeus. Up until the Russian Revolution, Monarchs ruled by the right of God.

What are you getting at?

I should have thought it was clear enough.

To be a Christian, I have to believe not only in the historical existence of Jesus (personally, I am agnostic to his existence) but also that the miracles and supernatural deeds ascribed to him positively happened. He is the savior, and without him, his teachings are actually useless (unlike the wheel which I can use regardless of my knowledge of who invented it)

So to be a Christian, I have to believe that his mother was a virgin at birth, he turned water into wine and rose from the dead. Do we have historical, non religious sources that convincingly attest to any of this?

If not, then what is the basis of the Christian faith in today's world, apart from the obviously biased Bible? And yet, this faith is used for discrimination.

Do you see now what I am getting at?

Also, in my view, all religions spread this type of poison around, so I am not singling out Christianity, except in the context of this particular thread.

Agnostic Muslim
26 Feb 14,, 19:53
And per the law, private actors of any kind are allowed to refuse service on the basis of race. What they are NOT allowed to do is impose an unburden on interstate commerce, which has been interpreted as not permitted refusing service based on race.
Nit-picking?
No.

I completely agree with the distinction you pointed out (and the impact of how the commerce clause will be interpreted in such cases) - it is a valid one and certainly not 'nit-picking', but at the same time I think it is important to highlight how the behavior exhibited by the bakery owner is analogous to racism towards blacks (for example) to put the behavior in perspective and not allow proponents of discrimination to hide behind 'religious rights'.


In regards to "what's on the menu": if the government were actually empowered to restrict discrmination, it could not force you to offer Kosher food. But that's not what the government does. The government is empowered to do anything it wants provided it can make a case that it substantially affects interstate commerce.
So, yes, the government can order your restaraunt to serve kosher food if it believes it affects interstate commerce.
Case example: ConLaw in chief and 4 robed justices believe that health insurers can be required to "expand their menu" to suit public health needs. This was not ruled unconstitutional, only the mandate was.

The above is part of the 'associated discussion on the kinds/types of goods and services offered by businesses' that I did not want to delve into at this point, but, again, no disagreements on my end with the gist of your comment.

Officer of Engineers
26 Feb 14,, 19:58
I should have thought it was clear enough.

To be a Christian, I have to believe not only in the historical existence of Jesus (personally, I am agnostic to his existence) but also that the miracles and supernatural deeds ascribed to him positively happened. He is the savior, and without him, his teachings are actually useless (unlike the wheel which I can use regardless of my knowledge of who invented it)Again, I don't see your point. To be a CHRISTian, you have to believe that CHRIST is the Son of God. If you're not a Christian, who cares what the Christians say about Christ?


If not, then what is the basis of the Christian faith in today's world, apart from the obviously biased Bible? And yet, this faith is used for discrimination.And your point is?

We don't allow Mayan Human Sacrafices but to them, it's the norm. Religion has been the basis of civilization since day 1.


Do you see now what I am getting at?No, I don't. The US is a Christian nation whether you like it or not. It is a simple historic fact that this country is founded by Christians who believed in the teachings of Christ ... and that includes all their bigotry, inherited or otherwise. Yes, it's getting more secular but to deny that bigotry is to deny the history of the US itself. The bigotry has to be confronted, understood, and at times, left alone.

I do not want gays in my house and no government can ever forced me to accept one. But that does not mean that I won't work with them or even break bread with them ... just not in my house.

Albany Rifles
26 Feb 14,, 20:35
I should have thought it was clear enough.

To be a Christian, I have to believe not only in the historical existence of Jesus (personally, I am agnostic to his existence) but also that the miracles and supernatural deeds ascribed to him positively happened. He is the savior, and without him, his teachings are actually useless (unlike the wheel which I can use regardless of my knowledge of who invented it)

So to be a Christian, I have to believe that his mother was a virgin at birth, he turned water into wine and rose from the dead. Do we have historical, non religious sources that convincingly attest to any of this?

If not, then what is the basis of the Christian faith in today's world, apart from the obviously biased Bible? And yet, this faith is used for discrimination.

Do you see now what I am getting at?

Also, in my view, all religions spread this type of poison around, so I am not singling out Christianity, except in the context of this particular thread.

Antimony,

You interpretation is one view of Christianity. We Christians all take one thing at face value...that Christ walked the Earth and is the Son of God.

Did He perform true miracles or were they parables for good works performed which made Him standout against others at the time?

If you locked a Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Presbytarian, Anglican, Coptic Christian, Eastern Orthodox, African Methodist Episcopalian, Seventh-Day Adventists, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Pentacostal, Quaker, Menonite and a Shaker all in a room, you may end up with a few divergent views of what a Christian is and what the answer is to the question I just posited.

Albany Rifles
26 Feb 14,, 20:35
dammit AR, i have it on good authority that jesus christ will be coming back with an AR-15 in hand!

Love me some LTC Bateman!!!

Albany Rifles
26 Feb 14,, 20:37
Doktor,
A middle-eastern looking man showing up in the country with a AR-15 on a white horse splattered in blood?

Negative....everyone knows Christ has flowing light brown hair and has Anglo-Saxon features!

bigross86
26 Feb 14,, 23:22
To both the Gunny and to Antimony: Let's change the situation a bit.

The laws of Kashrut (something being Kosher) have varying levels. There is regular Kosher, which most Orthodox Jews will accept, there are several Kashrut authorities that Orthodox Judaism won't eat, but Reform/Conservative will, and there is Glatt Kosher, which is the only thing the Ultra-Orthodox will eat.

So now imagine this situation: A Kosher restaurant, catering to Modern Orthodox Jews, is visited by an Ultra-Orthodox family that doesn't accept the regular Kashrut and demands Glatt meals. To the restaurant owner, regular Kosher is enough, but to the Ultra-Orthodox, anything less than Glatt is not Kosher.

So, based on your reasoning, is the restaurant owner in the clear, or can the Ultra-Orthodox family sue the owner because he claimed that he provided a service to Jews, supplying them with Kosher food, but based on his religious beliefs, doesn't feel the need to supply certain Jews with the level of kashrut that they desire because he doesn't believe in it?

Gun Grape
27 Feb 14,, 02:13
Are we just looking for a "Gotcha" scenario?

The first question would be, Does the Kosher restaurant have on its menu/ regularly serve meals to the regular Kosher standard or do they advertise/regularly make Kashrut Kosher food?

If the norm is "Regular Standard" than No the Orthodox Family cannot sue. You cannot compel a business to do something/provide a service that they do not normally provide.

Thats where the cake lady and the photographer crossed the line. They denied a service that they advertise and normally provide to customers.

How hard is that to understand?

troung
27 Feb 14,, 02:41
How hard is that to understand?

Because they are gay and I have a right to express my distaste to them by overt discrimination :mad:.

Gun Grape
27 Feb 14,, 03:38
Gov Brewer Vetoed the Bill

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062, controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)


"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes," she said. "However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.
"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination."

Albany Rifles
27 Feb 14,, 03:46
The Blind Nut finds the Squirrel.

antimony
27 Feb 14,, 04:20
Again, I don't see your point. To be a CHRISTian, you have to believe that CHRIST is the Son of God. If you're not a Christian, who cares what the Christians say about Christ?


When you live in a land where far right/ Christian lawmakers try to shape public policy to match their beliefs, you have to start caring.



No, I don't. The US is a Christian nation whether you like it or not. It is a simple historic fact that this country is founded by Christians who believed in the teachings of Christ ... and that includes all their bigotry, inherited or otherwise. Yes, it's getting more secular but to deny that bigotry is to deny the history of the US itself. The bigotry has to be confronted, understood, and at times, left alone.


What is a Christian nation? Is it a Legal or a cultural concept?

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document, without any reference to Christianity or Jesus Christ. The Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.

And about the Founding Fathers. Yes, many were Christians, but some of the really prominent ones were also deist. More importantly, they consciously left Christianity and religion out of the very framing document they based the new nation upon. In the Treaty of Tripoli the US Govt. stated this secular convention quite clearly:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]

So no, I respectfully disagree.



I do not want gays in my house and no government can ever forced me to accept one. But that does not mean that I won't work with them or even break bread with them ... just not in my house.

On your individual space and property, whatever floats your boat. When you are in the public sphere, I don't see why you should be able to do that.

Officer of Engineers
27 Feb 14,, 04:47
When you live in a land where far right/ Christian lawmakers try to shape public policy to match their beliefs, you have to start caring.I was in a country where a grandmother had the right to throw her granddaughter to the pimps just because she was of a different ethnic background. I was also in a country where they take offense to the point of throwing your ass in jail if you were working instead of praying at certain times of the day.

I find it no different than Americans trying to enforce their ways of life.

Just as we do not accept pedophiles, certain Americans do not want to accept gays and pedophiles are listed throughout history. Americans have the right to demand of what they want from their governments, even if you don't like it.


What is a Christian nation? Is it a Legal or a cultural concept?Whatever the Americans decide it to be but I am speaking from a historic perspective.


The U.S. Constitution is a secular document, without any reference to Christianity or Jesus Christ. The Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.A piece of paper does not erase 2000 years of history of Christian cultural influence starting from Rome to the Protestant Church. The Americans are most certainly not Islamic/Buddisht/Taoist/Confusicius influenced. You are trying to ignore the fundamental history of the people and her Christian culture.


And about the Founding Fathers. Yes, many were Christians, but some of the really prominent ones were also deist. More importantly, they consciously left Christianity and religion out of the very framing document they based the new nation upon. In the Treaty of Tripoli the US Govt. stated this secular convention quite clearly:So did Kublai Khan.


So no, I respectfully disagree.Fine but I still don't get your point. Americans don't have the right to ask for what they want? Even with respect to their religious beliefs?


On your individual space and property, whatever floats your boat. When you are in the public sphere, I don't see why you should be able to do that.Simple. I hate the asshole and I don't want to do business with him, even if he comes asking.

Gun Grape
27 Feb 14,, 05:30
A piece of paper does not erase 2000 years of history of Christian cultural influence starting from Rome to the Protestant Church. The Americans are most certainly not Islamic/Buddisht/Taoist/Confusicius influenced. You are trying to ignore the fundamental history of the people and her Christian culture.


But Sir,
The Pediment on the Eastern Facade of the Supreme Court Building built in 1935 has what are considered representations of where we derived our laws The 3 law givers depicted are Moses, Confucius and Solon.

The Frieze in the courtroom depict Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

And while Moses is depicted holding the 10 Commandments, only 6-10 (the Secular ones) are visible.

Up until the 1950s we had no problem being a secular nation. It took the Cold War and labeling our enemy as "Godlesss Communist B#$tards" for religion to gain the prominence it has now. Cause "Real Americans had to be Christians." Only Communist were secular.

Thats when we got Prayer in school, one nation "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we trust" and replaced E Pluribus Unum with "In God we Trust" as a National Motto. We even put it on all our money

Officer of Engineers
27 Feb 14,, 05:40
GS,

Then, why Christianity? Why not Islam? Why not Confusinism? Why not Hammarabist? Why was Christainity so easily adopted? I am not arguing the rights and wrongs here but the simple historic fact that the US was made by Christians and the influence of Christainity cannot ... and must not be dismissed.

Monash
27 Feb 14,, 07:56
Do you know or care who invented the wheel? Do you know the method of Aristotle to be true and applicable? [QUOTE=antimony;952958]

The wheel still has to have been invented by someone, even if we don't know who. The fact it exists proves it had a creator or in the case of Aristotle's works an author, or are you going to tell me you don't believe he existed? Alternatively is your assertion that unless a work is registered with the Library of Congress or similar institution it is impossible to attribute a work to anyone because we can't be sure any authors have ever existed?

[QUOTE=antimony;952958]You know where I am going with this. Of course someone came up with these ideas. But the historical accuracy surrounding the inventor/ philosopher is irrelevant in applying said idea.

You have completely missed the point, again. All works of art or other human creative endeavors have authors/creators. You may or might not like JK Rowlings writings, you may or may not know who she is but if she doesn't exist her stories don't. With regards to the moral lessons, stories and words etc attributed to Christ someone had to verbalize/envision them. It does no good to say 'Christ didn't exist' because someone if not Christ had to have existed. That historians have attributed his lessons to Christ reflects the fact that the available evidence and (Occams Razor) point to a particular individual being the original source. You want to posit the existence of a different author or set of authors, fine produce some evidence as to likely candidates or failing that produce evidence that historians have got their analysis wrong and no source can be identified. So far you haven't done either.


Not so with Christianity. It is not enough that I follow Christian code of morals. I have to believe in the existence of Christ as a historical figure as well as in him being the son of god, in order to be Christian. And given his existence itself is on shaky grounds, it is weird to me that teaching attributed to him would be taken with any measure of seriousness in this day and age.

Who said you had follow a Christian Code of Ethics, follow whatever code of ethics you want (or don't follow any at all) its your choice. I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to live your life, be a Christian or believe in God, all I want to do is correct what appears to be a faulty knowledge of history. And you can keep insisting that his existence is on 'shaky ground' but you need clarify why you believe this to be case given as I have said repeatedly we can't prove the majority of people mentioned in ancient history physically existed beyond whatever they may have left behind (or have had written about them by others).



If his ideas work, why do I care if he existed or not?

You don't have to care if he existed, who said you did? Just accept, at least as a possibility, for the same reasons most historians do that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. FYI doing this does not mean you have automatically accepted on face value all the claims made about him.


Come on, you do not need me to tell you that that is a fallacy. The opposite of blind religious dogma or ideology is not any other blind ideology (the isms you talk about). It is open rational thought, logic and empathy. Also, for any other ism (except possibly fascism) it is clearly said that one must hate or not associate with some groups in order not to burn in hell for eternity?

Err... the quotes you referred to were authored as far as we are aware by the Apostle Paul not Christ. Except for the fact his letters form part of the evidence used to support the historic existence of a man named Jesus Christ what do they have do with the point I was trying to make? And I don't know what the 'opposite' of anything has to do with what we were discussing either. My comment about other forms of 'isms' was to show that religion like most other forms of human endeavor can be harnessed for evil purposes by evil men. So as I said why single it out as the 'big bad' when history (there's that word again) shows that humans are quite capable of using virtually any excuse, cause or idea as a reason to exploit and oppress their fellow man/woman/person of non specific gender. Human are at times rational and irrational, logical and illogical empathetic and callous, we are what we are. (One thing I am sure of though is that we are definitely not inhabitants of the planet Vulcan if that is what you were implying we should aim at! ) Live long and prosper.

Triple C
27 Feb 14,, 10:03
My post was with regards to the Colorado ruling, not Arizona, and your argument is backwards. Read my example again. "People of color" aren't being denied service in my example. Quite the opposite.

You misread my explanation. Political or fraternal affiliation is not a status protected against discrimination. Denying service based on race/class/gender/age, however, is strictly no-go. So a black BBQ owner really can refuse providing service to a KKK event. Also, there's always the right to abstain from serving a clientele if you fear for your life...

Solastalgia
27 Feb 14,, 18:24
Does this AZ bill have any connection to the anti-gay lobby groups that had a hand in helping create the Russian and Ugandan anti-gay laws?

antimony
27 Feb 14,, 18:31
I was in a country where a grandmother had the right to throw her granddaughter to the pimps just because she was of a different ethnic background. I was also in a country where they take offense to the point of throwing your ass in jail if you were working instead of praying at certain times of the day.

I find it no different than Americans trying to enforce their ways of life.


And as we have all argued tirelessly before, the US is supposed to rise above that kind of pettiness. Or are you saying that the US has no moral superiority over the places you mentioned?



Just as we do not accept pedophiles, certain Americans do not want to accept gays and pedophiles are listed throughout history. Americans have the right to demand of what they want from their governments, even if you don't like it.


And if some Americans want a defined Christian nation, are they going to get it? What if a local council gets overtaken by legally elected hardline muslim clerics and they define that triple talak is legal within their jurisdiction, are they going to get it?



A piece of paper does not erase 2000 years of history of Christian cultural influence starting from Rome to the Protestant Church. The Americans are most certainly not Islamic/Buddisht/Taoist/Confusicius influenced. You are trying to ignore the fundamental history of the people and her Christian culture.


By that logic, we should go back to Native American culture, since they had this land for the past 2000 years. Maybe we should find out what the great Nanook has to say about homosexuality.

And who are the Americans? In this day and age you certainly cannot define Americans by race, religion, caste or creed.



Fine but I still don't get your point. Americans don't have the right to ask for what they want? Even with respect to their religious beliefs?


They can anything they want, Whether they will get it or not depends on the how it fits within the constitutional framework



Simple. I hate the asshole and I don't want to do business with him, even if he comes asking.

That is a personal issue. You don't want to deal because of personal issues, fine. Or are you saying that all gays are assholes?

antimony
27 Feb 14,, 18:45
GS,

Then, why Christianity? Why not Islam? Why not Confusinism? Why not Hammarabist? Why was Christainity so easily adopted? I am not arguing the rights and wrongs here but the simple historic fact that the US was made by Christians and the influence of Christainity cannot ... and must not be dismissed.

I would credit the Renaissance and rise of humanism with the advances that Europe saw and which subsequently led to colonization. If anything, I would say that Christianity has held Europe back for generations. Just like Islam did to Arabia and Persia and Hinduism did to India

Officer of Engineers
27 Feb 14,, 18:50
And as we have all argued tirelessly before, the US is supposed to rise above that kind of pettiness. Or are you saying that the US has no moral superiority over the places you mentioned?I have no such illusions. The US has destroyed more cities than any other force in history. The bombing of concrete in Vietnam killed more people than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Bush Jr went after Saddam in large part because Saddam dared to go after Bush Sr.


And if some Americans want a defined Christian nation, are they going to get it? What if a local council gets overtaken by legally elected hardline muslim clerics and they define that triple talak is legal within their jurisdiction, are they going to get it?It's already done. It's called a commune, Mennonites, Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.


By that logic, we should go back to Native American culture, since they had this land for the past 2000 years. Maybe we should find out what the great Nanook has to say about homosexuality.The First Nations lost that war 400 years ago.


And who are the Americans? In this day and age you certainly cannot define Americans by race, religion, caste or creed.Anyone whoc can vote.


They can anything they want, Whether they will get it or not depends on the how it fits within the constitutional frameworkI have long since given up seeing the law as something written in stone. Give a lawyer an hour and he'll write a bill to overwrite the previous law.


That is a personal issue. You don't want to deal because of personal issues, fine. Or are you saying that all gays are assholes?Doesn't matter. I have the right not to work for anyone I don't like.

Officer of Engineers
27 Feb 14,, 18:52
I would credit the Renaissance and rise of humanism with the advances that Europe saw and which subsequently led to colonization. If anything, I would say that Christianity has held Europe back for generations. Just like Islam did to Arabia and Persia and Hinduism did to IndiaThen you credit the Black Death. Without that die off and the large inheritance of money to a smaller population, the Renaissance could not have had happened.

antimony
27 Feb 14,, 19:35
The wheel still has to have been invented by someone, even if we don't know who. The fact it exists proves it had a creator or in the case of Aristotle's works an author, or are you going to tell me you don't believe he existed? Alternatively is your assertion that unless a work is registered with the Library of Congress or similar institution it is impossible to attribute a work to anyone because we can't be sure any authors have ever existed?


It is my assertion that I do not need to know the creator of something in order to enjoy the benefits. Unlike Christianity, where I have to know and recognize Jesus in order to benefit from his teachings.

In fact, I would posit that philosophy, maths, science do not need a creator, unlike revealed wisdom.

As to the requirement of proof? We have a guy claiming to the the sons of god, because he could work miracles and because his mother slept with no one and all we have is the word of his gang (Christians) to attest to that. Not good enough. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.



You have completely missed the point, again. All works of art or other human creative endeavors have authors/creators. You may or might not like JK Rowlings writings, you may or may not know who she is but if she doesn't exist her stories don't. With regards to the moral lessons, stories and words etc attributed to Christ someone had to verbalize/envision them. It does no good to say 'Christ didn't exist' because someone if not Christ had to have existed. That historians have attributed his lessons to Christ reflects the fact that the available evidence and (Occams Razor) point to a particular individual being the original source. You want to posit the existence of a different author or set of authors, fine produce some evidence as to likely candidates or failing that produce evidence that historians have got their analysis wrong and no source can be identified. So far you haven't done either.


Irrelevant point. For the purpose of Christianity, the fact that Christ might have been a historical figure (which I have my doubts about) is not good enough. We need proof that whatever he said or did, did in fact happen.

From a secular point of view, its just a story about a guy who got nailed to some sticks.



Who said you had follow a Christian Code of Ethics, follow whatever code of ethics you want (or don't follow any at all) its your choice. I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to live your life, be a Christian or believe in God, all I want to do is correct what appears to be a faulty knowledge of history.


You may not be doing that, but that is certainly what the Christian right in this country is doing.



You don't have to care if he existed, who said you did? Just accept, at least as a possibility, for the same reasons most historians do that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. FYI doing this does not mean you have automatically accepted on face value all the claims made about him.


You sound like Bart Ehrman in his latest book : believe that Christ exists because others also think he existed.



Err... the quotes you referred to were authored as far as we are aware by the Apostle Paul not Christ. Except for the fact his letters form part of the evidence used to support the historic existence of a man named Jesus Christ what do they have do with the point I was trying to make?

Shows that the New Testament is also homophobic



And I don't know what the 'opposite' of anything has to do with what we were discussing either. My comment about other forms of 'isms' was to show that religion like most other forms of human endeavor can be harnessed for evil purposes by evil men. So as I said why single it out as the 'big bad' when history (there's that word again) shows that humans are quite capable of using virtually any excuse, cause or idea as a reason to exploit and oppress their fellow man/woman/person of non specific gender. Human are at times rational and irrational, logical and illogical empathetic and callous, we are what we are. (One thing I am sure of though is that we are definitely not inhabitants of the planet Vulcan if that is what you were implying we should aim at! ) Live long and prosper.

Is there any example of logical, rational, empathic thinking that has caused mass murder? I am really willing to learn.

GVChamp
28 Feb 14,, 02:39
Thats where the cake lady and the photographer crossed the line. They denied a service that they advertise and normally provide to customers.

How hard is that to understand?
What line did they cross? In Colorado they ran afoul of a legal line. In Arizona there is no explicit protection of homosexuals in public accommodations. Do you mean they crossed a moral line? That's great, but what does that matter to the citizens of Arizona? You are a Florida resident and don't have the right to decide the affairs of Arizona citizens.

The federal government is empowered to regulate matters of interstate commerce. Local governments are empowered to pass laws that enforce common morality, as long as they do not violate fundamental rights. Per the Civil Rights cases, getting a birthday cake from a private business is not a fundamental right, and Arizona is well within its rights to pass whatever law they want until the federal government decides to expand its regulation of interstate commerce.
So as troung said, states and individuals ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS A DISTATE BY OVERT DISCRMINATION. Does that agree with YOUR morality? Tough. You don't get a choice. You get a choice to set laws regarding interstate commerce.

This isn't hard to understand. Let's go to the public accommodation part. Better yet, let's start with the definition of "public." WTF do you mean by that? It means something extremely specific in economics and private bakeries do not fit the bill, because bakery goods are non-excludable. Not relevant to you? Relevant to me! Public matters because it's a critical term in PUBLIC GOODS, which NEED to be regulated: electricity is a public good that must be publically provided, which means that, even if the power provider is a private company, it should not be allowed to discriminate against you.
That makes sense to me.
Why exactly do you think that bakeries should not be allowed to discriminate? States have the right to discriminate. Individuals have the right to discriminate. You're straight-up wrong and don't know where your powers come from, which is interstate commerce, NOT preventing discrimination.

Why don't we expand the definition a bit? Do you think we should go blow up Uganda because THEIR restaraunts don't allow gays in? No, it's ridiculous, you don't have jurisdiction there. And you don't have jurisdiction in Arizona either.

Now, let's expand THAT. You clearly have a lot of friends here that don't like discrimination: I don't either, and I am guessing neither does Zraver. However, what Zraver and I will NOT do is expand the definition of interstate commerce in order to give us powers the Constitution does not permit. Think the government doesn't do that? See: Healthcare decision. See: Lopez. See: Violence Against Women Act.

You're talking about common sense and morality. That's great. I'm talking about psychopathic lawyers who don't have to answer to anyone, can convince themselves of anything, will wiggle through any legal loophole you give them, and subsist on a diet of Ted Talks and "this makes me feel good."

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 04:12
What line did they cross? In Colorado they ran afoul of a legal line. In Arizona there is no explicit protection of homosexuals in public accommodations. Do you mean they crossed a moral line? That's great, but what does that matter to the citizens of Arizona? You are a Florida resident and don't have the right to decide the affairs of Arizona citizens.

I an an American. I demand that ALL Americans be treated equally.

You know like from one of the founding documents of this country. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Now what part of that do YOU not understand?

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 04:21
GS,

Then, why Christianity? Why not Islam? Why not Confusinism? Why not Hammarabist? Why was Christainity so easily adopted? I am not arguing the rights and wrongs here but the simple historic fact that the US was made by Christians and the influence of Christainity cannot ... and must not be dismissed.

Made by a group that a majority have the same faith.

It may make the US a country of Christians but its not a Christian Country. No matter how much some on the religious right would like it, we are not a Theocracy

Mihais
28 Feb 14,, 06:40
I an an American. I demand that ALL Americans be treated equally.

You know like from one of the founding documents of this country. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Now what part of that do YOU not understand?

Gunny, ghetto thugs need a share of your house.They are Americans and deserve to be treated equally.

zraver
28 Feb 14,, 07:07
I an an American. I demand that ALL Americans be treated equally.

You know like from one of the founding documents of this country. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Now what part of that do YOU not understand?

We also made slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional, what part of that are you missing? Being able to FORCE someone who is self employed to work against their own moral and ethical code is slavery no matter how much you pay them.

Triple C
28 Feb 14,, 08:02
But Z, there is no anti-discrimination bill for gays in AZ, and the proposed bill does not limit the right to refuse to self-employed business owners.

antimony
28 Feb 14,, 09:12
Gunny, ghetto thugs need a share of your house.They are Americans and deserve to be treated equally.

Did he offer his house to the public? If not, you don't have case. Now, lets turn it around and say that he is renting his house as a vacation home. Now he has to give to anyone who meets his conditions (rent, background checks etc.).

Monash
28 Feb 14,, 09:16
It is my assertion that I do not need to know the creator of something in order to enjoy the benefits. Unlike Christianity, where I have to know and recognize Jesus in order to benefit from his teachings.

Agreed, obviously you do not need to know who created something to benefit from it. By the same token my point is that the ideas expressed by Jesus had to be expressed for the first time somewhere by someone. Accepting that a historical figure probably said the things attributed to him by scholars is not the same thing as expressing agreement with them. I can accept that Marcus Aurelius authored 'Meditations' and that he was a real historical figure without becoming a Stoic. I can accept Karl Marx as the likely source/author of 'Das Kapital' without becoming a communist. It just means I believe both men enunciated the ideas contained in those particular works. Its the same thing in Christ's case, accepting as the vast majority of historians do that he existed and said the things attributed to him does not mean you have to become a Christian. And FYI the reason most philosophical and religious texts survive through the course of history is they contain worthwhile tenants or nuggets of advice that people can appreciate and draw lessons from even if they don't adopt the ideas concerned in their entirety.


In fact, I would posit that philosophy, maths, science do not need a creator, unlike revealed wisdom.

Scientific or mathematical principals don't need a creator but they do need a discoverer and it is a universal principal that when scientists, explorers or mathematicians etc make a discovery (assuming they can be identified) then they are credited with that discovery. Enough records have survived through time to credit Eratosthenes of Cyrene with calculating the circumference of the Earth, Isaac Newton is credited with formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation described in 'Principia' and the guys at CERN who identified the Higgs Boson will be credited with their discoveries.


As to the requirement of proof? We have a guy claiming to the the sons of god, because he could work miracles and because his mother slept with no one and all we have is the word of his gang (Christians) to attest to that. Not good enough. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

To the best of our knowledge Jesus never overtly claimed to be the son of God and I am not concerned with the proving the existence of miracles just using Historiographical principals to confirm the existence of a man called Jesus Christ. Anything else is outside the realms of this discussion.



Irrelevant point. For the purpose of Christianity, the fact that Christ might have been a historical figure (which I have my doubts about) is not good enough. We need proof that whatever he said or did, did in fact happen. From a secular point of view, its just a story about a guy who got nailed to some sticks.

As far as Historians are concerned it suffices that he most probably said what he said, at the places he is reported to have said it, about the time he is reported to have said it - and then 'got nailed to some sticks' as you put for his troubles. And as I have said repeatedly we have about as much historical evidence to support his existence as a human being as we do for many other persons of antiquity (see my old friend Plato). It is the secular issues I am discussing here not religious ones.


You may not be doing that, but that is certainly what the Christian right in this country is doing.

I never mentioned Christian right, left or middle for that matter. I am only discussing Historiography.


You sound like Bart Ehrman in his latest book : believe that Christ exists because others also think he existed.

I believe Aristotle existed and for the same reason others do i.e. historical references to his words and actions indicate that he existed. And your tense is wrong. I have been arguing that Christ did exist not that he currently exists - that is a different argument and one I have no intention of entering since its not relevant to my point.


Shows that the New Testament is also homophobic

No it might show that Paul was homophobic, it says nothing at all about what Jesus may have thought on the topic. Since as I have pointed out before we have no record of any comments by him on the issue. My discussion has been directed at the historic figure known as Jesus Christ not Paul but for some reason you keep bringing religion into it.


Is there any example of logical, rational, empathic thinking that has caused mass murder? I am really willing to learn.

See Wikipedia - Nazi human medical experimentation. From their perspective the researchers involved were being completely logical, rational and even emphatic (if you are consider the 'greater good' of humanity). Just ask them.

antimony
28 Feb 14,, 09:22
We also made slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional, what part of that are you missing? Being able to FORCE someone who is self employed to work against their own moral and ethical code is slavery no matter how much you pay them.

These fellows are working anyway. Its just that they don't want to serve somebody because they don't like who they are. That's not slavery, that's discrimination.

What if they suddenly want to stop serving blacks or women or other racial, ethnic or any other different groups because it violates their "moral and ethical code". You ok with that?

Monash
28 Feb 14,, 11:23
I an an American. I demand that ALL Americans be treated equally.
You know like from one of the founding documents of this country. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Just out of curiosity why is you demand all Americans should be treated equally? That portion of the Constitution you quoted refers to all men not all citizens of the United States. Don't all people everywhere deserve the same right?

Bigfella
28 Feb 14,, 11:45
Just out of curiosity why is you demand all Americans should be treated equally? That portion of the Constitution you quoted refers to all men not all citizens of the United States. Don't all people everywhere deserve the same right?

Yes, but that's hardly relevant here. This is about US law and how it treats US citizens. I didn't get the impression Gunny was excluding the rest of humanity.

Mihais
28 Feb 14,, 12:19
Did he offer his house to the public? If not, you don't have case. Now, lets turn it around and say that he is renting his house as a vacation home. Now he has to give to anyone who meets his conditions (rent, background checks etc.).

Not at all.He is free to refuse on whatever criteria he sees fit.He's a private entrepreneur.His house,his money.He's free to select his clients.
He's not a public authority.

Monash
28 Feb 14,, 12:34
Yes, but that's hardly relevant here. This is about US law and how it treats US citizens. I didn't get the impression Gunny was excluding the rest of humanity.

I didn't think that was his intention either really - just thought it might be good to clarify.

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 15:38
Just out of curiosity why is you demand all Americans should be treated equally? That portion of the Constitution you quoted refers to all men not all citizens of the United States. Don't all people everywhere deserve the same right?

Like Bigfella said. The thread is about a single country. So I was addressing that issue.

Do I believe that all people deserve the same right. Yes I do

Albany Rifles
28 Feb 14,, 15:39
Just out of curiosity why is you demand all Americans should be treated equally? That portion of the Constitution you quoted refers to all men not all citizens of the United States. Don't all people everywhere deserve the same right?

It was language from the 18th Century...in the 21st Century we have fully recognized as a Nation that this applies to all.

Are there groups who do not share that view?

Yes...and that is when the judiciary and/or the Justice Department steps in to set things right.

Do you really want to try to follow that line of argument?

Albany Rifles
28 Feb 14,, 15:42
Not at all.He is free to refuse on whatever criteria he sees fit.He's a private entrepreneur.His house,his money.He's free to select his clients.
He's not a public authority.

However when you enter into commerce you have crossed from the private to the public.

You can do anything within your private life which is not illegal or impose on the rights of others. When you enter into public commerce where regulations, ordinances and taxes are involved you do not have total free reign.

Albany Rifles
28 Feb 14,, 15:44
We also made slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional, what part of that are you missing? Being able to FORCE someone who is self employed to work against their own moral and ethical code is slavery no matter how much you pay them.

See my post #195.

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 15:45
Not at all.He is free to refuse on whatever criteria he sees fit.He's a private entrepreneur.His house,his money.He's free to select his clients.
He's not a public authority.

No I do not have the right to discriminate as I see fit. A rental house falls under Public Accommodations. I am restricted under Federal, State and Local laws as to whom I may refuse services to.

Doktor
28 Feb 14,, 15:50
No I do not have the right to discriminate as I see fit. A rental house falls under Public Accommodations. I am restricted under Federal, State and Local laws as to whom I may refuse services to.

Can you overcharge unwanted customers?

antimony
28 Feb 14,, 16:00
Can you overcharge unwanted customers?

I don't think so.

I can lay out some rules as to what I would accept r not accept, such as good credit score etc. but I sure as hell cannot restrict clientele and have to even avoid phrases in my rental ad that seems to be biased towards a group (families only, great Christian neighbourhood etc.)

Doktor
28 Feb 14,, 16:05
I don't think so.

I can lay out some rules as to what I would accept r not accept, such as good credit score etc. but I sure as hell cannot restrict clientele and have to even avoid phrases in my rental ad that seems to be biased towards a group (families only, great Christian neighbourhood etc.)

Ah the beauty of selling mind services, no price-list.

Officer of Engineers
28 Feb 14,, 16:11
No I do not have the right to discriminate as I see fit. A rental house falls under Public Accommodations. I am restricted under Federal, State and Local laws as to whom I may refuse services to.You don't have the right not to take the job?

troung
28 Feb 14,, 17:55
Gunny, ghetto thugs need a share of your house.They are Americans and deserve to be treated equally.

Yeah... :rolleyes:

Mihais
28 Feb 14,, 18:09
No I do not have the right to discriminate as I see fit. A rental house falls under Public Accommodations. I am restricted under Federal, State and Local laws as to whom I may refuse services to.


That's too bad.I wonder when you as a nation started to put ''equality'' before freedom.

Firestorm
28 Feb 14,, 18:20
That's too bad.I wonder when you as a nation started to put ''equality'' before freedom.
I guess when they removed the "freedom" to discriminate against African Americans...

GVChamp
28 Feb 14,, 18:25
I an an American. I demand that ALL Americans be treated equally.

You know like from one of the founding documents of this country. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Now what part of that do YOU not understand?
I don't understand why you're only quoting part of the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I don't see anything in there about gay wedding cakes.

Captain Worley
28 Feb 14,, 18:34
I guess when they removed the "freedom" to discriminate against African Americans...

What was the road to Hell paved with again?

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 20:37
However when you enter into commerce you have crossed from the private to the public.

You can do anything within your private life which is not illegal or impose on the rights of others. When you enter into public commerce where regulations, ordinances and taxes are involved you do not have total free reign.

That's what many don't know, or refuse to acknowledge. This whole argument has been "It denied the individual her right to discriminate according to her religious beliefs".

I would bet that the only "Individuals" in any of these cases were the ones that were discriminated against.

The people that refused to accept their business did not do so as an individual. They did it as a corporation. Normally either a S-Corp or a LLC. Turning your private business into a corporation affords you many protections under the law. But with it also comes the regulation burden.

An example of Free speech rights. In military service individuals do not lose the right to free speech. Joe redneck can go to a Klan rally while acting as an individual while in the service. However when Joe Redneck goes while dressed in his military uniform, he is no longer representing his self but is representing the US military. He will go to jail and be kicked out.

You can do many things as an individual that you cannot do as an corporation

antimony
28 Feb 14,, 21:08
What was the road to Hell paved with again?

So now that African Americans cannot be discriminated against, its hell now?

GVChamp
01 Mar 14,, 00:08
So now that African Americans cannot be discriminated against, its hell now?

It's certainly hell for the African Americans who are in jail on account of Drug Laws enforced under the Commerce Clause. Presently the US has the largest prison population as a % of population, multiplied a few times over.
Intended Consequence: Get a hotel room
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States)
Unintended consequence: Drug offender and locked in prison
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

Source of both: Commerce Clause

antimony
01 Mar 14,, 02:04
It's certainly hell for the African Americans who are in jail on account of Drug Laws enforced under the Commerce Clause. Presently the US has the largest prison population as a % of population, multiplied a few times over.
Intended Consequence: Get a hotel room
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States)
Unintended consequence: Drug offender and locked in prison
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

Source of both: Commerce Clause

And this relates to emancipation or civil rights or African Americans how exactly?

bonehead
01 Mar 14,, 03:11
GVChamp


You fell right through the rabbit hole. Blacks are born that way, (no matter how many procedures Michael Jackson had he was still black and everyone knew he was black) and they are a race and therefore protected. Homosexuals are not a race and are classified solely by their behavior which BTW they have a choice to exhibit. People pushing the homosexual agenda really do not have much of an argument so they are desperate to link their plight to that of blacks even though there is no comparison. When you fall for that tactic you are giving them the credibility they are craving.

antimony
01 Mar 14,, 03:49
GVChamp


You fell right through the rabbit hole. Blacks are born that way, (no matter how many procedures Michael Jackson had he was still black and everyone knew he was black) and they are a race and therefore protected. Homosexuals are not a race and are classified solely by their behavior which BTW they have a choice to exhibit. People pushing the homosexual agenda really do not have much of an argument so they are desperate to link their plight to that of blacks even though there is no comparison. When you fall for that tactic you are giving them the credibility they are craving.

Bonehead, I think we have covered this. Homosexuality is not a behavioural choice

bonehead
01 Mar 14,, 05:27
Bonehead, I think we have covered this. Homosexuality is not a behavioural choice

According to you maybe but not me. Homosexuality is defined by behavior, not color of skin, not genetics, not by race, not by any handicap, but by behavior, and you can choose behavior unless you are mentally ill.

Bigfella
01 Mar 14,, 05:27
Bonehead, I think we have covered this. Homosexuality is not a behavioural choice

1) Give it up. You can't win an argument with a fanatic. They will never accept that some people are born different. They only need to find one gay person who can choose & it 'proves' everyone can.

2) Religion is a behavioural choice. So is nationality to an extent. Don't expect this level of sympathy if people start refusing to serve Catholics or Canadians because they made up some bullshit religious reason.

tbm3fan
01 Mar 14,, 05:43
Homosexuality is defined by behavior, not color of skin, not genetics, not by race, not by any handicap, but by behavior, and you can choose behavior unless you are mentally ill.


Nah, I would be going off topic here since we are dealing with religion and not homosexuality in case you forgot.

bonehead
01 Mar 14,, 07:11
Nah, I would be going off topic here since we are dealing with religion and not homosexuality in case you forgot.

Where have you been? A lot of topics have been dealt with in this thread.

Monash
01 Mar 14,, 08:15
According to you maybe but not me. Homosexuality is defined by behavior, not color of skin, not genetics, not by race, not by any handicap, but by behavior, and you can choose behavior unless you are mentally ill.

No, homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation. Choice only comes into play with regards to deciding whether or not to act in accordance with ones orientation. If a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex chooses for whatever reason not to act on that attraction they are still gay, just not 'practicing' for want of a better term. Just like I can be hungry but choose not to eat at a particular time (doesn't mean the urge to eat has disappeared just that I haven't acted on it).

Actually the whole issue of sexuality is quite complex. To the best of our current knowledge sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors in early childhood including the environment in the womb. Loosely speaking it forms a spectrum from gay to bi to strait (call it the 'X' axis) and can also be plotted on a 'Y' axis in terms of the average strength of any one individuals drive with some people having strong sex drives and being highly sexually motivated and some people having less or perhaps almost no drive. (And even this is a gross simplification.) Of course it also varies over time in accordance with environmental factors like age, hormone levels, general health and nutrition (and of course the presence or not of a wedding ring.)

tbm3fan
01 Mar 14,, 08:32
Where have you been? A lot of topics have been dealt with in this thread.


Mmm, let me think. Wait, I actually posted the beginning of the thread. It dealt with religious freedom as perceived by a group of people. Very few have turned the focus off of that besides you talking about homosexuality, sans a connection to religious freedom, versus an argument simply about it. As said that has been dealt with in other threads. Whether it is or isn't choice has nothing to do with religion or what was happening in Arizona.

Monash
01 Mar 14,, 08:58
It was language from the 18th Century...in the 21st Century we have fully recognized as a Nation that this applies to all. Are there groups who do not share that view? Yes...and that is when the judiciary and/or the Justice Department steps in to set things right. Do you really want to try to follow that line of argument?

See my post 192. But as to the issues you raised above I would argue that all persons are entitled to what are generally described as "human rights" up until the point where any particular individual or group actively seeks to deny others those same rights. At that point they should be putting at risk at least one of their own basic human rights (liberty) subject to judicial review. I hope that clears things up.

antimony
01 Mar 14,, 09:08
2) Religion is a behavioural choice. So is nationality to an extent. Don't expect this level of sympathy if people start refusing to serve Catholics or Canadians because they made up some bullshit religious reason.

You know, can't wait for that to happen. Of course, then we will all start hearing about the war on Christianity and in response Christmas shopping will start from January, unlike now when it starts from July.

GVChamp
01 Mar 14,, 14:01
GVChamp


You fell right through the rabbit hole. Blacks are born that way, (no matter how many procedures Michael Jackson had he was still black and everyone knew he was black) and they are a race and therefore protected. Homosexuals are not a race and are classified solely by their behavior which BTW they have a choice to exhibit. People pushing the homosexual agenda really do not have much of an argument so they are desperate to link their plight to that of blacks even though there is no comparison. When you fall for that tactic you are giving them the credibility they are craving.

To me this particular distinction is another question. It is AMAZING how no one here sees how legal precedents can be used to create far-reaching powers they never intended. A specific case has been cited: still don't get it.

Antimony,
Let's make this simple. Imagine that you think racism is really bad. So you want to ban all racist speeches. Only, the Constitution CLEARLY protects Free Speech.
No matter, you and your Supreme Court buddies concoct a new rationalization: if you cross a state line to deliver a speech, you are engaged in inter-state commerce. Now the government can regulate what you are saying. Boom! No more hate speech allowed! Let's call it, antimony vs. Freedom
10 years later, a Democratic Stuffed Supreme Court decides that Republicans are no longer allowed to fly across state lines to give speeches to argue for Medicare cuts. Republicans refuse. Now the Democrats call out the army to arrest all Republicans, you know, like how the army was called in to force desegregation on the South. The Court cites antimony vs. freedom because the case is directly applicable, and a precedent was set that government can regulate inter-state speech.

You created the precedent, so it's your fault. You created the precedent to throw a whole bunch of people in prison, because you wanted to expand the Commerce Clause to cover something it shouldn't, and then the government turned around and used that power to do something else. That is YOUR fault.

Bigfella
01 Mar 14,, 14:43
To me this particular distinction is another question. It is AMAZING how no one here sees how legal precedents can be used to create far-reaching powers they never intended. A specific case has been cited: still don't get it.

So you would presumably be concerned that the Arizona law could set a precedent whereby businesses could use religion as a justification to refuse service to a literal laundry list of groups who they decided offended their sensibilities. Surely the precedent of this law effectively re-institutes racial segregation & opens the door to much more widespread discrimination.

Bigfella
01 Mar 14,, 14:45
You know, can't wait for that to happen. Of course, then we will all start hearing about the war on Christianity and in response Christmas shopping will start from January, unlike now when it starts from July.

Hard to know whether to laugh or cry. People scream 'war on religion' at the drop of a hat, yet are quite happy to reduce another group to the status of second hand citizens.

antimony
01 Mar 14,, 17:57
To me this particular distinction is another question. It is AMAZING how no one here sees how legal precedents can be used to create far-reaching powers they never intended. A specific case has been cited: still don't get it.

Antimony,
Let's make this simple. Imagine that you think racism is really bad. So you want to ban all racist speeches. Only, the Constitution CLEARLY protects Free Speech.
No matter, you and your Supreme Court buddies concoct a new rationalization: if you cross a state line to deliver a speech, you are engaged in inter-state commerce. Now the government can regulate what you are saying. Boom! No more hate speech allowed! Let's call it, antimony vs. Freedom
10 years later, a Democratic Stuffed Supreme Court decides that Republicans are no longer allowed to fly across state lines to give speeches to argue for Medicare cuts. Republicans refuse. Now the Democrats call out the army to arrest all Republicans, you know, like how the army was called in to force desegregation on the South. The Court cites antimony vs. freedom because the case is directly applicable, and a precedent was set that government can regulate inter-state speech.

You created the precedent, so it's your fault. You created the precedent to throw a whole bunch of people in prison, because you wanted to expand the Commerce Clause to cover something it shouldn't, and then the government turned around and used that power to do something else. That is YOUR fault.

Why do I have to imagine any of this?

I support full freedom of speech already, including freedom for racist speeches. This is not about speeches but about direct action cutting people off of goods and services

bonehead
01 Mar 14,, 22:30
No, homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation. Choice only comes into play with regards to deciding whether or not to act in accordance with ones orientation. If a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex chooses for whatever reason not to act on that attraction they are still gay, just not 'practicing' for want of a better term. Just like I can be hungry but choose not to eat at a particular time (doesn't mean the urge to eat has disappeared just that I haven't acted on it).


Thank you as you have just backed up my claim that there is a choice involved and homosexuals are not mindless zombies who cant help but do things because they were "born that way". Still my point was that homosexuals are defined by behavior, not color of skin, or separate species, race etc, but by behavior. By and large behavior is a choice.

Everyone has urges but not everyone has what it takes to resist those urges. That is why we have so many criminals in the world and so much suffering and pain.

bonehead
01 Mar 14,, 22:32
Why do I have to imagine any of this?

I support full freedom of speech already, including freedom for racist speeches. This is not about speeches but about direct action cutting people off of goods and services

Based on their behavior. If they acted normal they get those services do they not?

GVChamp
02 Mar 14,, 00:22
So you would presumably be concerned that the Arizona law could set a precedent whereby businesses could use religion as a justification to refuse service to a literal laundry list of groups who they decided offended their sensibilities. Surely the precedent of this law effectively re-institutes racial segregation & opens the door to much more widespread discrimination.
Which is entirely legal and within the rights of private businesses, according to the Supreme Court. Am I afraid people will abuse their freedom?
Yes.
That doesn't mean they should not have it.


Why do I have to imagine any of this?

I support full freedom of speech already, including freedom for racist speeches. This is not about speeches but about direct action cutting people off of goods and services

You're right, it's not about speeches. We are talking about people who are in jail because of your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause. We are talking about speeches, because you do not seem to understand the concept of an unintended consequence.
How about another example of an unintended consequence?
This morning, at PreCana, I described to my fiancé how doodling can enable greater concentration in conversation. My fiancé felt angry about this, thinking this was demeaning because I indirectly said she was so boring I had to draw pictures to even have a conversation with her.
My intention was to lighten the mood of a boring Catholic requirement.
The actual consequence, unintended, was hurting my fiancé.
I am responsible for my unintended consequences. I could continue doing this and hurting my fiancé, or just ignore it, or just dump her if I think it's too big of an issue.
However, just because it is not what I intended, does not mean I am not responsible for it.
This happens in many policies. For example, increasing car safety regulations, also makes drivers more irresponsible. It may lead to more crashes. Saying that you do not support reckless driving is beyond the point: YOU made the policy, YOU are responsible for the unintended consequences.
Be a man and own the consequences.
Got it?
Good.
Your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause has been used by the Federal Government to lock up large numbers of people who have not committed a violent crime. It does not matter if you don't support it: it is the unintended consequence of your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause. If you did not support it, these arrests could not happen. That makes you responsible.
I am not saying that we are currently living hell on Earth. No one is. What we are TRYING to do is show you the power you are giving the government, and how it can (and probably eventually will) be used against you, or your children, or your children's children.

Monash
02 Mar 14,, 00:43
Everyone has urges but not everyone has what it takes to resist those urges. That is why we have so many criminals in the world and so much suffering and pain.

A life of celibacy is a hard road for anyone to travel and assuming it is someones choice I can salute the determination, strength and sometimes courage it may take to achieve it. It is however a personal choice, you can't demand that others adopt it as a lifestyle without first having adopted it yourself (don't know if you have or haven't - it's none of my business). Likewise someone leading a licentious/debauched lifestyle cannot insist that everyone else follows suit. Each of us has personal choices to make and once made each of us has to to deal with the consequences of those choices.

As for crime, pain and suffering that is our nature, we all hurt people and are hurt by them it turn. Regardless how much we might wish otherwise.

Gun Grape
02 Mar 14,, 04:04
Your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause has been used by the Federal Government to lock up large numbers of people who have not committed a violent crime. It does not matter if you don't support it: it is the unintended consequence of your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause. If you did not support it, these arrests could not happen. That makes you responsible.
I am not saying that we are currently living hell on Earth. No one is. What we are TRYING to do is show you the power you are giving the government, and how it can (and probably eventually will) be used against you, or your children, or your children's children.

You listen to Rush, Glen Beck and Alex Jones don't you?

antimony
02 Mar 14,, 04:20
You're right, it's not about speeches. We are talking about people who are in jail because of your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause. We are talking about speeches, because you do not seem to understand the concept of an unintended consequence.
How about another example of an unintended consequence?
This morning, at PreCana, I described to my fiancé how doodling can enable greater concentration in conversation. My fiancé felt angry about this, thinking this was demeaning because I indirectly said she was so boring I had to draw pictures to even have a conversation with her.
My intention was to lighten the mood of a boring Catholic requirement.
The actual consequence, unintended, was hurting my fiancé.
I am responsible for my unintended consequences. I could continue doing this and hurting my fiancé, or just ignore it, or just dump her if I think it's too big of an issue.
However, just because it is not what I intended, does not mean I am not responsible for it.
This happens in many policies. For example, increasing car safety regulations, also makes drivers more irresponsible. It may lead to more crashes. Saying that you do not support reckless driving is beyond the point: YOU made the policy, YOU are responsible for the unintended consequences.
Be a man and own the consequences.
Got it?
Good.


Is it possible for you to make your (rather complicated) point without putting myself and your fiancee together? I am sorry you find her boring but I really do not want to get between the two of you.

In short, I did not get it.



Your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause has been used by the Federal Government to lock up large numbers of people who have not committed a violent crime. It does not matter if you don't support it: it is the unintended consequence of your expansive definition of the Commerce Clause. If you did not support it, these arrests could not happen. That makes you responsible.

Ok, what on earth are you talking about? What is this commerce clause violation that is putting people in jail?

antimony
02 Mar 14,, 04:22
Based on their behavior. If they acted normal they get those services do they not?

What exactly is acting normal in the context of regular life? What exactly should gays do/ not do while standing in the supermarket line so that they get served?

Monash
02 Mar 14,, 07:46
Hard to know whether to laugh or cry. People scream 'war on religion' at the drop of a hat, yet are quite happy to reduce another group to the status of second hand citizens.

I presume you meant second class citizens? Granted we all get a little tired and wrinkled as life goes on but being described as used goods is a tad harsh. :)

GVChamp
02 Mar 14,, 19:44
You listen to Rush, Glen Beck and Alex Jones don't you?
I sometimes listen to Rush the band, who had an Ayn Rand-loving stage, but that's about as close as I get.




Ok, what on earth are you talking about? What is this commerce clause violation that is putting people in jail?

Law school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school)
Start here.

Officer of Engineers
02 Mar 14,, 19:46
I presume you meant second class citizens? Granted we all get a little tired and wrinkled as life goes on but being described as used goods is a tad harsh. :)Well, I am divorced.

antimony
02 Mar 14,, 20:41
Law school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school)
Start here.

Is this your version of surrealism, a wiki link to "Law school" as answer to my question on what commerce clause violation putting people in jail?

I am really not interested in decoding complex clues to get at whatever obscure point you are trying to make. If you can, please communicate clearly.

Albany Rifles
02 Mar 14,, 23:42
Based on their behavior. If they acted normal they get those services do they not?

Bonehead....define normal.

GVChamp
03 Mar 14,, 03:38
Is this your version of surrealism, a wiki link to "Law school" as answer to my question on what commerce clause violation putting people in jail?

I am really not interested in decoding complex clues to get at whatever obscure point you are trying to make. If you can, please communicate clearly.

Relevant case law was posted in a prior post to you. Your response was "why should I have to read any of this?"
Answer: you do not understand the Commerce Clause. Violations of the Commerce Clause do not put people in jail. The Commerce Clause is a section of the Constitution that enumerates powers of Congress. The only entity that can "violate" the Commerce Clause is the US government.
Your question is the equivalent of asking a scientist why adding a neutron to a sperm cell creates bank deposits. It's a category error.

However, since you do not like the lecture method, how about the Socratic method?
What legal right does the federal government have to regulate discriminatory behavior of private commercial businesses?

Triple C
03 Mar 14,, 09:27
GVC,

I think in this case, commerce clause is applied very liberally to racial discrimination in private establishments. The theory that federal courts are only ruling to desegregate because of the commerce clause is a legal fiction, and appealing to the private status of the business is not going to be recognized by any court.

GVChamp
03 Mar 14,, 18:05
GVC,

I think in this case, commerce clause is applied very liberally to racial discrimination in private establishments. The theory that federal courts are only ruling to desegregate because of the commerce clause is a legal fiction, and appealing to the private status of the business is not going to be recognized by any court.

I agree, the commerce clause has been applied liberally. I am not sure what you mean by "legal fiction." I would agree that the courts are NOT ruling to de-segregate due to interstate commerce: they are pretending to believe in something they do not, and that is indeed a "fiction." People are using the Commerce Clause to push through their moral views. Is that what you meant? I can't tell.
The following actions, the government has tried to define as "interstate commerce."
-Not buying health insurance
-Bringing a gun to a school
-sexually assaulting your college class-mate
-Growing pot on your own land and smoking it

It's not that any of these actions are right or wrong, it's that these are all labelled inter-state commerce, and they clearly are not.

zraver
04 Mar 14,, 01:00
I am not sure what you mean by "legal fiction." I would agree that the courts are NOT ruling to de-segregate due to interstate commerce: they are pretending to believe in something they do not, and that is indeed a "fiction."

Legal Fiction (legal term) is a rule created by the courts as a way to act on a given issue or topic where explicit statue, code, law, or precedent might not exist. Because Congress has explicit right to regulate interstate commerce, the otherwise shaky legal status of desegregation can be made legal where it touches interstate commerce. Of course the courts have held that almost everything touches interstate commerce and is thus subject to Congressional regulation.

zraver
04 Mar 14,, 01:04
Legal Fiction (legal term) is a rule created by the courts as a way to act on a given issue or topic where explicit statue, code, law, or precedent might not exist. Because Congress has explicit right to regulate interstate commerce, the otherwise shaky legal status of desegregation can be made legal where it touches interstate commerce. Of course the courts have held that almost everything touches interstate commerce and is thus subject to Congressional regulation.

The following actions, the government has tried to define as "interstate commerce."
-Not buying health insurance[/quote]

Insurance is provided by large multi-state corporations. Further Congress has an interest in keeping people who live in smaller population risk pools (higher premiums) from poaching from areas of larger populations (lower premiums) especially when they might be poaching to offset significant medical costs.


[quot]-Bringing a gun to a school
-sexually assaulting your college class-mate[/quote]

uhmm????


-Growing pot on your own land and smoking it

Prove your home grown stone isn't entering the illicit drug trade?

GVChamp
04 Mar 14,, 16:23
Legal Fiction (legal term) is a rule created by the courts as a way to act on a given issue or topic where explicit statue, code, law, or precedent might not exist. Because Congress has explicit right to regulate interstate commerce, the otherwise shaky legal status of desegregation can be made legal where it touches interstate commerce. Of course the courts have held that almost everything touches interstate commerce and is thus subject to Congressional regulation.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

antimony
04 Mar 14,, 17:03
Relevant case law was posted in a prior post to you. Your response was "why should I have to read any of this?"
Answer: you do not understand the Commerce Clause. Violations of the Commerce Clause do not put people in jail. The Commerce Clause is a section of the Constitution that enumerates powers of Congress. The only entity that can "violate" the Commerce Clause is the US government.
Your question is the equivalent of asking a scientist why adding a neutron to a sperm cell creates bank deposits. It's a category error.

However, since you do not like the lecture method, how about the Socratic method?
What legal right does the federal government have to regulate discriminatory behavior of private commercial businesses?

I do not see where you have provided anything that says that people are being thrown in jail, aside from that wiki link.

With regard to whatever legal point you are trying to make, there are already laws and regulations in place that stop you from discriminatory behavior.

As a property owner, I might want middle class married Christian white families, but I sure as hell cannot advertise as such.

Albany Rifles
04 Mar 14,, 22:12
35791