"Wrong"

Your seem to think this forum is some sort of formal closed debate competition in which only the information provided in the forum is valid, and that each writer has the complete burden of proof.

Are you totally helpless? You have the biggest library in the history of the world at your fingertips, plenty of time to use it, and yet rather than educate yourself you would rather spend your time whining about me not providing you with information.

And "evasion"? No, I am rightly deciding that a person who will take 10 minutes to write a long complaint about a lack of sources but will not take 3 minutes to google "Phil Robertson homosexual comment" and read the first 2 or 3 results is not really interested in the subject.

 

Yes It is. The baker discriminated against somebody. Not because of religion, but because of their sexuality. He was sued. His defense was that his discrimination was justified because of his religion. That was the only role religion played in this. Of course his defence failed. Just like it failed in the past when people tried to excuse their discrimination against people with religion.

Even if his religion does order him to discriminate against people that defense will lose. It has in the passed. Because if we let people get away with discrimination against gays because of their religion, what's to stop people from making up religions that order discrimination against blacks or foreign people and so forth? What is to stop us from regression?

Religion doesn't trump all things. And you can whine and squall about religious discrimination all you wish. And if that helps you sleep at night be my guest. But this nation discriminates against many religions. And rightfully so.

 

Thanks for finally admitting religion is the issue.

 

It isn't. It was a crummy defense posture.

And him losing the case isn't discrimination against religion.

 

nope, I consider this forum as a form of debate as well as a place to exchange ideologies, discuss differences in opinion none of those are possible unless the evidence is presented, and it is you who believes that only your information (without evidence) is valid, and the burden of proof most defiantly lies with the person making the assertion. Perhaps you are only here to state your opinion without any recourse for dispute. If so then you aren't really worth listening to.

It is irrelevant whether I or anyone else is helpless .. just as your consistent evasion is.

Definitely evasion on your part, and again your assertion up to you to provide the evidence to support it.

But as of now you have refused to supply your evidence, evaded request to provide that evidence and projected that others are not interested or helpless .. you are found out.

 

keep score if you want to, I don't care.

 

Bacon is meat, but not all meat is bacon.
In other words, just because a group of gays (bacon, in the analogy) are christians (meat, in the analogy) - that does not mean other christians (pork chops, for example) are not discriminating against them.

By all means, have your religion and maintain whatever moral standards you want. Just don't try to force others to adhere to standards based solely on your unfounded religious belief, particularly if you want to claim you support the Constitution.

 

I don't think he really understands. The only place religion holds in this entire discussion is the weak defense of the baker. Clearly it was weak, the court ordered him to not discriminate.

It isn't prejudice against religion, it's just that some religious beliefs are a valid defense against some accusations.

Don't let these clowns twist it into some false victimhood. Religious beliefs are being used as a legal defense. And it's not really a good one. They were used as a legal defense for discrimination against blacks, Jews, women, you name it. It loses because it is an unenlightened defense. Basically it's a pre renaissance concept.

 

His argument was the opposite of yours - some gays were also Christians, therefore gays were not discriminating against Christians. That same argument would also mean Christians were not discriminating against gays.

That's the heart of the issue - at what point does my religious freedom infringe on a gay persons rights, and vice versa.

For example, I think homosexuality is a sin and deviant. I will accept a gay person teaching my children math in a public school, mathematics is objective and universal, and should be devoid of sexual issues.

But I will not accept a gay person teaching sex education and morality to my children because his teaching violates my moral and religious beliefs. I should be able to move my children to a different class, and I should not be subjected to a gay jihad because of my decision - but we both know the gays would go crazy over such an action, and would try to force me to abandon my principles in favor of theirs.

Or consider a Baptist church day care which is Biblically based and includes Bible studies and life lessons. They would not hire a satanist, a person who obviously cannot perform the duties of the job. Similarly, the church would also not hire an openly gay person. Should the church be forced to hire the satanist or the gay person, and subject the children to teachings antithetical to the purpose of the day care and in opposition to the parents purposes for selecting that day care?

 

You should teach your child sexual morality. If you leave it up to the schools than they will teach what they wish.

No employer is allowed to ask about the religious beliefs of a person they are hiring. There is a federal law against that. There haven't been made one yet that forbids employers from asking about sexual orientation, but I bet such a law is coming.

If they preform their duties what would any employer care?

 

Actually, no.
He was pointing out your logical fallacy (a "hasty generalization") in claiming that gays are discriminating against Christians.

At the point when one group tries to force the other to adopt their values, or otherwise impact their lives. Seems pretty simple.

Ok, that's your perogative. Is anyone attempting to force you to engage in homosexuality?

I agree.

Please demonstrate what religious teaching outlines that knowing about something is a sin.

Would the church also not hire (or fire someone who was previously hired) if they had an affair, ate shellfish, had a tattoo, allowed women to speak in church, etc? If not, why cherry-pick one "sinful" behavior over another?

 

That's a false and disingenuous question. The gays want me to accept the morality of the gay lifestyle, to accept the gay "family" as equivalent to the traditional family, and to allow gays into all aspects of life. The mere belief that homosexuality is a sin is intolerable to gays.

I did not say that knowing a person was committing a sin was itself a sin. Condoning the sin is a sin, and enabling sin is wrong.

If a person was openly violating the beliefs of that church, then that person would not be hired. Publicly flaunting the beliefs of the church disqualify a person from being a leader and teacher in that church.

 

As a church day care or church school employee, the employee's duties go beyond simply teaching a specific subject (such as math), but the person is a role model who is expected to demonstrate and teach church based morality.

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act allows religious organizations to discriminate based on a persons religion. When a religious belief is intrinsically linked to the job it is considered a "bona fide occupational qualification" and allows the religious organization to hire and fire based on its own religious principles.

 

It would be a bona fide occupational qualification that a Sunday school teacher would be religious, obviously. But I still think you are going to run into difficulty when you attempt to discriminate against gay people.

Yeah, it would be a BFOQ. But we aren't really talking about a Sunday school, church or anything. Or even discrimination against an employee.

We are talking about a business discriminating against a customer based on sexual orientation. If it was a church it'd be a different story. But it was a bakery. Apparently it wasn't a philosophical bakery, so the man list his case.

He could have just told the couple he couldn't make the cake due to time constraints or difficulty. But he made it political. He didn't say, "I'm sorry, I'm swamped." He said he wouldn't because the customers were gay. That is clear cut discrimination, that is why he lost his case. His reasons are irrelevant. If I refused black people business because they are black and I believed that meant they were cursed by God or whatever it wouldn't be okay. That wouldn't be discrimination against my religion, it would be a lousy defense.

He discriminated against people because he held a separate political ideology, which alone isn't a problem. But he destroyed any defense he could have by telling them he doesn't provide services for gay weddings.

Religion isn't a good defense. The sooner you realize that the less unfair the world will seem to you.

 

A "false question"? I believe it was an actual question... It had a question mark and everything. As for it being disingenuous, I assure you that I actually did mean to ask it and was hoping for a reply rather than the dodge provided.

Speaking of which, you realize that your dodge was an "appeal to motive" fallacy, right?

Oh, so you are equally venomous in your attacks against (and sheltering children from) the gluttony, greed and envy fostered by advertising agencies - or are you being hypocritical by cherry picking which sin to be outraged by?

So, "the church" has no "leaders and teachers" who violate any of the following "sinful" acts that are also called out in Leviticus? I've put some of my favorites in bold for you:

- Eating fat (3:17) [Real bad news for most of us, considering how much fat is on the average cut of meat.]
- Eating blood (3:17) [Better make that extra-lean steak "well done".]
- Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
- Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) [Which sounds like hearsay.]
- Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching “the carcass” of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or you’re a worker in a pork plant, you’re in trouble here.]
- Carelessly making an oath (5:4) [Even if you don’t realize you have.]
- Deceiving a neighbor about something trusted to them (6:2)
- Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
- Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) [I'm a little unclear on what fire is authorized, and what constitutes "before God"...]
- Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone.]
- Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9) [bit of a problem for Catholics, isn't it?]
- Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:4-7) [this would include camels, rabbits, and any form of pork.]
- Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8 ) [problems here for anyone who's touched a real football...]
- Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) [shellfish = damnation!]
- Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) [Kinda makes you wonder why he made them in the first place, doesn't it?]
- Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22) [I honestly can't think of an example off the top of my head...]
- Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws - Also applies to touching their carcasses. (11:27) [Good news for cats and dogs, I guess...]
- Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
- Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) [You ever tried snake?]
- Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy or within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:4-5) [And you thought missing church was a sin...]
- Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [Apparently the creator of mankind things menstration is icky.]
- Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20) [Yeah, no church leader has ever done that... ]
- Having sex with an animal (18:23) [You do realize this is still legal in some states that somehow simultaneously have issues with homosexuality, right?]
- Stealing (19:11) [Yeah, no church leader has ever done that... ]
- Lying (19:11) [Yeah, no church leader has ever done that... ]
- Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
- Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
- Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13) [do church leaders pay their employees daily?]
- Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) [Well, there goes every politician who ever lived... and Jesus.]
- Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) [gun owners beware]
- Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18 ) [ ]
- Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [cotton polyester blends are the devil!]
- Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) [Crop rotation is the devil!]
- Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [how long has that apple tree been in your yard?]
- Practising divination or seeking omens (19:26) [I hope no teacher has ever read a horoscope!]
- Trimming your beard (19:27) [I take it all church leaders have long beards?]
- Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) [Your mullet is the devil!]
- Getting tattoos (19:28 ) [there must be a special place in Hell for people with religious iconography tattooed on them.]
- Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) [Let's face it, that's just about all of us...]
- Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34) [I guess immigration reform is off the table.]
- Cursing your father or mother (20:9) [So, pretty much anyone who's ever been a teenager is going to Hell.]
- Working on the Sabbath (23:3) [Does that include people who professionally perform religious services on Sundays? Very confusing.]
- Blasphemy (24:14)
- Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22) [Killing someone means death. Injuring someone mean punishment in kind. Killing or injuring another’s animal means punishment in kind.]
- Selling land permanently (25:23) [Oops...]
- Selling an Israelite as a slave (25:42) [Don't worry, other foreigners are fine...]
​

 

So your bottom line is that I should abandon my religion because you think it will make the world a better place. As I have written before, you want religion removed completely from the public square, you want me to compromise or abandon my beliefs while you retain yours, and keep my religion in a private closet where nobody can see it.

 

Noone has a problem with you thinking homosexuality is a sin. Where the problem comes in is acting on that belief in discriminatory manners such as public accommodation laws.

There are lots of things that are legal that would be considered a sin. So using your logic, each time you vote for a candidate that doesn't run on the platform of removing all the legal things that are considered a sin you are enabling sin.

 

Tram, I've seen your posts here for over a year....and NOBODY is able to shut you up.

 

Consider this....by Battle's standard that supporting something equates in opposition to a VERSION of a religion is "opposing the relgion" (i.e. his claim that supporting gay rights "opposes religion", Christians who oppose gay rights)....

if a Christian sect or denomination or group of Christians SUPPORT gay rights.....and HE opposes gay rights?

By his own defintion, he is "opposing religion" or at the least "opposing Christianity".

 

Not for lack of trying.

I will not bow down to bullies and I will not be intimidated by you or anyone.

I am a very feisty individual, and I really don't like dishonesty and dirty tricks and just will not respond to them.

To me, a discussion should be a learning experience where people exchange ideas and shouldn't be a combat over who is correct and shouldn't take it personally if someone has a different POV than another. It should also never be about bigotry or hate hatred either. IT should also be objective and unbiased. That's what maturity and common courtesy and respect calls for.


Because you see, it's called free speech. and a right. For some reason in America people think that rights only apply to them and to their people. That is a notion I wish I could dislodge from people.

Freedom of speech is not just for the popular or the majority, it means that people have the right to express their views even if it is an unfortunate one in some way.

The only purpose of insulting and berating to to correct the other person and to shut them up.

And is actually very hypocritical and childish and immat5ure.

Real maturity is either change the channel, put the person on ignore, or to respond with well reasoned unbiased constructive criticism that is backed by observable verifiable facts with the aim od resolving issues or fixing problems.

Which is something you never do.

Insulting is never real criticism, it is only childish and hypocritcal begavior that negates any credibility or substance the person might have.

For taking the moral high ground means not behaving in the same way you don't like.

But alas, it's very popular and trendy in America to hate and insult and berate.

Because we must all be the same and conform, and it's okay to hurt people if they fet out of line.

 

A good friend of mine who is Christian said it best for me in regards to SSM. He said he couldn't condone two homosexuals marrying, however, it wasn't his job to judge them, only pray for them.

Also in regards to the baker situation he also said that baking a cake was not supporting same sex marriage, only selling an item. I mean, what's next is the bus driver supporting the wedding by carrying individuals going to the wedding?

 

Shut up. Just kidding

Very true, but also just because someone has freedom of speech, doesn't mean they are free from criticism of that speech though.

 

People always say that, That has no substance or credibility to me.

Insulting and berating people are not criticism.


I know the difference.

And actually, some people do believe they are above being criticized because they believe they are special people.

As for me, I do not take crap from people. If it's okay for you to insult me it's okay for me to insult you back.

And I will.

So if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult.

 

Well that is your opinion and you are definitely entitled to it. I look at it differently because I look at groups such as the Phelps gang and insults and berating them IS criticism of their actions and is quite deserving IMO.

Well to those that think they are above criticism, regardless of the group, they are fools.

To the rest of your comments I just will say "Fair Enough".

 

The difference with the asshats of the Westboro Baptist Church is that they harass people in order to force them to ostracize homosexuals from society.They're also just bullies and thugs and that sort of thing I have no problem insulting and berating.

But on a discussion forum over a difference of opinion, it is just childish and immature.

What's more important is how people act on their beliefs rather than just express what they believe.

people do have a right to their beliefs and to express them.

People really need to learn how to grow a thick skin and realise that a lot of it is really just gorilla chest pounding and hyperbole.