- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
But, the Bible doesn't promote plural marriage.
That’s your opinion
But, the Bible doesn't promote plural marriage.
"No gays allowed" and "No blacks allowed" are morally equivalent. Right wingers naturally support this "freedom"
A very reasonable fear considering homosexuals have specifically targeted Christians for harassment in the past.
Utter nonsense. Homosexuals seek out Christian businesses to harass them. They don't target Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other religion, just Christians and it is deliberate, spiteful, and dishonest. Homosexuals have systematically attempted to persecute Christians for their beliefs.
It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not, every business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. A government that compels businesses to provide goods and services is a fascist government.
People have the right to believe whatever they desire, and if that belief prevents them from providing a particular service then that is their choice. Nobody and no government has the right to compel them to do anything other than what they believe. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with religious belief and prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The Arizona law is unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore should be repealed.
Christians have targeted homosexuals. Don’t act like Christians are simply victims of LGBT hate. There has been significant damage caused by certain Christian movements to their community: gay conversion therapy, disowning children, assaulting LGBT rights, god hates fags, etc.
Christians have a bad relationship with the LGBT community, and it’s easy to see why. And no, you’re not a pure innocent victim dealing with LGTB rage directed at you. From what I see in this thread, most people are saying positive things about Jesus and the Bible, but they say you are using the word of God incorrectly.
How long do you think a business will stay in business with such a policy? By the way, it was the leftist bigot Democrats who had those signs posted all over the south. Not a single right-winger had them, just the anti-American left.
Christians are entitled to their free speech, just like homosexuals. They can call them whatever they please, and visa versa. What is not allowed is for either of them to cause harm. That is the line in the sand. It is also unconstitutional for any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." States cannot create special groups of people and set them aside for additional protections that nobody else has. That is equally unconstitutional as depriving a group of people of their rights. All laws must be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or the color of their skin.
Preventing businesses that serve the public from discriminating against certain classes of people doesn't violate this. Allowing businesses that serve the public to discriminate against certain classes of people deprives those people of equal rights.
Christians are entitled to their free speech, just like homosexuals. They can call them whatever they please, and visa versa. What is not allowed is for either of them to cause harm. That is the line in the sand. It is also unconstitutional for any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." States cannot create special groups of people and set them aside for additional protections that nobody else has. That is equally unconstitutional as depriving a group of people of their rights. All laws must be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or the color of their skin.
I'm neither a Christian nor a homosexual. I'm an outside observer who has witnessed numerous attacks specifically against Christians by both homosexuals and government. Even the Supreme Court admonished Oregon's government for their deliberate religious persecution of the baker in that case. Yet it happened again in Colorado. Which makes the religious persecution of Christians systematic. On the other side of the coin you have individual religious fanatics who have physically attacked homosexuals simply for being homosexual. Neither is right, but on the scale of things the systematic religious persecution of Christians by State/local governments is far more serious.
Yes, it does. States are required to enforce all laws equally, without exception.
How long do you think a business will stay in business if they discriminate unfairly? Businesses who discriminate fairly, like those that advertise "No shirt, no shoes, no service" don't have problems. But those businesses that do discriminate unfairly suffer indeed. Either way, it is entirely up to the business whether or not they wish to discriminate. That is not a decision a government that supports liberty can make. Only fascist governments dictate terms to businesses.
LGTB have same rights on paper, but not in practice... Every other religious group in America has the same rights as Christians. However, it’s obvious Christians demand a special place of privilege in America when they say this country belongs to them, and was created for them. The constitution doesn’t say that. I am not sure how many Christians want equality for all people.
The interesting thing about this case, is that nobody asked or even tried to force these women to make a gay wedding invitation. They just "feared they would be put in jail" for not making a gay wedding invitation if asked.
The more I think about issues like this, the more I wonder why these businesses just don't advertise that they are Christian business and do not serve the general public. If businesses like this business operated like that, I am certain gay people wouldn't even bother with them, which both sides would probably prefer.
I have never understood how refusing to do business with a gay person is a Christian teaching. As for free speech, I understand the concept of compelled speech. I support these women and this decision as far as them being forced to create art they don't want, or convey a message which they do not want to convey. I agree this could potentially strengthen free speech for others, as the article points out. I am just not sure it's a Christian teaching to target one group of people committing a sin, and living in sin. All Abrahamic religions recognize homosexuality is a sin, but it seems only American Christians are focusing on LGBT people like this.
There is a very high probability these women would be asked to create a wedding invitation involving a child out of wedlock. This legal case was only based on LGBT people, however.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled two business owners did not have to make invitations for a same-sex wedding - CNN
LGTB have same rights on paper, but not in practice... Every other religious group in America has the same rights as Christians. However, it’s obvious Christians demand a special place of privilege in America when they say this country belongs to them, and was created for them. The constitution doesn’t say that. I am not sure how many Christians want equality for all people.
Most christians want that and this one certainly does because im not a bigot like the retards in the OP. i understand the FACT that civil rights, anti-discrimination laws and public accommodation laws don't infringe on my rights one single bit. I have to play by the same rules as everybody else i dont get special treatment and THATS what some INDIVIDUALS want.
1.) of course it is, its pure discrimination based on sexual orientation. why be so dishonest?
2.) lol and there it is .. **** individual rights . . who cares . . and in fantasy land "virtually" nobody would do it, riiiiiiiight
3.) yeah like if there were only 19 rapist in the country why not just make rape league . . making rape legal based on somebody factually wrong perception of how many rapists exist wouldnt be retarded at all <sarcasm> lol
The interesting thing about this case, is that nobody asked or even tried to force these women to make a gay wedding invitation. They just "feared they would be put in jail" for not making a gay wedding invitation if asked.
The more I think about issues like this, the more I wonder why these businesses just don't advertise that they are Christian business and do not serve the general public. If businesses like this business operated like that, I am certain gay people wouldn't even bother with them, which both sides would probably prefer.
I have never understood how refusing to do business with a gay person is a Christian teaching. As for free speech, I understand the concept of compelled speech. I support these women and this decision as far as them being forced to create art they don't want, or convey a message which they do not want to convey. I agree this could potentially strengthen free speech for others, as the article points out. I am just not sure it's a Christian teaching to target one group of people committing a sin, and living in sin. All Abrahamic religions recognize homosexuality is a sin, but it seems only American Christians are focusing on LGBT people like this.
There is a very high probability these women would be asked to create a wedding invitation involving a child out of wedlock. This legal case was only based on LGBT people, however.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled two business owners did not have to make invitations for a same-sex wedding - CNN
A business is not a private party. It is a regulated entity that holds itself out to serve the public. Such entities are barred by law from discriminating against members of the public for things they can't change about themselves.
Thank you for clearing this up.
Businesses that "refuse to participate" with certain classes of people is the persecution of those people by those businesses. What if a Christian business "refused to participate" with Jewish people? Jews can still do business elsewhere, right?
Because of this, The United States of America should "refuse to participate" with any business that refuses to participate with sections of the public based on race, sex, religion, sexuality, or nationality. This is not persecution, it is the outlawing of persecution.
Rape is a violation of bodily sovereignty, refusing service is not. In fact with “anti-discrimination laws” a complainant Can get the state to violently breach the subjects bodily sovereignty.
In fact in your case the complainer is metaphorically the rapist, not the other way around
A business is absolutely a private party. There's no legal requirement to "serve the public".
That’s your opinion
A business is absolutely a private party. There's no legal requirement to "serve the public".
I'm fairly sure the "christian" teaching that homosexuality is bad stems from humans who hated gay people hundreds of years ago saying that's what this and that part of the bible meant.
Though I was raised in a christian household which generally frowned upon such things, I've come to hold the belief that if god exists, and said god actually thinks being gay is a sin, then god is wrong about that.
Laws preventing discrimination are enforced equally by disallowing businesses to discriminate against certain classes of people. Owning a business is not an inalienable right. There are a number of regulations that are designed to protect consumers that you must abide by if you want to run a business in a free country. If you can't abide by them, then you don't get to own a business in America until you can figure out how to meet these regulations. One of these regulations outlaws discrimination.