rationality
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2015
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 17
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Do you think they are?
. One could argue the lawsuits where Christians were forced to cater to things against their beliefs (gay bakery/photo lawsuits) is also discrimination and intolerance.
Christians are socially discriminated against, Try being a younger Christian in today's generation. Everyone likes to dog and attack people who actually live out their faith. Evangelicals are a mocked and socially persecuted minority. One could argue the lawsuits where Christians were forced to cater to things against their beliefs (gay bakery/photo lawsuits) is also discrimination and intolerance.
and that one would lose that argument since there is no force and no actual discrimination took place.
Christians are socially discriminated against, Try being a younger Christian in today's generation. Everyone likes to dog and attack people who actually live out their faith. Evangelicals are a mocked and socially persecuted minority. One could argue the lawsuits where Christians were forced to cater to things against their beliefs (gay bakery/photo lawsuits) is also discrimination and intolerance.
Do you think they are?
1.)Of course there is, the force was through penalties, charges and potentially losing their businesses.
2.) Discrimination did take place, their religious beliefs as individuals was violated in the name of public accommodation or anti-discrimination or whatever.
1.) nope there was a CHOICE to break the law and infringe on rights . . .
i mean unless you want to use such a watered down version of force that ALL rights and laws are force? then theres also force not to rape too . . .
by thatr logic there is also force for me not to be able to use rat droppings on my cakes.
simple solution, dont CHOOSE to be a criminal and break laws and rules and you are ok.
2.) nothing was violated at all as thier religious beliefs are fully intact, again thier misguide choice to break the law is thier own
again unless you want to use another watered down version of discrimination and say there was discrimination against criminal activity . . then yes, we do that . . we discriminate against law breaking
but NONE of that is based on Christianity . . . none of it
1.)You clearly refuse to see anything from another point of view.
2.) The law infringed upon their practice of faith, and as such the law and penalties discriminated against those who's religious beliefs said they shouldn't participate in a gay wedding.
3.)Regardless though, evangelicals or Christians that actually stand for something Biblical are persecuted socially. I don't see how anyone could deny that.
4.) In the world of free love, rampant sexual immorality and other such things people who don't support that or partake in it are made fun of, rejected, and socially persecuted.
Being made fun of is not persecution.Regardless though, evangelicals or Christians that actually stand for something Biblical are persecuted socially. I don't see how anyone could deny that. In the world of free love, rampant sexual immorality and other such things people who don't support that or partake in it are made fun of, rejected, and socially persecuted.
1.) im sure you believe thaat but you cant back it up. what other point of view, the made up one? . . . i look at from rights and laws . . how else would you like me to look at it
2.) no, it didnt has many court cases have proven in the passed with other issue. They are still 100% free to practice thier faith, its VERY disingenuous to even hint they are not.
they dont get to break the law and infringe on rights cause of thier beliefs NOR does thier faith require them to do so. there practicing wasnt infring on in anyway what so ever thats bull. lol
3.) easy because its not true, thier Christianity isnt being persecuted at all. thier actions of waiting to makes rules for others and infring on others rights and want to break the law is what gets them persecuted NOT thier religion which doesnt require any of that. You are mixing them and they are factually not the saem
4.) and vice versa this has NOTHING to do with the op. Person A being called a prude and person B being called a slut or immoral freak by individuals is pretty meaningless. again if that was the standard of the OP the whole world is discriminated against.
This is why those arguments always fail theres no support for them.
LMAO
as a Christian myself that answer is no of course not, the law protects me from that . . . if anything we have gotten away with more since we are the majority
not once in my lifetime have i ever been discriminated against because of my religion nor has my religious right and freedom ever been infringed on
1.)Did you even read my post? You can call something a failure but you aren't even addressing my reasons. I'm not repeating myself to satisfy your bullet points that avoid the obvious.
2.) Christian owners were punished for not participating in homosexual marriages upon request. The law allowed this, it's a legal form of persecution.
3.) Christians are also socially persecuted by many.
4.) The fact that many, and even some on this bored, will jump to label all Evangelicals as "bigots" or "haters" and judge them right from the getgo is a prime example of that.
Being made fun of is not persecution.
Religious "beliefs" are not a license to break the law. Some extremists may believe that, but they are wrong. Loss of previous privilege is not discrimination.
Christians are socially discriminated against, Try being a younger Christian in today's generation. Everyone likes to dog and attack people who actually live out their faith. Evangelicals are a mocked and socially persecuted minority. One could argue the lawsuits where Christians were forced to cater to things against their beliefs (gay bakery/photo lawsuits) is also discrimination and intolerance.
As a person who doesn't really seem to follow the tenets of Christianity, I'm not sure you are the best person to answer the question.