Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

I Hate to Say I Told You So

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 12:11 PM
You could probably say that about any advocacy group. There's a sizable contingent of radicals that make the most noise, but don't represent the majority of the population. It's sad, but that's how media works these days.
In response to:

I Hate to Say I Told You So

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 12:10 PM
The bible does mention homosexuality a number of times. It also mentions slavery, eating shellfish, wearing blended fabrics, adultry, and divorce. That alone says to me that it is not a good perveyor of God's laws. God gave us the ability to feel compassion and empathy for our fellow man. That alone is more poweful than the written text of pre-modern humans who spoke many different languages and came from very different cultures. Cherry picking the bible doesn't give you or anyone a reason to disparage an entire group of people. But if you're going to do that, I would also suggest you read Romans 2:1, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."
In response to:

I Hate to Say I Told You So

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 12:07 PM
Fred, I would be happy to listened to your reasoned rebuttal. I'm even willing to change my position if you present something compelling. But just insulting me and attacking me personally doesn't make for a good argument and it never has. Would you ever change your mind to someone who treated you as such?
Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to discriminating against a minority. It's one thing to bar someone from a church, but we're talking about a business here. A business is not a church. A business serves the public equally based on what anti-discrimination laws dictate. And in this case, sexual orientation was one of the minorities protected under the law. It's really that simple. You don't have to attend a same-sex marriage ceremony if you don't want. There's nothing in the law forcing you to do so. But if you have a business that serves the public, you cannot discriminate.
That's not the issue at hand here. We're dealing with anti-discrimination laws as they pertain to business, not marriage laws. But the argument you just made has already been rejected by the Superme Court. Look up Loving v. Virginia and you'll see why it does not apply.
You're right. You don't have to attend an event you find repulsive. But if you are a business that serves the public in a state that has anti-discrimination laws, then you can't selectively provide service to only a certain group of people. That's against the law.
If you're not willing to look up the laws that the state is applying in this instance, then why are you debating the issue? Are you at all open to the possibility that you could be wrong? Don't you think God cares about whether or not a sincerely held conviction is true and moral? It makes no sense to just reject anyone who doesn't agree without merit. That's not very Christian last I checked. I don't know what your worldview is, but it certainly isn't consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
In response to:

I Hate to Say I Told You So

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 9:08 AM
To discriminate against those who discriminate against minorities is not discrimination. As for destroying careers, that's not a product of rights. That's a product of the market.
I have read the constitution. The free exercise of religion doesn't include the right to disaprage and discriminate. That goes against the 5th and 14th amendment. There's no freedom to discriminate in the same way there's no freedom to steal. You assume that anyone against you hates Chrsitianity and people like you. That is simply not true. I'm very much in favor of religious freedom, but I don't consider the right to discriminate against minorities a religious freedom. That actually goes against the very tenants of Christianity. Read Romans 2:1 if you get a chance. I think that nicely sums it up.
You make an interesting point. I agree that it does set a dangerous precedent. If a business refuses to provide service to a gay couple because of their religious beliefs, then what is to stop them from refusing service to a divorced couple or an unmarried mother or someone they knew had committed adultry? The same legal principle would apply, which is why it's such a dangerous precedent.
Look up anti-discrimination laws. Some states do recognize sexual orientation as a protected class. So that means that the photographer, which is a business that serves the public, could not discriminate based on sexual orientaiton. They had to serve the public equally. Therefore, refusing service to a homosexual couple was against the law. And under the constitution, that falls under the jurisdiction of the 10th amendment and the 14th amendment.
Previous 21 - 30 Next