In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SimonNorwich Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 5:14 AM
Benjamin, I look forward to the time when you are refused a service. Maybe you'll line up to get on a plane and then be told you can't get on, or you can't sit next to your wife, because it conflicts with the pilot's religious views. Or maybe you'll have to sit on separate tables to your wife or friends when you go to a restaurant, because in the waiter's view you are the devil incarnate. Or perhaps you won't be able to get your car fixed, or buy groceries from your favourite store, because the owner thinks you're an evil little goblin. I trust you'll take it all in good humour, however inconvenient or humilating it might be for you and your family and friends, and be thankful that we live in a world that tolerates superstitious bigots.
DCM in FL Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:34 AM
It's no more "superstitious bigotry" to oppose homosexuality than to oppose pedophilia or incest.
du2 Wrote: Sep 28, 2012 7:28 AM
Yeah it IS inconsistent and UNNECESSARY bigotry. Incest and pedophilia are ANTI SOCIAL behaviors that threaten the vulnerable and does great harm. Homosexuality isn't any more harmful to society than heterosexuality. Sexual orientation can be channeled into commitment and monogamy in the same way. Only gay people haven't been supported in monogamy and legal commitment because of prejudice about their nature. DCM you engage in defamation, not facts. Opinions like yours, up against those of us more experienced and informed, looks demented and stubbornly ridiculous.
SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:11 AM
So your solution is to FORCE these "bigots" to associate with people they don't want to? On which end of this transaction is FORCE applied?

1. The person who insists that they have a "right" to be accommodated by someone who does not want that associations, or
2. The person who exercises their "right" not to associate or accommodate someone with whom they have disagreements?

Freedom means that I am free from coercive acts by government to force me to do something against my will, when my will does not involve coercion of someone else. I.e. - I am free ONLY if I am able to act on my own beliefs and conscience, using my property as I desire, as long as I do not force someone else to violate their conscience or infringe on their (cont.)
SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:17 AM
continued . . .

property. If you do not agree with "my" position that I will uphold my Christin beliefs and not rent a room to an unmarried couple or homosexual couple, do you not violate your own conscience by wanting associate with me? Isn't your action - forcing me to rent to you - an act of aggression by you against my beliefs, conscience, and property rights? If I am a "bigot", do I not just harm myself and my potential income if I discriminate against you for whatever reason? You have other options, so you are not harmed.

When the government forces me to violate my conscience, then I have no other options except to leave the country. Ask the Puritans about that. You might have heard about them in school.

Freedom is not Force
Becky93 Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 7:15 AM
So go to another restaurant, or patronize an airline that shares your values. If you don't like the way a business owner treats you, don't go there and let other people know about it (not hard to do in this day of FB and Twitter). That business owner will either change his policies or suffer reduced patronage. On the flip side, DO patronize those establishments that share your values and let them know why.

In other words, let the free market work, and let individuals live and do business according to their own consciences.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 7:44 AM
Why is this such a problem for left-libs?
SimonNorwich Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 9:04 AM
Whether or not a business suffers reduced patronage doesn't in any way help those whom it discriminates against. The inconvenience and humiliation of being treated differently to other customers is not nearly as insignificant as you imagine.
And contrary to what Benjamin is arguing, there is no intolerance of Christians in this scenario. If a hotel owner (be they Christian or anything else) is obliged to provide a room to an unmarried couple, in no way does it impact on the lifestyle or beliefs of the hotel owner. But if members of minority groups are refused the same services as everyone else, it will have a signifcant impact on them.
James2517 Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 9:04 AM
See Mark4414's 1"06 Am comment below for an answer.
Dean197 Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 9:57 AM
The exact same logic applies to restaurants and hotels serving blacks. Are you comfortable with blacks being denied service at places of public accomodation?

This is about people in positions of power over others discriminating against them for personal reasons. Maybe the stewardess can't display a cross as a representative of the airline, but any passenger can. It's not where I would draw the line, but at least I can that the issue has consistently been restrictions on providers of services, not on their customers.
There has been a demonstrable move away from Judeo-Christian faith and practice in Europe for a number of years. Just ask British hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

What was once respected as authoritative is now considered Victorian, and what was widely embraced as a moral guide has been dismissed with the morals in which it guided people…all in the name of tolerance, mind you.

And so the Bulls have experienced the irony of ironies that Christianity is being forced out of the room by those who claim tolerance as their guiding principle.

They used to be poked fun at...