| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2014 10:40:18 AM · #6376 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...we are still eagerly awaiting a response on this. Any chance we will ever get one? |
No, you will never get an answer because there is no way to distinguish between unconstitutional discrimination justified on religious grounds and the definition of bigotry.
 |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 11:03:49 AM · #6377 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I seem to have touched a nerve. We were talking about people forcing their beliefs on others. You changed the subject to killing. Then you called me a bigot.
Great, if you cannot defend the argument, just change the subject and start name calling. |
In passing, do you have any form of response to the questions that were raised or will you simply resort to your normal "Ignore it and it will go away" approach to things.
Regarding your initial post, did you actually read what the proposal says and who do you think it will benefit?
Ray |
 Nullix... we are still eagerly awaiting a response on this. Any chance we will ever get one?
Ray |
Of course I read the proposal and I know who would benefit from it. That's why I ignored your post. It seemed like an obvious cut down that I didn't actually know what I was talking about.
Ray, if you have a point to make, please be forward with it and not use leading questions. |
Simple question then... who exactly would benefit from the proposal you initially posted? Once you provide an answer to that question, I will respond to the bold portion of your comment.
By the way, you still have not replied to any of the questions raised by those who don't agree with you. Should we wait in anticipation or will you simply resort to your tried and true method of simply ignoring things that you have no answers to?
How's that for being fair?
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/12/2014 12:01:35 PM · #6378 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Ray, if you have a point to make, please be forward with it and not use leading questions. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Simple question then... |
Okay Ray. Hopefully now you'll understand why I don't respond to you.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2014 12:17:08 PM · #6379 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I seem to have touched a nerve. We were talking about people forcing their beliefs on others. You changed the subject to killing. Then you called me a bigot.
Great, if you cannot defend the argument, just change the subject and start name calling. |
In passing, do you have any form of response to the questions that were raised or will you simply resort to your normal "Ignore it and it will go away" approach to things.
Regarding your initial post, did you actually read what the proposal says and who do you think it will benefit?
Ray |
Nullix... we are still eagerly awaiting a response on this. Any chance we will ever get one?
Ray |
Of course I read the proposal and I know who would benefit from it. That's why I ignored your post. It seemed like an obvious cut down that I didn't actually know what I was talking about.
Ray, if you have a point to make, please be forward with it and not use leading questions. |
Simple question then... who exactly would benefit from the proposal you initially posted? Once you provide an answer to that question, I will respond to the bold portion of your comment.
By the way, you still have not replied to any of the questions raised by those who don't agree with you. Should we wait in anticipation or will you simply resort to your tried and true method of simply ignoring things that you have no answers to?
How's that for being fair?
Ray |
Sadly, we'll never get any kind of reasonable, sensible, compassionate, intelligent answer from Tom.
There is nothing he can say that supports his ignorance and bigotry that hasn't been proven to be just that, as well as having become plain flat illegal in many instances.
It seems to me that the only opposition we get in this thread any more is the bitter sniping of only the most staunch of holdouts that refuse to even entertain that the people they so vehemently hate and try to prevent their right to equal treatment might just be that.......regular folks, just like you and I who want to live peacefully amongst each other.......grow and work together, raise families, and pursue happiness.
His "clever" talk of how we take pot shots at him is pretty amusing when the only time we hear from him is when he attempts to start a fight with some of his outrageous claims.
This time, he trotted out the old "Forced to participate in gay marriage" one, yet through his own presentation, he helped us contradict the example by stating himself that these folks had a prior relationship with the bakery.
So.......why is it, Tom, that you'd bring us an example that so thoroughly fits into an ironclad case of discrimination?
|
|
|
|
12/12/2014 12:50:36 PM · #6380 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.......why is it, Tom, that you'd bring us an example that so thoroughly fits into an ironclad case of discrimination? |
Because it is discrimination. You seem to think discrimination is bad. We have business discriminating all the time.
Discounts only for Senior Citizens.
Women only Gyms.
Priesthoods that only accept men.
The example of the Oregon Baker shows they were more than willing to do business with the lesbian woman. It was only when she wanted a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
They were discriminating against the event, not the person. |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 12:51:39 PM · #6381 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Ray, if you have a point to make, please be forward with it and not use leading questions. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Simple question then... |
Okay Ray. Hopefully now you'll understand why I don't respond to you. |
I most definitely do understand. You don't have an answer and your actions are such that I am now absolutely convinced that you really don't actually know what you are talking about.
Nice to see that you remain consistent.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 01:17:02 PM · #6382 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.......why is it, Tom, that you'd bring us an example that so thoroughly fits into an ironclad case of discrimination? |
Because it is discrimination. You seem to think discrimination is bad. We have business discriminating all the time.
Discounts only for Senior Citizens.
Women only Gyms.
Priesthoods that only accept men.
The example of the Oregon Baker shows they were more than willing to do business with the lesbian woman. It was only when she wanted a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
They were discriminating against the event, not the person. |
i'm curious, how is a gay wedding cake different than a straight wedding cake? do yo have to cook it in the furnaces of hell or something? |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 01:24:27 PM · #6383 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i'm curious, how is a gay wedding cake different than a straight wedding cake? do yo have to cook it in the furnaces of hell or something? |
That's the part of it that's weird. I mean, a cake's a cake, right? It's hard to imagine a store telling its employees "Don't sell a camera to that guy, he's gonna use it to photograph a same-sex wedding and we don't approve of that!" |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 02:17:48 PM · #6384 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... the people they so vehemently hate ... |
Christians don't hate people -- they follow Jesus' instructions and love them ... they just hate everything some people do or believe in ... right? :-( |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 03:03:54 PM · #6385 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I mean, a cake's a cake, right? It's hard to imagine a store telling its employees "Don't sell a camera to that guy, he's gonna use it to photograph a same-sex wedding and we don't approve of that!" |
Given the fact that the same people decrying businesses "forced" to serve gays against ther religious beliefs don't also freak out when asked to serve adulterers or people of another faith, it's irrefutably obvious that those "beliefs" are nothing more than naked bigotry and homophobia dressed up as religion. |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 05:50:48 PM · #6386 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Ray, if you have a point to make, please be forward with it and not use leading questions. |
Here you go. Try answering the questions I raised at post #6360.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 06:45:09 PM · #6387 |
Originally posted by RayEthier #6360:
He wasn't obliged to go to the wedding (assuming he was invited)... all he needed to do was back the cake, something that bakers do in the wee hours or the morning, probably alone and then place the offending cake in a box and no one would be the wiser.
Given you line of thinking, would you be OK with police officers, paramedics, firemen and the like denying emergency services to people based only on their assumption that the recipient is gay. |
There is no comparison. Emergency services. Baking a cake. It's not like it was an emergency wedding. Weddings are planned far enough in advance, if you come across a baker that doesn't approve of your wedding. Find another.
But I won't dodge your question. Some religious belief systems are against gay marriage. Photographing or making a cake for a gay wedding puts people in close proximity of being an active participant in something that goes against their religious beliefs.
There is no reputable religion that are against helping people in need (emergency services). I can see no way someone in the emergency services could deny a gay recipient (I'm sure the courts would agree).
Now, forcing fire fighters to participate in a Gay Pride parade? (Not for emergency services, but forced to ride in the parade.) We covered that on page 203 in my comment #5054. And yes, like the photographer and cake maker, they shouldn't be forced to participate in something against their beliefs. |
|
|
|
12/13/2014 09:58:37 PM · #6388 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
There is no comparison. Emergency services. Baking a cake. It's not like it was an emergency wedding. Weddings are planned far enough in advance, if you come across a baker that doesn't approve of your wedding. Find another. |
Let me ask you this, Tom; should a restaurant owner be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple? |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 01:42:11 PM · #6389 |
no one is forcing the baker to bake cakes for a living. he could choose another career that doesn't put himself in the position of possible violating his beliefs.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2014 04:29:29 PM · #6390 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me ask you this, Tom; should a restaurant owner be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple? |
I'm not certain how a reasonable restaurant owner could refuse service to a nice couple (gay or straight.)
Message edited by author 2014-12-14 16:32:21. |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 10:18:19 PM · #6391 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me ask you this, Tom; should a restaurant owner be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple? |
I'm not certain how a reasonable restaurant owner could refuse service to a nice couple (gay or straight.) |
Well, apparently it's reasonable for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because same-sex weddings are against his religion? How do you reconcile these? Where is the line to be drawn? |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 11:53:09 PM · #6392 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me ask you this, Tom; should a restaurant owner be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple? |
I'm not certain how a reasonable restaurant owner could refuse service to a nice couple (gay or straight.) |
Well, apparently it's reasonable for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because same-sex weddings are against his religion? How do you reconcile these? Where is the line to be drawn? |
Let me first establish, there is nothing wrong about having same sex attractions. The part my belief system has a problem with is acting out on those attractions.
In a restaurant, I am serving people food. Me serving them food does not make me culpable to what they do after I feed them.
If gay couple come into my restaurant and want some food, I'll serve them. My serving them will have no effect on their attractions to each other. If afterwards, they say they like my food and want me to cater their wedding, now I'm becoming an active participant in something that goes against my beliefs. I'd have to decline and apologize to the nice men. I'd hope they come back to my restaurant since they tip well.
You see the difference?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2014 12:39:12 AM · #6393 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You see the difference? |
I'm sorry, but no. I see hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Nullix:
"Let me first establish, there is nothing wrong about having same sex attractions. The part my belief system has a problem with is acting out on those attractions." |
You're saying you're fine with a man loving a man, but not with a man touching another man sexually or suggestively. Or a woman loving a woman, I assume. Then you tell me you'll happily serve them food because it "will have no effect on their attractions to each other". And then you imply, with the catering analogy, that somehow the act of providing food to the wedding WILL have an "effect on their attractions to each other." To me, that sounds like self-serving nonsense.
You are not willing to accept that these human beings have a right to marry. The state disagrees. If you have a religious conviction against gays, the problem is yours, not theirs. The problem, bluntly, is with your religion, not with them. |
|
|
|
12/15/2014 12:45:28 AM · #6394 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You see the difference? |
NO. You are not actively participating in what they do after a wedding any more than what they do after eating. A couple (gay or straight) can be married without any church involvement whatsoever and have a strictly platonic relationship purely for the devotion, tax or legal benefits, none of which is against any world religion nor any of your business. In the course of operating a catering business, you would almost certainly serve people of other faiths, atheists, adulterers, etc. on a regular basis without a second thought, much less investigating to make sure. That obvious hypocrisy proves the argument is just an excuse for discrimination (if you DID refuse on those grounds, then you would be violating federal law and subject to legal action). Moreover, refusing service to a gay couple is a clear example of judging others and acting in direct opposition to the teachings of Christianity's namesake.
Message edited by author 2014-12-15 00:47:50. |
|
|
|
12/15/2014 09:27:47 AM · #6395 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Nullix:
You see the difference? |
I'm sorry, but no. I see hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Nullix:
"Let me first establish, there is nothing wrong about having same sex attractions. The part my belief system has a problem with is acting out on those attractions." |
You're saying you're fine with a man loving a man, but not with a man touching another man sexually or suggestively. Or a woman loving a woman, I assume. Then you tell me you'll happily serve them food because it "will have no effect on their attractions to each other". And then you imply, with the catering analogy, that somehow the act of providing food to the wedding WILL have an "effect on their attractions to each other." To me, that sounds like self-serving nonsense.
You are not willing to accept that these human beings have a right to marry. The state disagrees. If you have a religious conviction against gays, the problem is yours, not theirs. The problem, bluntly, is with your religion, not with them. |
You seem to think eating at a restaurant and a marriage ceremony are on the same level. I believe they are on totally different levels.
Maybe that's why we have such a disconnect. You seem to think marriage is just like going down to McDonalds and ordering a burger. I believe it is something more sacred.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2014 09:46:10 AM · #6396 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You seem to think marriage is just like going down to McDonalds and ordering a burger. I believe it is something more sacred. |
Irrelevant. You already claimed the the only problem according to your beliefs is acting out on same sex attraction, which isn't dining OR getting married, and the latter needn't involve a church (which doesn't even issue marriage licenses) or sex at all. That only leaves you with two people having same sex attractions, and you said there is nothing wrong with that. Busted! A more direct example might be whether you as a hotel owner would refuse to rent a room to a gay or interracial couple, married or not. The religious prohibitions and public accomodation laws are exactly the same. |
|
|
|
12/15/2014 10:01:10 AM · #6397 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Maybe that's why we have such a disconnect. You seem to think marriage is just like going down to McDonalds and ordering a burger. I believe it is something more sacred. |
In what sense is same-sex marriage NOT sacred? That they can't conceive children? Then any post-menopausal marriage is secular, surely?
This isn't a disconnect, it's a reality-check, Tom.
As far as I know there's only one thing in the bible that directly addresses homosexuality, and that's Leviticus 18:22 -- âThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.â Tell me that you're also observing all the other proscriptions and commands of Leviticus, and I may retract my accusation of hypocrisy. What about First Corinthians? Does your wife cover her head? Does she speak in church? Because, let's not forget the Book of Matthew.
Originally posted by Matthew 5:17-20, New International Version:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. |
The Christians I admire are those who follow the teachings of the Christ, and His example, not those who armor themselves with a cryptic translation from a myriad of sources, all of whom in the Old Testament long preceded Him, and in the New Testament came after. |
|
|
|
12/15/2014 10:08:56 AM · #6398 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
You seem to think marriage is just like going down to McDonalds and ordering a burger. I believe it is something more sacred. |
Irrelevant. You already claimed the the only problem according to your beliefs is acting out on same sex attraction. which isn't dining OR getting married, and the latter needn't involve a church (which doesn't even issue marriage licenses) or sex at all. That only leaves you with two people having same sex attractions, and you said there is nothing wrong with that. Busted! A more direct example might be whether you as a hotel owner would refuse to rent a room to a gay or interracial couple, married or not. The religious prohibitions and public accomodation laws are exactly the same. |
I never said sexual attractions and marriage aren't related. You must be mistaken or misreading me. Marriage and sex go hand in hand. My belief system doesn't actually accept a marriage until it's consummated. Most religions have the same belief.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2014 10:18:03 AM · #6399 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In what sense is same-sex marriage NOT sacred? |
Wow, the minefields are everywhere.
I have a lot of respect for Mouse and the beautiful souls God has created. I like to say I have friends who have same sex attractions. I also like to think I'm friends with those who are legally married in same sex marriages. Some even married in a church. They hold something beautiful.
If they were to invite me to their "marriage" ceremony, I'd have to decline. To me and my belief system, it is not sacred.
We can define what is sacred or not, but that I'm sure is a different thread.
Edit: You brought up a few bible verses. I'm trying not to get into specifics since there are many belief systems that doesn't accepted same sex marriage. It might be pointless to argue from one system. That's why I haven't addressed specific religion. Also there are many Christian sects that contradict each other in their belief. Lastly, I didn't want to specify a belief system and bring along the baggage of that religion.
Basically, we have a 1st amendment that gives us religious freedoms.
Message edited by author 2014-12-15 11:08:44. |
|
|
|
12/15/2014 10:50:03 AM · #6400 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Marriage and sex go hand in hand. |
You're not married, are you. |
|
