"If you don't support gay marriage, you don't have to get one"

[homersapien 11,513]

From what I understand about Jesus, he would not refuse to participate in a homosexual marriage. Just the opposite.

And that's based on the same information you have access to.

Clearly it is not. "From what I understand" doesn't imply deep consideration or study. Especially when followed with: "I could care less what the Bible says about gay marriage. The Bible is quite irrelevant when it comes to ascertaining human rights."

No, you merely flung that line of 'what would Jesus do' out there, like so many unschooled non-Christians do when they wish to shame objecting Christians. You're not educated on the matter, but you assume EVERYTHING Christians may find a morally objectionable is due to lazy misinterpretation of the Bible. When in this case, you've failed to interpret at all. It's lazy. It's throwing moral objection to gay wedding into the Bible wielding racists of the 60s. Which is evidenced by the lazy equating of this to lunch counter situations of the 60s.

It underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of WHY Christians hold the position they hold. And also explains confusion as to WHY Christians won't so easily abandon those beliefs as they would a sweaty Tshirt or a pair of old socks.

First, "from what I understand" does not imply anything about how much I have "studied" it.

It's just a way of saying I am not so arrogantly dogmatic and self-righteous that I feel justified to dictate to other people what they do and don't understand about Christ.

And I didn't "fling" the line WWJD out there. I am not the one on here making religious arguments for restricting civil rights you are.

And presumably, if much of that argument is founded on your faith in Christ, it's certainly a relevant question. The Christ I know and understand is obviously different from the Christ you proclaim. I like mine much better.

[Weegle777 78]

Do you know what Jesus' two ministries were while He was here?

[BamaGrad03 0]

And presumably, if much of that argument is founded on your faith in Christ, it's certainly a relevant question. The Christ I know and understand is obviously different from the Christ you proclaim. I like mine much better.

This is so unbelievably condescending it is amazing. If you want to make a secular argument for supporting erosion of religious freedom in favor of gay rights - that's completely fine. But to use a Biblical one is arrogant, and suggests you know more than the thousands of years worth of theological study on the matter would have gleaned.

It's just a way of saying I am not so arrogantly dogmatic and self-righteous that I feel justified to dictate to other people what they do and don't understand about Christ.

It's just a way of saying - I haven't studied it, I don't know it, you have, but I know more than you.

And I didn't "fling" the line WWJD out there.

Um yes, you did. You almost literally said what would Jesus do.

I am not the one on here making religious arguments for restricting civil rights you are.

No, you're making sexual preference arguments for restricting civil rights.

[homersapien 11,513]

From what I understand about Jesus, he would not refuse to participate in a homosexual marriage. Just the opposite.

And that's based on the same information you have access to.

Clearly it is not. "From what I understand" doesn't imply deep consideration or study. Especially when followed with: "I could care less what the Bible says about gay marriage. The Bible is quite irrelevant when it comes to ascertaining human rights."

No, you merely flung that line of 'what would Jesus do' out there, like so many unschooled non-Christians do when they wish to shame objecting Christians. You're not educated on the matter, but you assume EVERYTHING Christians may find a morally objectionable is due to lazy misinterpretation of the Bible. When in this case, you've failed to interpret at all. It's lazy. It's throwing moral objection to gay wedding into the Bible wielding racists of the 60s. Which is evidenced by the lazy equating of this to lunch counter situations of the 60s.

It underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of WHY Christians hold the position they hold. And also explains confusion as to WHY Christians won't so easily abandon those beliefs as they would a sweaty Tshirt or a pair of old socks.

I love how the new liberal atheist, all knowing having never read a single line from the Bible, is perfectly equipped to educate people who have spent their life in Biblical study on all matters of faith.

So you don't think homosexuals should have the same civil rights as the rest of us period, or is it you think civil rights should be invariably subordinated to religious rights?

I think civil rights are civil rights. And one shouldn't be able to compel another to abandon their own for the sake of another's. Your rights end when they impede my own. I have the right to practice religion, I don't have the right to do so in your living room if you don't want me to. And I don't have the right to call you a hateful bigot just because you prefer I not insert myself into your living room.

This has nothing to do with you practicing your religion in my living room or anyone calling anyone else a hateful bigot.

This is about a business who otherwise serves the public refusing their marriage hosting services to two members of that public because they are homosexual.

Yeah, that may mean the religious couple has to compromise their religious-based policy because it infringes on the civil rights of two citizens.

We've been here before. Like it or not you can substitute the word black for homosexual and find analgous cases from the past where religion was used in the exact same way.

[BamaGrad03 0]

We've been here before. Like it or not you can substitute the word black for homosexual and find analgous cases from the past where religion was used in the exact same way.

No, no you can't. You keep using black in substitute for gay, ignoring the point Titan keeps making. That doesn't mean you're doing it right.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

We've been here before. Like it or not you can substitute the word black for homosexual and find analgous cases from the past where religion was used in the exact same way.

Sure you can, if you're prone to intellectually lazy argumentation.

[homersapien 11,513]

You are begging the question. I am sure the lesbian couple view it as a human rights issue. They are being denied a service based on who they are the service they wish to hold at the owner's facility.

It isn't about who they are. If it was about who they are, then the owner would refuse to allow lesbians to use their facility for any purpose be it wedding, bar mitzvah, class reunion or a business gathering.

But that's the empirical reason he is refusing his facilities for their marriage is it not?

Not at all. Unless you really do think that refusing to allow a misogynist, vulgar black rap artist to host his album launch party is about the fact that he's black.

Again, I think that is a false equivalence. What is it about a wedding that would promote misogyny and vulgarity?

Again, you make the error that two examples have to be exactly right in every aspect to be useful analogies.

The issue isn't whether the wedding promotes misogyny or vulgarity. It's that the owner objects to both. Or even if it was just vulgarity. The bottom line is, the owner has moral objections to it and doesn't want to be associated with it. That's what matters. Likewise, the wedding in question is something that the owner has moral objections with and doesn't want to be forced to be a part of it.

This is rather simple. The owner serves gay customers. The owner serves black customers. The owner can and does refuse to serve some customers of any stripe if the content of the event in question goes against their moral/religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, college football team they pull for, eye color, favorite rock band or preferred Ben & Jerry's flavor. I don't get why you keep running around this same bush.

I can make the same argument .

I understand that is the owner's objection to gay marriage in principle.

You are the one who started with the comparisons to promoting misogyny and vulgarity which contain an element of hate if not outright harm, which might justify a (legal) refusal to provide services.

I am just pointing out there are no real consequences to their accommodating, as a business, the rights of the lesbian couple. If they really feel God is going to commit them to hell for doing so, then they should just refuse to accommodate any and all weddings period.

Both sides have a case. As a matter of law, the courts will decide if the beliefs of the business owners trump the civil rights of the plaintiffs. And as I have said, we have been here before, and will likely be here again.

[homersapien 11,513]

And presumably, if much of that argument is founded on your faith in Christ, it's certainly a relevant question. The Christ I know and understand is obviously different from the Christ you proclaim. I like mine much better.

This is so unbelievably condescending it is amazing. If you want to make a secular argument for supporting erosion of religious freedom in favor of gay rights - that's completely fine. But to use a Biblical one is arrogant, and suggests you know more than the thousands of years worth of theological study on the matter would have gleaned.

Whoa. You can tell me your understanding is superior than mine, but if I do the same I am "condescending".

Well, you just can't argue with a Pharisee I suppose.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Whoa. You can tell me your understanding is superior than mine, but if I do the same I am "condescending"

Because I've actually read it. If I never read To Kill A Mockingbird, I wouldn't condescend to the Harper Lee fan club about how they have no idea what the book was about.

Well, you just can't argue with a Pharisee I suppose.

Ah yes, the classic throwaway line. Try harder.

Both sides have a case. As a matter of law, the courts will decide if the beliefs of the business owners trump the civil rights of the plaintiffs.

Yeah, because you know how the law is trending, you're perfectly OK with this. I'm guessing you weren't as calm about the courts and their decision with the Hobby Lobby case.

[homersapien 11,513]

It's just a way of saying I am not so arrogantly dogmatic and self-righteous that I feel justified to dictate to other people what they do and don't understand about Christ.

It's just a way of saying - I haven't studied it, I don't know it, you have, but I know more than you.

Not exactly. I didn't say I haven't studied it. I didn't say I don't "know it". Nor did I concede you know more about it than me.

I am not really interested in a pissing contest about who has studied Jesus more.

That would be a contest between two self-righteous pricks and I am not one.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Not exactly. I didn't say I haven't studied it. I didn't say I don't "know it". Nor did I concede you know more about it than me.

I merely inferred that you hadn't studied it since you don't know what is in it. My bad.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

I can make the same argument .

I understand that is the owner's objection to gay marriage in principle.

You are the one who started with the comparisons to promoting misogyny and vulgarity which contain an element of hate if not outright harm, which might justify a (legal) refusal to provide services.

But you are the one that keeps making the error that elements of "hate" or "harm" are the reason the owner has the right to object. That is not the issue. The basis for the owner's refusal is their own religious convictions on such matters. Even if the lyrics were just overtly and explicitly sexual, that would be enough of a reason for them to refuse. Even if the entirety of the rest of society thinks that such content is perfectly acceptable for adults to listen to, the owner has the right to refuse based on that content.

I am just pointing out there are no real consequences to their accommodating, as a business, the rights of the lesbian couple. If they really feel God is going to commit them to hell for doing so, then they should just refuse to accommodate any and all weddings period.

No, because not all weddings are violations of their beliefs. And not just gay weddings would violate them.

[homersapien 11,513]

And I didn't "fling" the line WWJD out there.

Um yes, you did. You almost literally said what would Jesus do.

Um no I didn't. To be accurate, I typed it on my little keyboard and then hit "post". There was no flinging involved.

[homersapien 11,513]

We've been here before. Like it or not you can substitute the word black for homosexual and find analgous cases from the past where religion was used in the exact same way.

Sure you can, if you're prone to intellectually lazy argumentation.

Wait, bammer just said I can't.

So are you conceding that one can find historical cases of racial discrimination based on personal religious belief or not?

If so, is that not somewhat analogous to this case? Why is that "intellectually lazy"?

[BamaGrad03 0]

We've been here before. Like it or not you can substitute the word black for homosexual and find analgous cases from the past where religion was used in the exact same way.

Sure you can, if you're prone to intellectually lazy argumentation.

Wait, bammer just said I can't.

So are you conceding that one can find historical cases of racial discrimination based on personal religious belief or not?

If so, is that not somewhat analogous to this case? Why is that "intellectually lazy"?

It's lazy because you're doing exactly what you asserted doesn't exist. The poor misguided souls who used religion as a reason to justify beating, imprisoning, and otherwise torturing an entire group of people based on skin color are different from the people who are asking to not be forced to participate in a gay wedding. But you seem to feel they are one in the same, no in between.

For some reason you feel that the mentality that justifies unleashing police dogs and firehoses on people is the same mentality that would have someone respectfully decline to participate in a gay wedding.

Sort of marginalizes the gravity of the civil rights struggles of the 60s doesn't it?

[BamaGrad03 0]

And using religion as an objection isn't the same as wielding religion like a weapon. Martin Luther had a different spirit than the Westboro Baptist Church.

But to group them together is lazy and intellectually dishonest, like Titan suggested.

Anytime anyone ever stands on religious conviction, apparently they're the same as Bull Connor. Nice.

[homersapien 11,513]

Whoa. You can tell me your understanding is superior than mine, but if I do the same I am "condescending"

Because I've actually read it. If I never read To Kill A Mockingbird, I wouldn't condescend to the Harper Lee fan club about how they have no idea what the book was about.

Well, you just can't argue with a Pharisee I suppose.

Ah yes, the classic throwaway line. Try harder.

Both sides have a case. As a matter of law, the courts will decide if the beliefs of the business owners trump the civil rights of the plaintiffs.

Yeah, because you know how the law is trending, you're perfectly OK with this. I'm guessing you weren't as calm about the courts and their decision with the Hobby Lobby case.

Who said I never read it (presumably the Bible)? Not me. FYI, I am 63 years old and was raised as a Christian.

And don't change the subject, there's no need for simile here. If you want to discuss the Bible - and associated literature - we can keep it on that.

And Who said I never read it? Not me.

FYI, I am 63 years old and was raised as a Christian.

And I thought the court decision on the Hobby Lobby case was wrong for the reasons I state in the threads discussing it. I see no need to revisit it.

And for someone who doesn't like to be called a Pharisee, you sure do behave like one.

[BamaGrad03 0]

And for someone who doesn't like to be called a Pharisee, you sure to behave like one.

Pharisees valued law over relationship. Specifically very rule-based Levitical law. That has nothing to do with drawing a moral objection based on things taught by Jesus' disciples.

Since you've continued to bring this up, while I've tried to move on, I'll ask: what did you read in the new testament that led you to believe that Jesus would endorse gay marriage? Where in the new testament did Jesus endorse sin? And why do you feel you have a better understanding of what Jesus expected out of his followers than did Paul?

Even though this is a massive derailment to the thread, and really not pertinent to the original discussion...but you keep sending us down this path, so I'm curious.

[homersapien 11,513]

I can make the same argument .

I understand that is the owner's objection to gay marriage in principle.

You are the one who started with the comparisons to promoting misogyny and vulgarity which contain an element of hate if not outright harm, which might justify a (legal) refusal to provide services.

But you are the one that keeps making the error that elements of "hate" or "harm" are the reason the owner has the right to object. That is not the issue. The basis for the owner's refusal is their own religious convictions on such matters. Even if the lyrics were just overtly and explicitly sexual, that would be enough of a reason for them to refuse. Even if the entirety of the rest of society thinks that such content is perfectly acceptable for adults to listen to, the owner has the right to refuse based on that content.

I am just pointing out there are no real consequences to their accommodating, as a business, the rights of the lesbian couple. If they really feel God is going to commit them to hell for doing so, then they should just refuse to accommodate any and all weddings period.

No, because not all weddings are violations of their beliefs. And not just gay weddings would violate them.

I am sorry but I just don't accept that people serving the public can arbitrarily refuse service of this sort based on a stated religious belief.

If they do, a court is going to have to weigh the harm and benefits dealt to both parties and make a decision as to whether of not they can.

They have a right to refuse service for a lot of other reasons - including safety, propriety, decency and offending the sensibilities of their regular clientele, but they don't have any more right to refuse it on the basis of their current case than if it were a bi-racial couple that was getting married. The reasons cited against miscegenation were religious-based. This is perfectly analogous.

[homersapien 11,513]

We've been here before. Like it or not you can substitute the word black for homosexual and find analgous cases from the past where religion was used in the exact same way.

Sure you can, if you're prone to intellectually lazy argumentation.

Wait, bammer just said I can't.

So are you conceding that one can find historical cases of racial discrimination based on personal religious belief or not?

If so, is that not somewhat analogous to this case? Why is that "intellectually lazy"?

It's lazy because you're doing exactly what you asserted doesn't exist. The poor misguided souls who used religion as a reason to justify beating, imprisoning, and otherwise torturing an entire group of people based on skin color are different from the people who are asking to not be forced to participate in a gay wedding. But you seem to feel they are one in the same, no in between.

For some reason you feel that the mentality that justifies unleashing police dogs and firehoses on people is the same mentality that would have someone respectfully decline to participate in a gay wedding.

Sort of marginalizes the gravity of the civil rights struggles of the 60s doesn't it?

Well, here's where I have a little experience and perspective that maybe you don't have.

You talk about the civil rights struggle as if it's ancient history. I grew up in Birmingham. I have direct memory of it. You could even say I observed it from a Christian's point of view.

And yes, I am equating the attitudes of white Christians using their religious beliefs to justify their bigotry. I think it's perfectly analogous.

And no, I don't think that "marginalizes the gravity of the civil rights struggle of the 60's" at all.

Abuse of civil rights and the degradation that comes with it are experienced on a personal level. From an individual standpoint the scale and degree of previous advances in civil should not be used to deny or delay civil right's in the present.

[BamaGrad03 0]

And no, I don't think that "marginalizes the gravity of the civil rights struggle of the 60's" at all.

Comparing firehoses, police dogs, and segregation to having to get your tshirts printed elsewhere is the same. Got it.

Then you are the very definition of what I said before existed - which you marginalized as me being overly sensitive to some fringe internet lunatics.

You think I'm a bigot because I don't think the government should compel business owners to violate religious conscious to host a gay wedding. You think I hate gay people because of that. You must, because my views are the same as Bull Connor's in the 60s. You can't have it both ways.

[homersapien 11,513]

Anytime anyone ever stands on religious conviction, apparently they're the same as Bull Connor. Nice.

And speaking of intellectually dishonesty that is a great example of it. I didn't say or imply such a thing.

In fact, I suspect the defendants in this case fall into the category of the religiously misguided. I think they are clueless, not hateful.

[BamaGrad03 0]

And speaking intellectually dishonesty that is a great example of it. I didn't say or imply such a thing.

In fact, I suspect the defendants in this case fall into the category of the religiously misguided. I think they are clueless, not hateful.

You can't think that and throw their objections in the same hat as those objections in the 60s that facilitated fire hoses and police dogs.

[homersapien 11,513]

And no, I don't think that "marginalizes the gravity of the civil rights struggle of the 60's" at all.

Comparing firehoses, police dogs, and segregation to having to get your tshirts printed elsewhere is the same. Got it.

Blue, is that really you masquerading as a bammer?

Talk about stupid "throw-aways". :-\

[homersapien 11,513]

And speaking intellectually dishonesty that is a great example of it. I didn't say or imply such a thing.

In fact, I suspect the defendants in this case fall into the category of the religiously misguided. I think they are clueless, not hateful.

You can't think that and throw their objections in the same hat as those objections in the 60s that facilitated fire hoses and police dogs.

Sure I can. Violence doesn't determine the principles at issue. It's irrelevant. A red herring.