Indiana backlash grows ahead of Final Four

[selias 2,398]

It's clear you just don't get the distinction.

I get the distinction. I understand government vs individuals. And the case in New Mexico made it clear that protection from individuals was needed also or the law was meaningless.

You are what you are and no sugar-coating will change it. I will gladly take a time out for standing up to bullies like you.

It'll be more than a timeout if you can't learn to debate with someone you disagree with and leave the slander and name calling out of it.

Debate like a grown up or leave. Your choice.

You don't get the distinction between the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA. You don't understand the difference between NM and IN state law and I'm the petulant child. Perhaps you should look in the mirror. If providing flowers, photos or a cake to a homosexual wedding causes you a crisis of faith, perhaps you should choose another career path or examine why helping people celebrate a joyous occasion is so scorned by people professing religion is about love.

I mailed my Eagle Scout award back to the BSA over their exclusion of homosexuals, you think a forum timeout/banning frightens me?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It's clear you just don't get the distinction.

I get the distinction. I understand government vs individuals. And the case in New Mexico made it clear that protection from individuals was needed also or the law was meaningless.

You are what you are and no sugar-coating will change it. I will gladly take a time out for standing up to bullies like you.

It'll be more than a timeout if you can't learn to debate with someone you disagree with and leave the slander and name calling out of it.

Debate like a grown up or leave. Your choice.

You don't get the distinction between the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA.

Yes, I do. In fact, I posted the differences before you did.

You don't understand the difference between NM and IN state law and I'm the petulant child.

I do understand the differences and I never called you a child. Geez, now you're calling yourself names.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. If providing flowers, photos or a cake to a homosexual wedding causes you a crisis of faith, perhaps you should choose another career path or examine why helping people celebrate a joyous occasion is so scorned by people professing religion is about love.

It's not a crisis of faith, it's me navigating this world and doing the best I can to serve people where I can and still not compromise my values and beliefs. If a hetero couple came in wanting me to do some photoshoot to celebrate 5 years of them shacking up unmarried, I wouldn't do that either. If I found that a hetero couple getting married had cheated on their spouses and were marrying each other, I'd decline that ceremony as well. Try to do less assuming that you know what others are thinking.

I mailed my Eagle Scout award back to the BSA over their exclusion of homosexuals, you think a forum timeout/banning frightens me?

I don't care if you pissed on Lord Baden Powell's grave. I'm just telling you that you will debate like an adult, minus the name calling, or you won't debate here at all. It's immaterial to me which you choose.

[RunInRed 16,383]

I'm going to step back from this debate but I'll again reiterate how stupid and unnecessary ... and borderline "hateful" this law is ... again, Indiana and all those lining up behind them are the wrong side of this one.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I'm going to step back from this debate but I'll again reiterate how stupid and unnecessary ... and borderline "hateful" this law is ... again, Indiana and all those lining up behind them are the wrong side of this one.

It only becomes necessary when folks on the other side of the debate decide that the tolerance they clamored for for decades is no longer needed now that they feel they have some momentum. Tolerance is no longer enough. They can't abide someone being allowed to dissent and not pay for it. Submission is now required.

[homersapien 11,361]

Having said that, I don't personally see these laws as a credible threat to the civil liberties of homosexuals.

Which is why it shouldn't be an issue to have these laws. The so called "threat" doesn't pass the least restrictive means test.

Laws that enable discrimination based on sexuality are an issue regardless of how much damage is done.

To say otherwise is akin to justifying segregation on the basis of 'separate but equal' accommodations.

False equivalency. No one is suggesting carte blanche ability to refuse to do business with gays. If I turn down a black musician's album shoot because of the content of his lyrics, I'm not discriminating against him because of his race. Now if I was refusing to serve other blacks with no objectionable content (even if it's perfectly legal for him to sing whatever he wants), then you'd have a point. Likewise, unless I'm refusing to serve gays in general, the charge doesn't stick just because I wish to pass on gay wedding business.

Red herring. And no one has suggested that is the case. Everyone understands the refusal is more specifically defined than that.

And the rest of your post is also a red herring - or a "false equivalency". There is nothing about a marriage that is objectionable.

What you are objecting to is the sexuality of the participates. The equivalency here is discrimination based on race - who the person is, not what they do.

Again, the fact you are willing to serve gays for one thing but not another is irrelevant. I remember cafes that would serve black people take-out but not let them sit at the counter. You can't plead that as non-discrimination.

[selias 2,398]

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. If providing flowers, photos or a cake to a homosexual wedding causes you a crisis of faith, perhaps you should choose another career path or examine why helping people celebrate a joyous occasion is so scorned by people professing religion is about love.

It's not a crisis of faith, it's me navigating this world and doing the best I can to serve people where I can and still not compromise my values and beliefs. If a hetero couple came in wanting me to do some photoshoot to celebrate 5 years of them shacking up unmarried, I wouldn't do that either. Try to do less assuming that you know what others are thinking.

Fine. Since you call yourself a Christian, where in the Bible can I find Jesus saying anything, anything at all, about homosexuality.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

What happened to respect? Why can't the gay couple get their cake elsewhere and simply honor my religious beliefs? Why would they buy from me knowing my convictions? What is the real goal? Is tolerance truly a two way street?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. If providing flowers, photos or a cake to a homosexual wedding causes you a crisis of faith, perhaps you should choose another career path or examine why helping people celebrate a joyous occasion is so scorned by people professing religion is about love.

It's not a crisis of faith, it's me navigating this world and doing the best I can to serve people where I can and still not compromise my values and beliefs. If a hetero couple came in wanting me to do some photoshoot to celebrate 5 years of them shacking up unmarried, I wouldn't do that either. Try to do less assuming that you know what others are thinking.

Fine. Since you call yourself a Christian, where in the Bible can I find Jesus saying anything, anything at all, about homosexuality.

He also never specifically mentioned child molestation, but I feel pretty confident it was covered under broader themes He touched on. Sort of like how He reaffirmed the one man/one woman sexual ethic and that understanding of marriage.

Can we not do the silly diversionary tactics?

[selias 2,398]

What happened to respect? Why can't the gay couple get their cake elsewhere and simply honor my religious beliefs? Why would they buy from me knowing my convictions? What is the real goal? Is tolerance truly a two way street?

You willing to put signage on your storefront that it is a heterosexual bakery only?

[homersapien 11,361]

You can disagree all you want, but it seems that most people understand that. Does anyone really believe these laws weren't sparked specifically by opposition to homosexuals having the right to get married? Of course not.

People who don't give a s*** about religious liberty "understand" it. It's unreasonable to them, so they don't see why it should bother Christians eitehr.

Presumably, that means "no".

Everyone recognizes these laws were promulgated specifically against homosexuals. Even if Pence refused to admit it.

[selias 2,398]

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. If providing flowers, photos or a cake to a homosexual wedding causes you a crisis of faith, perhaps you should choose another career path or examine why helping people celebrate a joyous occasion is so scorned by people professing religion is about love.

It's not a crisis of faith, it's me navigating this world and doing the best I can to serve people where I can and still not compromise my values and beliefs. If a hetero couple came in wanting me to do some photoshoot to celebrate 5 years of them shacking up unmarried, I wouldn't do that either. Try to do less assuming that you know what others are thinking.

Fine. Since you call yourself a Christian, where in the Bible can I find Jesus saying anything, anything at all, about homosexuality.

He also never specifically mentioned child molestation, but I feel pretty confident it was covered under broader themes He touched on. Sort of like how He reaffirmed the one man/one woman sexual ethic and that understanding of marriage.

Can we not do the silly diversionary tactics?

Come on, anything on homosexuality? I know it was covered in the old testament but surely, you can find something to support your religious beliefs in the books you say you follow.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Red herring. And no one has suggested that is the case. Everyone understands the refusal is more specifically defined than that.

bull****. It's exactly the hysteria that's being fomented across every media platform out there. It's all "we're back to segregated lunch counters" and "go to the back of the bus" all over again.

And the rest of your post is also a red herring - or a "false equivalency". There is nothing about a marriage that is objectionable.

There's nothing objectionable about music either. But the specific content or subject matter of some music might be.

What you are objecting to is the sexuality of the participates. The equivalency here is discrimination based on race - who the person is, not what they do.

I'm objecting to a false view of marriage according to my religious beliefs, which really have not been hard to discern on this matter for thousands of years. If two women and a man wanted to get married, I'd object the same way. If a polyamorous group wanted me to be involved in their wedding, same deal. If a man who was thrice divorced and was remarrying again to the mistress he cheated on Wife Three with was getting married, I'd likewise turn that down.

Again, the fact you are willing to serve gays for one thing but not another is irrelevant. I remember cafes that would serve black people take-out but not let them sit at the counter. You can't plead that as non-discrimination.

False comparison. I'm serving gays openly in my normal accommodations and public establishment. That I won't serve them for whatever occasion they wish (just like I wouldn't for anyone else be they straight, black, white, male, female, Muslim, or atheist) is a different matter.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. If providing flowers, photos or a cake to a homosexual wedding causes you a crisis of faith, perhaps you should choose another career path or examine why helping people celebrate a joyous occasion is so scorned by people professing religion is about love.

It's not a crisis of faith, it's me navigating this world and doing the best I can to serve people where I can and still not compromise my values and beliefs. If a hetero couple came in wanting me to do some photoshoot to celebrate 5 years of them shacking up unmarried, I wouldn't do that either. Try to do less assuming that you know what others are thinking.

Fine. Since you call yourself a Christian, where in the Bible can I find Jesus saying anything, anything at all, about homosexuality.

He also never specifically mentioned child molestation, but I feel pretty confident it was covered under broader themes He touched on. Sort of like how He reaffirmed the one man/one woman sexual ethic and that understanding of marriage.

Can we not do the silly diversionary tactics?

Come on, anything on homosexuality? I know it was covered in the old testament but surely, you can find something to support your religious beliefs in the books you say you follow.

It's a stupid question. I don't discount the wrongness of child molestation or rape simply because Jesus didn't specifically mention them by name. Why would I treat homosexuality differently?

I know you think this is a winning tactic, but it's not. You're just showing that you can regurgitate anti-theist agitprop.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

What happened to respect? Why can't the gay couple get their cake elsewhere and simply honor my religious beliefs? Why would they buy from me knowing my convictions? What is the real goal? Is tolerance truly a two way street?

You willing to put signage on your storefront that it is a heterosexual bakery only?

I'll do as you've done for two pages and assume your thoughts. I have to be tolerant of your lifestyle and participate in your celebration, but you don't have to respect my religious views on the matter. Got it!

[homersapien 11,361]

I can in good conscience provide all manner of products and services to gays and lesbians, just as I would provide them to any race, sex or creed. But if someone wants me to use my time, talents, presence and/or artistic abilities to promote or celebrate events and projects with content I cannot support according to my beliefs, then I should have the right to turn that business down.

No you don't. Not if that content involves a service or a content that you would otherwise provide except for the race of the customer. (For example. )

Now substitute "sexuality" for "race" and you will understand the uproar over this.

And that's exactly why baking a cake for a homosexual birthday party doesn't make it OK. This is ultimately about discrimination based on one's sexuality.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

You can disagree all you want, but it seems that most people understand that. Does anyone really believe these laws weren't sparked specifically by opposition to homosexuals having the right to get married? Of course not.

People who don't give a s*** about religious liberty "understand" it. It's unreasonable to them, so they don't see why it should bother Christians eitehr.

Presumably, that means "no".

Everyone recognizes these laws were promulgated specifically against homosexuals. Even if Pence refused to admit it.

No those who don't really care about what anyone else thinks but themselves and those who agree with them, think they know why these laws are being put forth. But the people who recognize the they are being compelled to choose between their faith and any activity in the public square don't see it that way. They see it as a way that both sides can call a truce and leave each other be.

[selias 2,398]

It's a stupid question. I don't discount the wrongness of child molestation or rape simply because Jesus didn't specifically mention them by name. Why would I treat homosexuality differently?

I know you think this is a winning tactic, but it's not. You're just showing that you can regurgitate anti-theist agitprop.

The event taking place this weekend was a new covenant, was it not? If so, where are your religious rules on homosexuality? If you're Jewish, I can understand the homosexual issue.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It's a stupid question. I don't discount the wrongness of child molestation or rape simply because Jesus didn't specifically mention them by name. Why would I treat homosexuality differently?

I know you think this is a winning tactic, but it's not. You're just showing that you can regurgitate anti-theist agitprop.

The event taking place this weekend was a new covenant, was it not? If so, where are your religious rules on homosexuality? If you're Jewish, I can understand the homosexual issue.

It was. And the New Testament reaffirms the sexual ethic of the Old. It never abrogates it.

If anything, Jesus made the sexual ethic more strict, not less. It was no longer just about managing not to commit fornication or adultery, choosing to objectify a woman through lust wasn't permitted either. He cut to the heart of the matter, not just the letter.

[homersapien 11,361]

There's nothing objectionable about music either. But the specific content or subject matter of some music might be.

BS. You are not objecting to anything that might be in the marriage ceremony other than the participates are homosexual.

No matter how you try to rationalize it, this is simple discrimination based on sexuality.

[selias 2,398]

What happened to respect? Why can't the gay couple get their cake elsewhere and simply honor my religious beliefs? Why would they buy from me knowing my convictions? What is the real goal? Is tolerance truly a two way street?

You willing to put signage on your storefront that it is a heterosexual bakery only?

I'll do as you've done for two pages and assume your thoughts. I have to be tolerant of your lifestyle and participate in your celebration, but you don't have to respect my religious views on the matter. Got it!

I'm a heterosexual man in a monogamous relationship with a religious upbringing, not that means anything. Are you willing to advertise that you will not service homosexual or divorced/remarried couples?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

There's nothing objectionable about music either. But the specific content or subject matter of some music might be.

BS. You are not objecting to anything that might be in the marriage ceremony other than the participates are homosexual.

No matter how you try to rationalize it, this is simple discrimination based on sexuality.

I'll be the judge of what I'm objecting to, if you don't mind. Since I'm really the only one in a position to know.

I'm objecting to marriage that isn't marriage by nature. Gay marriage is just one version of such.

[homersapien 11,361]

Ground already covered. The NM case was part of the reason...the threat to being compelled to comply doesn't just come from gov't entities. Thus protections from expensive lawsuits from individuals was needed as well.

If one doesn't discriminate based on sexuality, one doesn't need "protection from expensive lawsuits". :-\

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Ground already covered. The NM case was part of the reason...the threat to being compelled to comply doesn't just come from gov't entities. Thus protections from expensive lawsuits from individuals was needed as well.

If one doesn't discriminate based on sexuality, one doesn't need "protection from expensive lawsuits". :-\

But yet, even when you aren't, you still need said protection.

[selias 2,398]

It's a stupid question. I don't discount the wrongness of child molestation or rape simply because Jesus didn't specifically mention them by name. Why would I treat homosexuality differently?

I know you think this is a winning tactic, but it's not. You're just showing that you can regurgitate anti-theist agitprop.

The event taking place this weekend was a new covenant, was it not? If so, where are your religious rules on homosexuality? If you're Jewish, I can understand the homosexual issue.

It was. And the New Testament reaffirms the sexual ethic of the Old. It never abrogates it.

If anything, Jesus made the sexual ethic more strict, not less. It was no longer just about managing not to commit fornication or adultery, choosing to objectify a woman through lust wasn't permitted either. He cut to the heart of the matter, not just the letter.

Come on, I'm lobbing you a softball right in the sweet spot and you're still dodging? Where in the new section of The Bible do derive your sexual beliefs?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

What happened to respect? Why can't the gay couple get their cake elsewhere and simply honor my religious beliefs? Why would they buy from me knowing my convictions? What is the real goal? Is tolerance truly a two way street?

You willing to put signage on your storefront that it is a heterosexual bakery only?

I'll do as you've done for two pages and assume your thoughts. I have to be tolerant of your lifestyle and participate in your celebration, but you don't have to respect my religious views on the matter. Got it!

I'm a heterosexual man in a monogamous relationship with a religious upbringing, not that means anything. Are you willing to advertise that you will not service homosexual or divorced/remarried couples?

I'll again assume your deflection affirms your belief that tolerance is not a two way street.