Indiana backlash grows ahead of Final Four

[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.

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?

First of all, I reject the notion that the Old Testament has nothing to say on the matter that's binding for Christians today. If you studied the matter half as much as you pretend to, you would understand that. It's why the Hebrew Scriptures are part of our Scriptures as well.

But second, the sexual ethic is in multiple places in the New Testament. Jesus reaffirms it in the Gospels, Paul and other NT writers reaffirm it in the Epistles. If you have something specific you're driving at, feel free to spit it out. Otherwise, I'm getting bored. I was fielding these "softballs" in the late 90s when the internet first started taking off. This tactic is lame.

[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?

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

It's absolutely a two way street, I'm just asking the religious folks to be intellectually honest about it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I'm calling it a night, fellas.

selias, there's no reason we can't discuss this without the bile and animosity. Let's both try to do better on that tomorrow.

[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?

First of all, I reject the notion that the Old Testament has nothing to say on the matter that's binding for Christians today. If you studied the matter half as much as you pretend to, you would understand that. It's why the Hebrew Scriptures are part of our Scriptures as well.

But second, the sexual ethic is in multiple places in the New Testament. Jesus reaffirms it in the Gospels, Paul and other NT writers reaffirm it in the Epistles. If you have something specific you're driving at, feel free to spit it out. Otherwise, I'm getting bored. I was fielding these "softballs" in the late 90s when the internet first started taking off. This tactic is lame.

You've got nothing. Got it.

I'm calling it a night, fellas.

selias, there's no reason we can't discuss this without the bile and animosity. Let's both try to do better on that tomorrow.

I'll try to avoid drinking half a fifth of rum tomorrow

[homersapien 11,362]

I get both sides but at the end of the day religions can't be used as a cover for bigotry ... and even if that was not the "intended consequence," it's the message that's being sent. Indiana has already paid the price for this mistake and they will continue to do so. Other states should tread cautiously.

Absolutely.

Pence even understands that, which is exactly why he wouldn't provide a direct answer when asked.

http://www.huffingto..._n_6973888.html

".....That "yes" or "no" question, "Can a florist in Indiana refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment," was dodged by Pence, as were additional iterations, ranging from whether the law's general intent was to enshrine the right of private business owners to deny service to customers for religious reasons, to whether Pence personally believed that such discrimination was lawful.

Stephanopoulos insisted that the question was relevant, because one of the law's supporters, Eric Miller of Advance America, specifically cited the ability of private business owners to refuse service to members of the LGBT community as one of the Indiana law's major, and particular, selling points. Stephanopoulos offered Pence multiple chances to either correct Miller's contention, or to publicly confirm that it was true."

--------------

These folks have created a monster and now they have to deal with it.

[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.

It's absolutely a two way street, I'm just asking the religious folks to be intellectually honest about it.

And I would ask the same of the non-religious folk.

[selias 2,398]

And I would ask the same of the non-religious folk.

I am absolutely a bigot. I have yet to meet a person that isn't bigoted in some form or fashion. I love my father more than life itself but he's easily the most bigoted and intolerant person I know.

[homersapien 11,362]

But the law isn't keeping them from getting married. They get to get married, those who have a profound religious difference on what marriage is get to not be compelled to be part of it.

Yeah, denying blacks from sitting at "white" lunch counters didn't prevent them from eating either. :-\

But nevertheless, plenty of self-proclaimed Christians were ultimately compelled to serve them there against their 'religious convictions'. At least if they didn't choose another line of work.

[autigeremt 6,598]

I get both sides but at the end of the day religions can't be used as a cover for bigotry ... and even if that was not the "intended consequence," it's the message that's being sent. Indiana has already paid the price for this mistake and they will continue to do so. Other states should tread cautiously.

Lifestyles can't be used as a cover for forcing mandates on private business owners either. Look, I think this issue is like every other...a media driven, politically motivated scare tactic with a sliver of truth to it. If Liberty and freedom were the centerpiece of our countries mission we wouldn't have to worry about things like this.

[homersapien 11,362]

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?

Tolerance for intolerance simply promotes the latter.

Like it or not, religious convictions do not trump civil rights law in this country.

[homersapien 11,362]

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?

You base your entire argument on Christian religious doctrine and then call such a question diversionary?

[autigeremt 6,598]

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?

Tolerance for intolerance simply promotes the latter.

Like it or not, religious convictions do not trump civil rights law in this country.

Maybe. Depends on the issue and how it's executed. In this case I'm not sure it's a civil rights issue. Could be wrong.....

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

So you equate homosexuality with child molestation and rape?

That's an interesting glimpse of the genuine feelings behind your rhetoric.

This thread has turned into a classic example of why I don't respect most religions.

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

So, hypothetically speaking, should I be able to refuse serving Asians (for example) at a wedding because my religious beliefs dictate that Asians don't deserve the right to get married?

[homersapien 11,362]

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!

Afraid not. You don't "get it" at all.

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

BS. This isn't about "any activity" in the public square. This is about gay marriage. Even the state legislators behind the laws acknowledge that.

You are kidding yourself.

[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.

So you equate homosexuality with child molestation and rape?

That's an interesting glimpse of the genuine feelings behind your rhetoric. <_</>

This thread has turned into a classic example of why I don't respect most religions.

Sorry, I couldn't let this ridiculousness pass.

No, I wasn't equating them. He wanted to make a case that somehow Jesus had no problems with homosexuality simply because he didn't mention it by name. I simply pointed out the absurdity of such criteria for determining things Jesus might have moral issues with.

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

I rest my case on that particular assertion.

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

For example....

[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.

I rest my case on that particular assertion.

I wish you would. I get tired of pointing out the ridiculousness of inextricably tying the two things together.

[homersapien 11,362]

I get both sides but at the end of the day religions can't be used as a cover for bigotry ... and even if that was not the "intended consequence," it's the message that's being sent. Indiana has already paid the price for this mistake and they will continue to do so. Other states should tread cautiously.

Lifestyles can't be used as a cover for forcing mandates on private business owners either. Look, I think this issue is like every other...a media driven, politically motivated scare tactic with a sliver of truth to it. If Liberty and freedom were the centerpiece of our countries mission we wouldn't have to worry about things like this.

Homosexuality is a "lifestyle"?

Is heterosexuality a lifestyle also?

How about one's race? Is that a lifestyle?

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

So you equate homosexuality with child molestation and rape?

That's an interesting glimpse of the genuine feelings behind your rhetoric. <_</>

This thread has turned into a classic example of why I don't respect most religions.

Sorry, I couldn't let this ridiculousness pass.

No, I wasn't equating them. He wanted to make a case that somehow Jesus had no problems with homosexuality simply because he didn't mention it by name. I simply pointed out the absurdity of such criteria for determining things Jesus might have moral issues with.

Well, maybe you didn't mean to equate them, but that is what you did.

Perhaps Jesus didn't mention them because he didn't have any moral issues with it. After all, homosexuality is not an activity that necessarily victimizes someone such as child molestation or rape.

In fact, I can imagine Jesus would approve of homosexual marriage. Why would He oppose it?

As Weegle might say, His purpose was not to enforce the law.

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

I rest my case on that particular assertion.

I wish you would. I get tired of pointing out the ridiculousness of inextricably tying the two things together.

Well, I am amused by your attempts to make a distinction between opposing gay marriage and discrimination against gays. It's totally illogical.

[aubfaninga 16]

Don't imply that I think badly about Christians because I don't. I don't consider the people who back this sort of justified discrimination as real Christians. In fact, for that matter, I don't consider most self-identified Christians as genuine. At least as I understand the "gospel". What would Jesus do?

I thought Christians believed we are all sinners. If so, why are they making a special case for homosexuals? You don't see Christian florists qualifying a man who is buying flowers based on who they are for - his wife or his adulterous girlfriend?

This crap about "participating" (in a wedding) is lame. Selling a cake or taking pictures is not enabling anything nor does it constitute 'participation' in the ceremony. The only real participates are the betrothed couple and the minister - or judge - who administers the oaths. This "participation" argument is a contrived way of spinning their bias into a false coercion or persecution from the people they object to.

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.

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

If anything, they will have just the opposite effect. It's the 'militant Christian' business owners who are ultimately going to suffer from this. They are clearly on the wrong side of history.

This is why I would have them advertise the fact they would deny business to homosexuals. That seems fair to me. Why put the burden on businesses who are willing to comply with the spirit an letter of our civil rights laws to advertise that fact.

If you are unwilling to provide your service or product to a certain class of law abiding people, then maybe you shouldn't try to operate a business catering to the general public. At least in this country. This is the moral equivalent of refusing to serve blacks at the main counter because your religious beliefs instruct you not to.

I have been quiet on this subject and just reading opinions to help me sift my thoughts on it.

I had to go back to this comment and do a little more soul searching. As you already know I am not seen as "Christian" by most Christians but take my actions very seriously. Just a few examples, thoughts, and questions for you to give your feedback to. Thanks

I know people that cheat and I am very open that I do not approve of it. If someone I knew asked me to eat lunch with them and their mistress I would decline. I would still associate with my friend, the cheater, but in good conscience I could not encourage it in anyway. In reality, most would not trust me with such information because they know I could not withhold the cheating from the party being cheated on.

If I owned a florist shop I would sell to most anyone without question. Don't ask don't tell policy I guess. Now, if a person came in and volunteered the information that they were buying flowers for their mistress I am very sure that I would decline to sell. This is where I am stuck. I would see no problem serving homosexuals even if I they were very open about it. I would never ask what they were for either. Then we have the open admission of the purpose of the flowers. You know, Bob wanting me to make the card out for Peter talking about their experience last night. Anything on those line would stir my conscience to a point that I would have to decline service. Is this bigotry?

Same with a bakery. I would serve every customer that walks in my door with a smile. It made me wonder if I would ask for more information if it was requested that two men, or women, be added to the top of a wedding cake. I just could not serve a customer if I knew that it was for a gay wedding. I don't feel that I am discriminating the person, just the practice that goes against my conscience.

Same with a gun shop or party provider. I could not sell a gun to a person if I knew their purpose was for something that I judge as "bad"(aka sin). I could not provide a party service for an "orgy" or "Idol worshipping" gathering either. The idol worshipper might be the most loving person in the world and would never do anything to hurt another living creature but I would not provide service.

Homer I trust that you know I am offering this up for honest criticism and further reflection. I have had to have these heart to heart conversations with my daughter and they hurt sometimes. I am blessed that I have a daughter with a huge heart that helps me with my feelings. I love her and will always love her no matter what. She could be a prostitute and I would still love her but I am not supporting her in anyway. If she was dating a girl but wanted a ride to a boys house that liked her I would decline to do such a thing.

If she married a women, she and even her partner are 100% welcome in my home. I will love her as my daughter and I will love her partner as a person who my daughter has in her life. No different than I love the friends my son brings in the house.

BUTTT... If she chooses same sex marriage, I will not be at the wedding, I will never call her married, and I will never call her partner...(wife I guess ). It might hurt and seem cruel to outsiders but my beautiful daughter gave me the best response to this exact conversation.

"I know you will always love me and I will always love you no matter what. You don't force me to change and I don't expect you to. You are my daddy."

Homer, My conscience means a lot to me. I have even declined to pick up a "Monster" energy drink from the store for someone because of their blatant 666 and other stuff on the labeling. They will not get my business.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Well, maybe you didn't mean to equate them, but that is what you did.

Perhaps Jesus didn't mention them because he didn't have any moral issues with it. After all, homosexuality is not an activity that necessarily victimizes someone such as child molestation or rape.

In fact, I can imagine Jesus would approve of homosexual marriage. Why would He oppose it?

As Weegle might say, His purpose was not to enforce the law.

No, it's not that I didn't "mean to", it's that I didn't. The criteria was implied that if Jesus didn't mention something by name, it must not be something He has any problem with. There is a long list of things that Jesus didn't mention by name. It ranges from the relatively minor (jaywalking, littering) to much more serious things such as those I mentioned. I chose two serious things that also happen to fall under the broader umbrella of sexual matters, that most sane people would universally condemn as wrong. The fact that Jesus didn't mention them by name doesn't therefore mean He doesn't care or has no problem with there. Ergo, the fact that Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexual sex by name is no indicator of whether He has any problems with it.

If you want to use "equating" then to be more precise, I was not equating child molestation or rape with consensual homosexual acts as if they are the same thing. If they are equated at all it is that they both have a place on the long list of "Stuff Jesus never mentioned by name." And it was pointed out just show the ridiculousness of putting forth such a criteria as a measuring rod for things He would be concerned about.