Indiana backlash grows ahead of Final Four

[autigeremt 6,636]

However, isn't it a breath of fresh air? Indiana passed a law that created serious heartburn even though that heartburn was totally unwarranted but, instead of saying tuff s*** like Obama does when he rams an EO down the throats of the citizenry, Mike Pence acknowledged the questions of those who dont like the law and said they would clarify it THIS WEEK. When is the last time BHO regrouped and said or even implied he'd reconsider the voices of the populace? His attitude, like most in his party, is one day we'll all appreciate how much smarter he is than everyone else and we'll thank him. So, let me g'head and get that out of the way....Thanks Obama.

Excuse me, but this is not about Obama. :-\

As far as Pence "acknowledging" the questions he was asked, he certainly didn't address them.

Pence, Indiana and now Arkansas have stepped in it big time. And to a certain extent, the same can be said for Republicans and Christians. They have really shot themselves in the foot. They are wailing against the march of progress and of history and are destined to lose. Homosexuality is obviously a natural condition and not a "choice". Science has clearly demonstrated that. The next generation understands it. The church and conservatives cannot deny science and hope to prevail.

RuninRed is right. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

To hell with them all, right?

[TitanTiger 20,485]

However, isn't it a breath of fresh air? Indiana passed a law that created serious heartburn even though that heartburn was totally unwarranted but, instead of saying tuff s*** like Obama does when he rams an EO down the throats of the citizenry, Mike Pence acknowledged the questions of those who dont like the law and said they would clarify it THIS WEEK. When is the last time BHO regrouped and said or even implied he'd reconsider the voices of the populace? His attitude, like most in his party, is one day we'll all appreciate how much smarter he is than everyone else and we'll thank him. So, let me g'head and get that out of the way....Thanks Obama.

Excuse me, but this is not about Obama. :-\

As far as Pence "acknowledging" the questions he was asked, he certainly didn't address them.

Pence, Indiana and now Arkansas have stepped in it big time. And to a certain extent, the same can be said for Republicans and Christians. They have really shot themselves in the foot. They are wailing against the march of progress and of history and are destined to lose. Homosexuality is obviously a natural condition and not a "choice". Science has clearly demonstrated that. The next generation understands it. The church and conservatives cannot deny science and hope to prevail.

RuninRed is right. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

The Law of Merited Impossibility:

“It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”

[homersapien 11,381]

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly defining homosexuality as a sin. (Why else would Jesus "have a problem with it", as you put it?)

Well actually, I'm not. But even if I were, it's not relevant to this particular issue.

Part of it is language confusion. Christianity does not say that merely being same-sex attracted (homosexual) is a sin. Desires, temptations, attractions - such things in and of themselves are not sinful, regardless of whether they are homosexual in nature or heterosexual. Or even if they are outside of sexual issues altogether. Sin requires a consent of the will and/or pursuit of the thing desired. I may be tempted toward envy of my more prosperous neighbor. I may have strong attraction toward a woman who I am not married to. But merely having these feelings is not sin. I would have to follow through on it in some way, either by consenting in my heart and mind to lust after the woman (objectify her for my own sexual gratification), pursuing or having a sexual relationship with her, or by stewing on and dwelling on my envy of my neighbor's success. So just like being a heterosexual (being exclusively or predominantly attracted to the opposite sex) is not sinful in and of itself, neither is being homosexual. Actions that either take regarding their sexuality can be sinful.

That said, I'm not proposing that someone be able to refuse service simply because the customer is homosexual or even a non-celibate homosexual.

So it's fine to be homosexual but it's a sin to actually live as one. So it's a sin for homosexuals to actually be who they are. They don't have the right to love another person, or at least express that love sexually. (Is mere kissing or hugging OK or is that also a sin?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since you make a distinction between discriminating against the right of homosexuals to marry while claiming that you aren't really discriminating against them personally. :-\

Sometimes you sound like you don't really have the courage of your convictions.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Ok this is a honest question I'm about to toss out. Due to my curiosity and the fact that this argument went biblical.

So we have the individuals that believe ideals involving sexuality are to be naturally understood from the Bible in regards to homosexuality (and I will be the first to admit I am no Bible expert). So if God created all life, yet doesn't approve of homosexuality. Then why do so many animals actually appear to practice homosexuality tendencies? Mean is a lion or a dolphin actually making a lifestyle choice (can they even make lifestyle choices?) in their participation? I mean I just can't view a lion as going.... hey you know what. I will show the Pride...today I'm gay and I'm proud... they will notice me now! It is actually theorized to be a bonding agent among males in the pride actually. Then if they are not making lifestyle choices, and they were created by God, then why would they have homosexual tendencies?

This isn't a argument. I'm curious what some individuals think of that.

[Grumps 3,704]

I agree that lions and dolphins are not making lifestyle choices. I think that many animals (humans included) are so horny that they will have an orgasm by any means available. Personally, I think that how I achieve one is a choice. Others here obviously disagree.

[autigeremt 6,636]

I agree that lions and dolphins are not making lifestyle choices. I think that many animals (humans included) are so horny that they will have an orgasm by any means available. Personally, I think that how I achieve one is a choice. Others here obviously disagree.

Plus, the Bible is filled with examples of lifestyle choices that are considered sin so it's not just homosexuality.

My personal opinion and belief is that no one should be discriminated against based on gender, race, creed, orientation in the public forum. When a private business is involved...that's where it gets into the constitutional "I'm not so sure" legal interpretation.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

So it's fine to be homosexual but it's a sin to actually live as one. So it's a sin for homosexuals to actually be who they are. They don't have the right to love another person, or at least express that love sexually. (Is mere kissing or hugging OK or is that also a sin?

No more than it's fine to be heterosexual but it's a sin to live as one in the manner that many post-modern non-Christians believe is permissible. Jews and Christians believe certain things about sexuality and the proper context for sexual activity. Someone stop the presses on this breaking news from the Year Zero.

As far as kissing and hugging...I don't see why such things in the context of a deep friendship bond would be problematic. I think the kids are calling it "affection" these days.

Sometimes you sound like you don't really have the courage of your convictions.

I have the courage of my convictions. I just don't have the courage of your convictions (or at least the convictions you have for me).

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

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.

The fact that people are equating gay marriage to civil rights and voting rights of blacks is a false equivalence. They're not even remotely close to being similar.

Refusing to endorse gay marriage in any way shape or form is closer to refusing porn themed weddings for straight couples than it is to refusing to serve black people for the color of their skin. Gay marriage is looked at as distasteful the same way porn is. It may not be illegal but it's not something someone should have to condone or endorse.

Tolerance on the issue of gay marriage seems to be a one way street for those on the self-proclaimed "right" side of this issue.

I think it's astounding that those that don't want the government to dictate the issue of marriage as being between a man and a woman, you know, "get the government out of the bedroom", but they do want the government to dictate the practice of traditional religious beliefs of individuals. Those that do so are being dismissive of religious beliefs and believe that the government's endorsement in any social aspect is holier than religious teaching and that it can dictate individuals religious beliefs that are fundamental of religious teaching if the indiviudal own's a busniness or runs a public service.

Instead of respecting or acknowleging religious beliefs, they'd rather run roughshod over them and desensitize religious beliefs altogether because it doesn't fit their moral code.

Religious beliefs are not a simplistic act of bigotry as some want to paint it.

I find it galling that some want to draw a line that if you don't endorse gay marriage then you're labeled a bigot. There's more than one borderline "hateful" message being sent on this topic and it's not all from one side that some seem to think, because some are willfully berating opposing views as being "on the wrong side". Once again, this is not a simplistic issue of "good" vs. "bad" that some want to make it. I don't see either side that way. I do see one side though that doesn't want compromise but wants outright endorsement and not just tolerance on the issue. If they can't get the invidiual to endorse the issue then they want the government to impose authority on them to get the endorsement of those individuals or else have them face sanctions and penalties if that individual own a business.

[cooltigger21 0]

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.

The fact that people are equating gay marriage to civil rights and voting rights of blacks is a false equivalence. They're not even remotely close to being similar.

Refusing to endorse gay marriage in any way shape or form is closer to refusing porn themed weddings for straight couples than it is to refusing to serve black people for the color of their skin. Gay marriage is looked at as distasteful the same way porn is. It may not be illegal but it's not something someone should have to condone or endorse.

Tolerance on the issue of gay marriage seems to be a one way street for those on the self-proclaimed "right" side of this issue.

I think it's astounding that those that don't want the government to dictate the issue of marriage as being between a man and a woman, you know, "get the government out of the bedroom", but they do want the government to dictate the practice of traditional religious beliefs of individuals. Those that do so are being dismissive of religious beliefs and believe that the government's endorsement in any social aspect is holier than religious teaching and that it can dictate individuals religious beliefs that are fundamental of religious teaching if the indiviudal own's a busniness or runs a public service.

Instead of respecting or acknowleging religious beliefs, they'd rather run roughshod over them and desensitize religious beliefs altogether because it doesn't fit their moral code.

Religious beliefs are not a simplistic act of bigotry as some want to paint it.

I find it galling that some want to draw a line that if you don't endorse gay marriage then you're labeled a bigot. There's more than one borderline "hateful" message being sent on this topic and it's not all from one side that some seem to think, because some are willfully berating opposing views as being "on the wrong side". Once again, this is not a simplistic issue of "good" vs. "bad" that some want to make it. I don't see either side that way. I do see one side though that doesn't want compromise but wants outright endorsement and not just tolerance on the issue. If they can't get the invidiual to endorse the issue then they want the government to impose authority on them to get the endorsement of those individuals or else have them face sanctions and penalties if that individual own a business.

That sums it up right there. Frankly that applies to anything. The left is perfectly comfortable in using the heavy hand of government yo force you to go along with their morality on any issue. They use it for environmentalism, on race issues, abortion, smoking etc.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

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.

The fact that people are equating gay marriage to civil rights and voting rights of blacks is a false equivalence. They're not even remotely close to being similar.

Refusing to endorse gay marriage in any way shape or form is closer to refusing porn themed weddings for straight couples than it is to refusing to serve black people for the color of their skin. Gay marriage is looked at as distasteful the same way porn is. It may not be illegal but it's not something someone should have to condone or endorse.

Tolerance on the issue of gay marriage seems to be a one way street for those on the self-proclaimed "right" side of this issue.

I think it's astounding that those that don't want the government to dictate the issue of marriage as being between a man and a woman, you know, "get the government out of the bedroom", but they do want the government to dictate the practice of traditional religious beliefs of individuals. Those that do so are being dismissive of religious beliefs and believe that the government's endorsement in any social aspect is holier than religious teaching and that it can dictate individuals religious beliefs that are fundamental of religious teaching if the indiviudal own's a busniness or runs a public service.

Instead of respecting or acknowleging religious beliefs, they'd rather run roughshod over them and desensitize religious beliefs altogether because it doesn't fit their moral code.

Religious beliefs are not a simplistic act of bigotry as some want to paint it.

I find it galling that some want to draw a line that if you don't endorse gay marriage then you're labeled a bigot. There's more than one borderline "hateful" message being sent on this topic and it's not all from one side that some seem to think, because some are willfully berating opposing views as being "on the wrong side". Once again, this is not a simplistic issue of "good" vs. "bad" that some want to make it. I don't see either side that way. I do see one side though that doesn't want compromise but wants outright endorsement and not just tolerance on the issue. If they can't get the invidiual to endorse the issue then they want the government to impose authority on them to get the endorsement of those individuals or else have them face sanctions and penalties if that individual own a business.

I've said many times that when people say we shouldn't "legislate morality" it's complete silliness to say such a thing. We legislate morality all the time. The only question is: whose morality will be legislated?

[Mims44 1,871]

I think we should persecute more people because of their religious beliefs, England did that back in the day and it ended up creating a pretty kick ass new country.

[aubfaninga 16]

Ok this is a honest question I'm about to toss out. Due to my curiosity and the fact that this argument went biblical.

So we have the individuals that believe ideals involving sexuality are to be naturally understood from the Bible in regards to homosexuality (and I will be the first to admit I am no Bible expert). So if God created all life, yet doesn't approve of homosexuality. Then why do so many animals actually appear to practice homosexuality tendencies? Mean is a lion or a dolphin actually making a lifestyle choice (can they even make lifestyle choices?) in their participation? I mean I just can't view a lion as going.... hey you know what. I will show the Pride...today I'm gay and I'm proud... they will notice me now! It is actually theorized to be a bonding agent among males in the pride actually. Then if they are not making lifestyle choices, and they were created by God, then why would they have homosexual tendencies?

This isn't a argument. I'm curious what some individuals think of that.

I know you stated this was not your argument but I have heard people use it.

I dont think humans need to look to animals for our moral base To justify our actions. For example: My neighbors cat just killed her entire litter a few months back. My small female dog literally sits and appears to be pleasuring herself sometimes in front of my children.

Now I don't normally observe dolphins but my wife is a dog groomer and runs a doggy day care. She will not take a female that is in heat because it causes mass hysteria. All sexual activity increases right along with male on male. The environment resembles nothing that we would call "love". Male on male does happen everyday but she says its 100% all about dominance. The alpha males and more aggressive are the only ones that partake. The more doscile and less aggessive dogs never male on male UNLESS a female goes into heat. Again, that causes a free for all. LOL

[aubfaninga 16]

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.

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly defining homosexuality as a sin. (Why else would Jesus "have a problem with it", as you put it?)

But you can always declare that homosexuality is not a sin. If so, I would like to know what your religious objection is.

After reading your and aubfaninga's posts I think this is the ultimate basis for our disagreement. I do not see homosexuality as a sin. I see it as one of the natural states of sexuality that is manifested in a small percentage of people. As long as these people are otherwise moral and empathetic to the rights of others, there is nothing about homosexuality that is evil or immoral. The Old Testament is simply wrong about homosexuality, just as it is factually wrong about many - if not most - things it discusses.

Beyond this basic value, my argument resides in concepts of civil law. Our legal system is based on the concept of equality of rights for everyone. One's inherent sexuality does not constitute a reason for those rights to be compromised.

Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

I have seen the argument raised that homosexuality is not addressed in the New Covenant. That is factually wrong.

Yeshua was among Jews who had very strong feelings toward homosexuality. His silence in not addressing the understanding of homosexuality is not an endorsement either way but it leans more toward accepting their norm.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

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.

You totally ignored respect. If I were a gay man wanting you to bake me a cake and you cited religious freedom I'd simply walk away respecting your beliefs. Unless of course I had a hate filled agenda, i.e. I don't give a $HI7 about your beliefs, but you'll damn well care about mine, participate in them and like it!

Who doesn't like this new America?

[AUFAN78 3,910]

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.

Simply your opinion. I respect it, just disagree completely.

[cooltigger21 0]

This isn't just about SSM but a whole host of other things that the left loves. They want to forc e even religious institutions to provide abortions and do even in the latwe terms. These are the same people that wanted to subpoena sermons from preachers in Houston because they spoke out against ssm.. Several on here had no problem with that. This is protection from tyranny. The left will tolerate no dissent. These are the same people that institute speech codes on college campuses. They take down the American flag because it might offend someone. They make up rights out of thin air and ignore and try to destroy rights that are clearly expressed in our founding documents.

[AURandy56 148]

If a "private business" conducts public transactions, is it still considered a "private business?" When did businesses and corporations get religious beliefs? If a business owned by a straight person has a sign staring that he will not do business with gays, so be it. But, if a gay walks into a business to make a transaction, does the owner have the right to ask the person if they are gay, and if so, please leave my store? Right now it appears this issue is because of the marriage issue but could a mattress store refuse to sell a mattress and box springs to a gay couple since the gay couple will be doing more than sleeping in that bed? To me, these type of laws will give business owners the right to hide behi d their religious views from making transactions with gays. This could be a situation of interstate commerce, like the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case in the mid 60's.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

If a "private business" conducts public transactions, is it still considered a "private business?" When did businesses and corporations get religious beliefs? If a business owned by a straight person has a sign staring that he will not do business with gays, so be it. But, if a gay walks into a business to make a transaction, does the owner have the right to ask the person if they are gay, and if so, please leave my store? Right now it appears this issue is because of the marriage issue but could a mattress store refuse to sell a mattress and box springs to a gay couple since the gay couple will be doing more than sleeping in that bed? To me, these type of laws will give business owners the right to hide behi d their religious views from making transactions with gays. This could be a situation of interstate commerce, like the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case in the mid 60's.

When you are a photographer, or a baker, or a florist, the business and the owner are one in the same.

The rest is stuff no one cares about because they aren't asking to refuse to serve to anyone simply for being gay. And if they did, they would lose because the law doesn't give them immunity from going to court, it merely gives them their day in court. And then the court will have to weigh the arguments with a test that shows whether there is a compelling government interest in preventing them from refusing to serve gays period, and if there is what would be the least restrictive means of serving that interest. Such a shop owner would lose that case 1000 out of 1000 times. This is scare tactics, not reality.

[cooltigger21 0]

If a "private business" conducts public transactions, is it still considered a "private business?" When did businesses and corporations get religious beliefs? If a business owned by a straight person has a sign staring that he will not do business with gays, so be it. But, if a gay walks into a business to make a transaction, does the owner have the right to ask the person if they are gay, and if so, please leave my store? Right now it appears this issue is because of the marriage issue but could a mattress store refuse to sell a mattress and box springs to a gay couple since the gay couple will be doing more than sleeping in that bed? To me, these type of laws will give business owners the right to hide behi d their religious views from making transactions with gays. This could be a situation of interstate commerce, like the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case in the mid 60's.

You're making bad arguments. You can't deny someone service simply because they are gay. Nobody is proposing that. Second it's not for corporations it's for individuals or little mom and pop business owners. I couldn't help but laugh at the mattress store analogy. I don't agree with SSM at all but supplying a mattress is not the same as places like catering, photography or similar types of businesses. You don't see the danger of using government to force people to go against their beliefs. The thought of that should send chills down the spine of anyone.

Freedom of religion is a bedrock principle on which this country was founded. It means more than just being able to go to church or to not go. It means the freedom to live your everyday life in accordance with your beliefs and not be forced by government to go against them. That includes the freedom to open a business and run it according to how you believe.

[homersapien 11,381]

Nonetheless, Christians regard sex before marriage (homo or hetero) to be sinful. And they regard having sex with someone you are not married to as sinful as well. And they regard divorce for reasons other than abandonment (which can entail abuse) or adultery to be wrong and remarriage to be prohibited in such situations. So I would say that a wedding-oriented business would be justified in refusing to provide services for many heteros that are having ceremonies that violate their beliefs in these ways as well.

Christians can have all the rules they want, but they cannot necessarily apply them in a context that commercially and personally discriminates against an given segment of society simply for being who they are.

This is the exact same religious argument that was used against black civil rights. We do not live in a theocracy. At least not yet.

[AURandy56 148]

Do store owners get to cherry pick what part of the Bible they want to enforce when it comes to dealing with the public? If Bakery A refuses to cater a gay marriage, but is found to have catered a biracial marriage, is that ok since interracial marriages are against the Bible?

[homersapien 11,381]

Conversely, equal rights also entail 1st Amendment rights. Compelling someone to be involved in an activity or event that violates those rights isn't equality either.

It's funny...we've had the old canard about how Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality explicitly therefore it must not be a big deal to Him thrown out there. Using the same logic: the Constitution doesn't say anything explicitly about marriage or homosexual marriage rights. It does explicitly grant free exercise of religion rights. Should that be taken as an indicator of which right should have precedence?

First amendment (religious rights) end at the point that other citizens rights are violated.

I reject the argument that refusing to provide a product or service provided to one class cannot be provided to a different class based on a religious interpretation that you are being drawn into participating in a sin. If that's really a problem, you need to consult a minister for counseling or just find another business.

We as a society should not allow Christian religious beliefs to trump our civil rights laws any more than we should allow Sharia to trump our civil rights laws.

As far as the Constitution not specifically addressing homosexual marriage rights, I thought you believed that our rights were "divinely inspired"?

So are our rights natural and pre-existing or are they granted/created by our Constitution?

[TitanTiger 20,485]

Do store owners get to cherry pick what part of the Bible they want to enforce when it comes to dealing with the public? If Bakery A refuses to cater a gay marriage, but is found to have catered a biracial marriage, is that ok since interracial marriages are against the Bible?

Interracial marriages aren't against the Bible. In fact, there's a specific example that demonstrates this. Moses married an Ethopian woman named Zipporah. Nothing negative was said or implied about it in Scripture. After she died he married a Cushite woman near the same region. When Aaron and Miriam began to talk badly about Moses for marrying this woman, God struck them both with leprosy until they repented.

God did warn the Israelites not to take wives from amongst the people of Canaan, but that was about them leading them into worship of false gods and idols. Plus, the people of that region and era were pretty horrible, what with the child sacrifices and all that. There was good reason to keep separate from them. But it had nothing to do with race or skin color.

[homersapien 11,381]

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

That isn't the language of the Constitution though. It doesn't say that religious rights are subordinate to all others.

Are you proposing that religious rights should trump civil law?

I don't know how many "Sharia Muslims" we have in this country, but I am sure they would support that.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

Conversely, equal rights also entail 1st Amendment rights. Compelling someone to be involved in an activity or event that violates those rights isn't equality either.

It's funny...we've had the old canard about how Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality explicitly therefore it must not be a big deal to Him thrown out there. Using the same logic: the Constitution doesn't say anything explicitly about marriage or homosexual marriage rights. It does explicitly grant free exercise of religion rights. Should that be taken as an indicator of which right should have precedence?

First amendment (religious rights) end at the point that other citizens rights are violated.

Could you not say the same thing in reverse...various citizen's rights are also curtailed by people's 1st Amendment rights? That's not a one-way street.

I reject the argument that refusing to provide a product or service provided to one class cannot be provided to a different class based on a religious interpretation that you are being drawn into participating in a sin. If that's really a problem, you need to consult a minister for counseling or just find another business.

I reject the argument that a non-Christian (or non-Jew, non-Muslim) is in a better position to understand the religious teachings and the limits they place on conscience than the adherents to the religion are.

We as a society should not allow Christian religious beliefs to trump our civil rights laws any more than we should allow Sharia to trump our civil rights laws.

We as a society should not allow the morality of one group of people to railroad the religious conscience of others by compelling their participation and involvement in our ceremonies, rituals and events.

As far as the Constitution not specifically addressing homosexual marriage rights, I thought you believed that our rights were "divinely inspired"?

So are our rights natural and pre-existing or are they granted/created by our Constitution?

I was simply addressing the silly argument that unless it's specifically stated, it isn't important. You can't argue that way with Jesus then drop it with the Constitution.