Religious Right in Arizona Cheer bill that allows them to not act like Jesus would...

[goldfly]

Religious Right in Arizona Cheers Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse to Serve ***s


In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.

The business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide services celebrating same-sex relationships. And in each case, they were sued.

Now, as states around the nation weigh how to balance the rights of same-sex couples with those of conservative religious business owners, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for denying service to same-sex couples.


The legislation, approved by lawmakers on Thursday, immediately attracted national attention, with conservative religious groups welcoming it as a necessary form of protection for objectors to same-sex marriage, and *** rights groups denouncing it as a license for discrimination. The measure comes at a time when the courts are grappling with how to define the religious rights of private businesses: The Supreme Court is to hear two cases next month in which businesses are seeking exemptions from providing insurance coverage for contraception to their employees, citing the religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.

“In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith, and the government shouldn’t be able to tell us we can’t do that,” said Joseph E. La Rue, the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., that advocates religious liberty and supports the measure passed by the State Legislature. “Faith shouldn’t be something we have to leave inside our house.”

But civil libertarians and *** rights advocates say there is a difference between protections for clergy and houses of worship that do not want to participate in same-sex marriage and the obligations of business owners that serve the general public.

“Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors,” said Daniel Mach, who directs a program on freedom of religion and belief for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the Arizona legislation. “Over the years, we as a nation have rejected efforts to invoke religion to justify discrimination in the marketplace, and there’s no reason to turn back the clock now.”

Ms. Brewer, who has taken no public position on the legislation that will reach her desk next week, is a Republican whose tenure has been punctuated by controversy and political discord over a tough measure on illegal immigrants, which was denounced from the left, and a Medicaid expansion, which was criticized by the right.

Last year she vetoed a similar religious freedom bill, arguing that it was a distraction from priorities lawmakers had yet to address, including the state budget. And there are similar circumstances this year, as legislators have yet to act on a package of proposed changes to the state’s child welfare system, which has been plagued by a slow response to complaints of abuse and neglect.

Chuck Coughlin, a public affairs consultant who led Ms. Brewer’s transition team after she was elected governor in 2009 and has remained a close ally, said he was doubtful that she would sign the bill into law, saying, “We already have laws to sufficiently protect people’s religion freedoms in this country, and this bill could actually empower people to discriminate.”

The bill comes at an awkward time for Ms. Brewer, who has been eager to move beyond controversy in her last year in office (term limits prevent her from running for re-election.)




She has tried to focus on revitalizing the state’s economy, which is struggling in spite of a rebound of the housing market. The state, which was boycotted by some over the immigration measure, is preparing to host next year’s Super Bowl, and some residents worry that the religious freedom measure could again spur a backlash.

The bill is headed to the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who has taken no public position on the legislation. Bebeto Matthews/Associated Press
In a letter to Ms. Brewer on Friday, Gonzalo A. de la Melena Jr., president and chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said the bill, if it becomes law, would “ultimately have the effect of casting Arizona in a negative light that stands to damage our reputation nationwide and globally, and significantly harm our fiscal future.”

It was just one in a chorus of pleas that the governor to veto the legislation.

“It sounds like it’s opening the door to hate and bigotry of all stripes,” said Rocco DiGrazia, a Tucson pizzeria owner, who on Friday attracted national attention via social media because he had posted signs on the restaurant’s doors declaring, “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona Legislators.”

“I make dinner for a living — I’m not a social activist,” Mr. DiGrazia said in a telephone interview. “But I do have a lot of *** customers and employees, and why are you trying to alienate these people?”

But supporters of the legislation said they would also work hard to persuade Ms. Brewer to sign the measure, in part by disputing much of the criticism it has faced.

Most states where same-sex marriage is legal have exemptions for religious organizations, but not for private businesses or individuals, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Arizona measure comes as multiple states are considering such exemptions, with considerable controversy. In Tennessee, the legislature is considering an exemption for wedding vendors; in Kansas, a similar measure was set aside when conservative senators raised concerns about discrimination. In Oregon, opponents of same-sex marriage are seeking to place an initiative on this year’s ballot that would allow individuals or businesses to opt out of participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Supporters and opponents of the Arizona legislation do not agree on its potential impact. The supporters say it would simply tweak an existing religious freedom law in Arizona to make it clear that private individuals can use religious freedom as a defense in civil litigation; the opponents say it would allow business owners to discriminate against anyone they do not like, citing religious freedom.

“There is significant fear it will undermine local nondiscrimination laws,” said Sarah Warbelow, the state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a *** rights advocacy organization. “This is not about the freedom of individuals to practice their religion, this is about a license to discriminate against individuals.”

But Josh Kredit, legal counsel of the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group that supported the bill, said that Arizona has for years had a religious freedom law that has not been used to justify discrimination, and that the changes to that law made by the new measure are “vitally needed to ensure that in America people are free to live and work according to their faith.”

“Arizona should be known as a state that welcomes people of faith and protects them,” he said. “These are intentional, purposeful distractions to try to kill this bill.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/us/religious-right-in-arizona-cheers-bill-allowing-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-***s.html?_r=0

[BedellBrave]

Everyone must submit. Everyone who doesn't submit is of course a bigot and a threat to society. Every bigot should be put out of business and liable for whatever the State thinks is best for the welfare of the populace. There's no room in America with its evolved American-civil religion for opposing convictions. That is all.

[zitothebrave]

Sorry Bedell, but you're not in the right here. We're not talking about the government forcing churches to marry,etc. that are protected religious rights, we're talking about someone who does business with the general public having a right to discriminate. There was a law passed many years ago that stopped such an event from happening to a black man or woman, that also protects homosexuals. People who are *** are not choosing to do it, just like people who're straight don't choose it. Sure there's some blurred lines where *** people pretend to be straight to avoid social stigmas but they're thinning.

You're allowed to believe what you want, no one can take that from you. For example, I don't believe in god, if I owned a business and didn't serve people who believed in God would that be OK? And unlike being *** you can choose what religion to follow. There are certain things you sacrifice when you go from a private residence to a public business. For example, if you're a private residence the police can't just walk in the door as a potential customer and happen to spot suspicious activity. I could list a dozen more differences but you get the point. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, but you can't expect all the same rights to be protected in public domain.

[BedellBrave]

Of course I am right.

Everyone in any business must submit.

Can't have the conviction against same-sex marriage (or whatever you guys want next) and do business.

You all will be pleased. Less bigots operating businesses.

[zitothebrave]

That's not what anyone has advocated for legally so far. Of course some will believe that. But you can hold any conviction and be in business, as long as you don't discriminate.

You think a business should not serve someone because of the color of their skin or nation of origin?

[Hawk]

You think a business should not serve someone because of the color of their skin or nation of origin?

I would venture to say that over 50% of the populace believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (right or wrong, I personally don't care).

You need to tune your argument to cater to people with those beliefs, whether or not you believe they are incorrect.

That's the only way we are going to see a societal compromise on issues like *** rights.

[zitothebrave]

Science indicates that it doesn't. Whether people believe that or not doesn't matter.

[Hawk]

Science indicates that it doesn't. Whether people believe that or not doesn't matter.

Indicates, but isn't remotely definitive. And fundamentalists really could care less about science.

Why a person identifies as ***, or engages in homosexual activity, should be immaterial, though.

[zitothebrave]

Indicates, but isn't remotely definitive. And fundamentalists really could care less about science.

Why a person identifies as ***, or engages in homosexual activity, should be immaterial, though.

I agree it should be immaterial, just like how I wouldn't refuse service to someone who has tattoos or piercings, or religious choice, etc. But someone not having a choice in who they are should absolutely for sure lead them to be legally protected. 100% and arguing against it or wanting a "compromise" is foolish.

JMO you have 2 schools you can be part of. Either you believe everyone should be protected from discrimination regardless of race, color, nationality, gender, etc. or that businesses should 100% choose who to serve or not to serve. There really isn't a gray area whne it comes to things that people cannot choose.

[BedellBrave]

That's not what anyone has advocated for legally so far. Of course some will believe that. But you can hold any conviction and be in business, as long as you don't discriminate.

You think a business should not serve someone because of the color of their skin or nation of origin?


Of course it is.

Bigot A believes that marriage is by definition that covenant union which allows for the possibility of procreation, and that to take photographs at a same-sex wedding ceremony is to show tacit approval of that which is opposed to her conviction. Bigot A is willing to take picture of Bill and Ron in other settings, just not at their wedding.

You are saying, that she must or Bigot A must be fined, or have her license revoked, she must be put out of business.

No one is forcing Bill and Ron to get married. It is their choice.

No one is forcing Bill and Ron to try and hire Bigot A. it is their choice.

You are saying that Bigot A is not allowed the choice to limit the services that she provides to Bill and Ron, even when that service goes against her conviction.

Let me ask you Z, what if Bigot A also has the conviction that pornography is degrading to human beings and so chooses not to take pornographic pictures. Is that restriction of services discriminatory? Or does she have that right?

[Krgrecw]

So Zito the bakery that refused to make the cake for the kid named Adolf Hitler or whatever his name was, was that discrimination?

Did the bakery not like a name and discriminate against it ?

[zitothebrave]

That's comparing apples to oranges. So there's no point even attempting to bother with it.

A more accurate question is if a photographer believes interracial or interreligious marriages are wrong do they have the right to not shoot it?

JMO if someone doesn't want to shoot a *** wedding they should advertise themselves as a photographer for a specific religion, then you'd have an interesting debate. My bet though, Bigot A has shot non-church weddings, so they're working with the general public they have to abide by the same laws as other businesses do. Do you think that a restaurant's chef should be allowed to not serve black people because he believes they're subhumans?

[zitothebrave]

So Zito the bakery that refused to make the cake for the kid named Adolf Hitler or whatever his name was, was that discrimination?

Did the bakery not like a name and discriminate against it ?

Yes it is discrimination and they should have made it. I

[Hawk]

My only contention is that there must be compromise because of the vocal majority that believe it is a choice. Nobody appreciates being told what to think, even when they may be in the wrong. Blanket legislation (or even looking at this through a legal lens) might not solve the problem, and runs the risk of engendering more hate (see: Affirmative Action).

Should a Muslim be allowed to openly practice his faith in a Baptist church?

[zitothebrave]

My only contention is that there must be compromise because of the vocal majority that believe it is a choice. Nobody appreciates being told what to think, even when they may be in the wrong. Blanket legislation (or even looking this through a legal lens) might not solve the problem, and runs the risk of engendering more hate (see: Affirmative Action).

Should a Muslim be allowed to openly practice his faith in a Baptist church?

That's extremely apples and oranges. Churches are not businesses open to the public.

And affirmative action is a problem for drawing ire. But it's a necessary problem because there were big problems in the south and elsewhere.

[Krgrecw]

So affirmative action Is legal discrimination? You just went on a rant about how discrimination is wrong but now you agree with it?

[Hawk]

That's extremely apples and oranges. Churches are not businesses open to the public.

True, but churches don't have to be physical places (some believe your body is your sanctuary) and religion is personally defined.

[BedellBrave]

That's comparing apples to oranges. So there's no point even attempting to bother with it.

A more accurate question is if a photographer believes interracial or interreligious marriages are wrong do they have the right to not shoot it?

JMO if someone doesn't want to shoot a *** wedding they should advertise themselves as a photographer for a specific religion, then you'd have an interesting debate. My bet though, Bigot A has shot non-church weddings, so they're working with the general public they have to abide by the same laws as other businesses do. Do you think that a restaurant's chef should be allowed to not serve black people because he believes they're subhumans?


No your analogies are apples to oranges.

Answer my question. Is refusal to do a pornographic shoot discriminatory? Be consistent. Your position is that if someone wants a business to provide a service within it's type of services, then that business must perform it if they serve the general public. The wishes of the customer are paramount.

Now to your question.

And I answer for myself. I think such a photographer is bigoted. I think their conviction is wrong. That it is unsound. And that they should/ought to do a photo shoot for such a wedding. But, that the couple hiring them would be better served choosing another photographer.

But should it be illegal for the photographer to refuse service? Probably not (though I realize that's not a popular or appealing position). We want everything to be black/white (pardon the pun) and we act as if there is some sort of common, agreed-upon, moral code to which we can appeal - but there isn't. What we do in the end is encode one morality over another - one person's freedom over another's. It's all about power.

Thinking further though about your scenario, I wonder, would a person that believes interracial marriage is wrong, be willing to do a non-wedding photo shoot of the interracial couple? I doubt it.

I know the baker in CO was willing to provide his services to that couple for other things beyond the wedding cake.

Now to your concluding opinion, I think that's the only option now available for photographers and bakers and anyone offering wedding services. But, it will challenged and it won't stand either.

Because, again, it is all about approval…and submission...

[BedellBrave]

Would Bill and Ron go to a Muslim caterer and try to hire him to cater the wedding party with non-halal items on their desired menu? And when he refused seek to put him out of business?

Probably not. At least not yet.

I think non-Muslims who are opposed to ssm probably ought to bill themselves as only providing services to those who are like-minded. But they won't be successful.

[BedellBrave]

Indicates, but isn't remotely definitive. And fundamentalists really could care less about science.

Why a person identifies as ***, or engages in homosexual activity, should be immaterial, though.


First, "Science says" is silly. Science isn't a monolithic, lock-stepped, united at all points, saying the same thing, entity. And saying "Science says" is just a power-play trick.

Second, the science isn't settled and to say that it is is either to speak from ignorance or is intentionally misleading. Different theories point to genetics, environment, choice or a combination.

[Hawk]

First, "Science says" is silly. Science isn't a monolithic, lock-stepped, united at all points, saying the same thing, entity. And saying "Science says" is just a power-play trick.

Second, the science isn't settled and to say that it is is either to speak from ignorance or is intentionally misleading. Different theories point to genetics, environment, choice or a combination.

Very well said.

[AerchAngel]

The business should do what they did to me since they didn't want blacks in their establishment, serve them in a schitty way.

I won't back to the business because they did it on purpose.

Make a schitty cake.
Take schitty pictures.

There are things you can do to discourage people from coming to your business and that is why there is a sign that they can refuse serving you no matter the reason.

You might lose a few customers but it is better than being in the spotlight.

Did I run to the ACLU or call NAACP? Hell naw, what good would that do?

[Oklahomahawk]

Hey dude, I sent you a Facebook message to check and make sure the blizzard didn't get you guys!

[AerchAngel]

Hey dude, I sent you a Facebook message to check and make sure the blizzard didn't get you guys!

sorry about that.

I check facebook maybe once every couple of weeks. Better hit my wife with a message, she is on it all the time talking to her family and friends.

As for the blizzard, we only got 8 inches but blowing was horrible and snow plowing was not fun when you do it three times in one night. Right now I can't open my deck door, the snow is above my middle daughters head, around 45 inches.

I ended up in the ditch twice as well. The ribbing I get at work is hilarious.

[Oklahomahawk]

Glad that you're OK and that you have assholes for friends. I can identify with that part!!

[goldfly]

You need to tune your argument to cater to people with those beliefs, whether or not you believe they are incorrect.



no

i don't

[goldfly]

First, "Science says" is silly. Science isn't a monolithic, lock-stepped, united at all points, saying the same thing, entity. And saying "Science says" is just a power-play trick.

Second, the science isn't settled and to say that it is is either to speak from ignorance or is intentionally misleading. Different theories point to genetics, environment, choice or a combination.

i wouldn't have gone his route cause it left you too much to open up for "debate"

but just observing nature, there is homosexuality in a lot, if not most, of the species on the planet

it is silly to entertain the thought that it is a choice

[Hawk]

no

i don't

My post was in response to Zito, quoting Zito.

But, for you: then you aren't going to affect change.

[goldfly]

maybe, maybe not


but i won't entertain the thoughts of people arguing to treat people as 2nd class citizens

they will eventually lose this battle, just like the religious people that argued that black people weren't equal, that white and black people shouldn't marry, that jim crow laws were a good thing etc etc etc

i won't move from being right on an issue to entertain the thought of hatred from people that say they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ

[Hawk]

I'll just say this: you can only compromise with someone that you disagree with if you accept an understanding of their position -- ignorant, hurtful, or foolhardy as it may be. And compromise is the only way we are ever going to achieve peace and mutual understanding for the LGBT community. Infusing more stubborn hatred and finger pointing into the equation is a fruitless approach.

[goldfly]

I'll just say this: you can only compromise with someone that you disagree with if you accept an understanding of their position -- ignorant, hurtful, or foolhardy as it may be. And compromise is the only way we are ever going to achieve peace and mutual understanding for the LGBT community. Infusing more stubborn hatred and finger pointing into the equation is a fruitless approach.

i understand their position and have no problem of them having that dumb belief in their personal life

but to advocate compromising to allow their religious beliefs to enter into our society that shouldn't recognize their religious beliefs is absurd

[Hawk]

i understand their position and have no problem of them having that dumb belief in their personal life

but to advocate compromising to allow their religious beliefs to enter into our society that shouldn't recognize their religious beliefs is absurd

The dumb belief that homosexuality is a sin? The dumb belief that homosexuality is a choice? The dumb belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

It's no longer a black and white issue. Homosexual couples (and singles) are welcome at some Christian churches, *** adoption is allowed, significant progress has been made on *** rights and marriage, etc. et al.

There has been compromise already, my friend.

Ever seen the 'Coexist' bumper sticker?

[AerchAngel]

The dumb belief that homosexuality is a sin? The dumb belief that homosexuality is a choice? The dumb belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

It's no longer a black and white issue. Homosexual couples (and singles) are welcome at some Christian churches, *** adoption is allowed, significant progress has been made on *** rights and marriage, etc. et al.

There has been compromise already, my friend.

Ever seen the 'Coexist' bumper sticker?

They want full acceptance.

They won't get it, just like there are some whites, some blacks, some Muslims, some Christians, some of any walk of life will not accept some things in life. It is not dumb, it is human nature and it is in all of us. The problem is that some people can't accept even that, they want people to accept them no matter what. I can accept racism towards me, that is on that person. I am no better than they are as I harbor my own.

[BedellBrave]

1. i wouldn't have gone his route cause it left you too much to open up for "debate"

2. but just observing nature, there is homosexuality in a lot, if not most, of the species on the planet

3. it is silly to entertain the thought that it is a choice


1. I've got no problem going this route.

2. Which adds nothing to my point.

3. It is only silly if you are narrow-minded.

[goldfly]

1. I've got no problem going this route.

2. Which adds nothing to my point.

3. It is only silly if you are narrow-minded.



i wasn't trying to add to your point

i could be a lot of things but i am a very open minded person

[BedellBrave]

maybe, maybe not


but i won't entertain the thoughts of people arguing to treat people as 2nd class citizens

they will eventually lose this battle, just like the religious people that argued that black people weren't equal, that white and black people shouldn't marry, that jim crow laws were a good thing etc etc etc

i won't move from being right on an issue to entertain the thought of hatred from people that say they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ


^^^ Mr. Expert on the teachings of Jesus. :roll:

[goldfly]

The dumb belief that homosexuality is a sin? The dumb belief that homosexuality is a choice? The dumb belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

It's no longer a black and white issue. Homosexual couples (and singles) are welcome at some Christian churches, *** adoption is allowed, significant progress has been made on *** rights and marriage, etc. et al.

There has been compromise already, my friend.

Ever seen the 'Coexist' bumper sticker?

none of that has to do with the law of society

[goldfly]

^^^ Mr. Expert on the teachings of Jesus. :roll:

60% of my life being taught it

but hey, go down that road if you want

but i am fairly certain that Jesus, the one that hung out with whores etc, wouldn't advocate a law that says "we don't like how you live so we will treat you like a 2nd class citizen"

It would seem he would open up to allow them in and try to teach his ways


but hey, what do i know. this is 100% speculation


2nd edit: i wouldn't call myself an expert

[BedellBrave]

i wasn't trying to add to your point

i could be a lot of things but i am a very open minded person


Then try this idea on for size - there actually could be someone who has made a choice to engage in sexual relations with people of their own sex.

[BedellBrave]

60% of my life being taught it

but hey, go down that road if you want


I have before and shown how you've been wrong.

[BedellBrave]

i understand their position and have no problem of them having that dumb belief in their personal life

but to advocate compromising to allow their religious beliefs to enter into our society that shouldn't recognize their religious beliefs is absurd


All involved in the public arena must submit.

[BedellBrave]

They want full acceptance.

They won't get it, just like there are some whites, some blacks, some Muslims, some Christians, some of any walk of life will not accept some things in life. It is not dumb, it is human nature and it is in all of us. The problem is that some people can't accept even that, they want people to accept them no matter what. I can accept racism towards me, that is on that person. I am no better than they are as I harbor my own.


AA, I think it goes further than acceptance. It's approval that is the goal, the end game.

[Oklahomahawk]

Just my weird arsed opinion, I DO NOT think people can control or choose who they're attracted to, I used to think it was a choice, but I have either evolved or devolved (depending on your point of view) to a point where I think people were born in whatever way they were born, choice wise. That said we ALL make choices on who we have sex with, as well as lots of other choices we make every single day. How many of you are tempted to do things that might be against the law (man's or God's) but you didn't do it???

[goldfly]

Then try this idea on for size - there actually could be someone who has made a choice to engage in sexual relations with people of their own sex.

any time anyone has sex, they are choosing to have sex

unless they are being raped

[goldfly]

have to go

going to see the Black Angels concert

[BedellBrave]

Just my weird arsed opinion, I DO NOT think people can control or choose who they're attracted to, I used to think it was a choice, but I have either evolved or devolved (depending on your point of view) to a point where I think people were born in whatever way they were born, choice wise. That said we ALL make choices on who we have sex with, as well as lots of other choices we make every single day. How many of you are tempted to do things that might be against the law (man's or God's) but you didn't do it???

Why must it be an either/or? Why are folks so afraid of allowing for the possibility that some homosexuals are homosexual by choice?

[BedellBrave]

any time anyone has sex, they are choosing to have sex

unless they are being raped

As I said, choice is a part of the matrix.

I for one do not think that "orientation" is always an exclusively static idea.

[Oklahomahawk]

Why must it be an either/or? Why are folks so afraid of allowing for the possibility that some practicing homosexuals are practicing by choice?

Does that mean they aren't really very good at it? yeah, don't answer that one. I really don't care who consenting adults choose to bang, but marriage is another matter, for better or for worse, it simply isn't the same thing.

[BedellBrave]

Does that mean they aren't really very good at it? yeah, don't answer that one. I really don't care who consenting adults choose to bang, but marriage is another matter, for better or for worse, it simply isn't the same thing.

Again, I don't think "orientation" is always an exclusively static idea.

And yes, I agree about marriage.

[Hawk]

none of that has to do with the law of society

Haha dude. That IS the law of society. But I digress.

[zitothebrave]

No your analogies are apples to oranges.

Answer my question. Is refusal to do a pornographic shoot discriminatory? Be consistent. Your position is that if someone wants a business to provide a service within it's type of services, then that business must perform it if they serve the general public. The wishes of the customer are paramount.

Now to your question.

And I answer for myself. I think such a photographer is bigoted. I think their conviction is wrong. That it is unsound. And that they should/ought to do a photo shoot for such a wedding. But, that the couple hiring them would be better served choosing another photographer.

But should it be illegal for the photographer to refuse service? Probably not (though I realize that's not a popular or appealing position). We want everything to be black/white (pardon the pun) and we act as if there is some sort of common, agreed-upon, moral code to which we can appeal - but there isn't. What we do in the end is encode one morality over another - one person's freedom over another's. It's all about power.

Thinking further though about your scenario, I wonder, would a person that believes interracial marriage is wrong, be willing to do a non-wedding photo shoot of the interracial couple? I doubt it.

I know the baker in CO was willing to provide his services to that couple for other things beyond the wedding cake.

Now to your concluding opinion, I think that's the only option now available for photographers and bakers and anyone offering wedding services. But, it will challenged and it won't stand either.

Because, again, it is all about approval…and submission...

Thread blew up a bit so I'm not gonna hit every post. But I'll tackle this one.

All analogies are flawed but it's way closer than what you're going for.

As far as pornographic photography, I know a lot of people who're photographers, film makers, etc. They don't shoot porn because they aren't porn photographers. They're wedding, nature, documentary, etc. they're not asked to do other jobs aside from by family/friends. For a comparison, I sell ****, I could sell cars, no one would ask me because I sell cars to fix a car. You wouldn't ask me because I sell cars to sell jet engines. People who shoot porn shoot porn. That's about it. They don't go trolling wedding photographers. And they'd be able to reject it because they shoot weddings. So it's really simple, you're comparing apples and oranges.

If you believe that someone can choose 100% who to serve period then that's fine, if you're selective in who you think they can choose to discriminate legally, that's where the problem is.

[BedellBrave]

:Wall:

[jpx7]

Different theories point to genetics, environment, choice or a combination.

All (or pretty much all) human activity, including the notion of "choice," is a combination of gentic and environmental factors; the real question is just the proportional effect of each.

[BedellBrave]

One current theory is saying it's not genetic (DNA) at all, but epi-genetic/environmental, but the main contributing environment is the womb.

[jpx7]

Meanwhile: I agree with Hawk that the "inborn versus chosen" discussion is just a distraction.

[jpx7]

One current theory is saying it's not genetic (DNA) at all, but environmental, but the main contributing environment is the womb.

A womb which itself is compiled through transcription and replication of nucleic acids, making the interpolation of genetic material nevertheless unavoidable.

[BedellBrave]

I pretty much do as well.

[zitothebrave]

A womb which itself is compiled through transcription and replication of nucleic acids, making the interpolation of genetic material nevertheless unavoidable.

This is such a phenomenal post. Well played.

[BedellBrave]

A womb which itself is compiled through transcription and replication of nucleic acids, making the interpolation of genetic material nevertheless unavoidable.

I added epigenetic (switches).

Maybe they'll discover an in-vitro corrective. ;-)

[Oklahomahawk]

This is such a phenomenal post. Well played.

No kidding, I haven't seen that many $50 words used together in one sentence in years!!!

[BedellBrave]

Dude's got a good vocabulary.

[weso1]

I'll try to state my position on this issue as eloquently as jpx did.

I done think the man who makes cakes should not have to make them for a *** wedding if he doesn't want to. Aint no nevermind to me whether or not ***s get married, but y'all have to understand that some folks just don't agree with *** marriage. I reckon he done did make cakes for ***s for other events, but just not for thar wedding. All y'all will not expect cake maker to make cake for a satanic ritual would you! Not tryin to compare the two, but just sayin that he done has the right to refuse to make a cake for something he... what's the word I be looking for... not agrees with.

[goldfly]

All involved in the public arena must submit.

Kiss the ring

You can keep your discrimination, under the cover of loving Jesus, at your house.

The proverbial you, not you yourself

[goldfly]

As I said, choice is a part of the matrix.

I for one do not think that "orientation" is always an exclusively static idea.

That is just playing a simple game of word play by saying it is choice if you want to use it that way

Which I thought we both know isn't the case of what we are talking about

[goldfly]

Haha dude. That IS the law of society. But I digress.


The dumb belief that homosexuality is a sin? The dumb belief that homosexuality is a choice? The dumb belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

It's no longer a black and white issue. Homosexual couples (and singles) are welcome at some Christian churches, *** adoption is allowed, significant progress has been made on *** rights and marriage, etc. et al.

There has been compromise already, my friend.

That isn't the law of society to just discriminate because of your religious belief

That has already been struck down in this society with every other case that has presented that argument

[Hawk]

discrimination
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.
2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another: discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.

[AerchAngel]

I'll try to state my position on this issue as eloquently as jpx did.

I done think the man who makes cakes should not have to make them for a *** wedding if he doesn't want to. Aint no nevermind to me whether or not ***s get married, but y'all have to understand that some folks just don't agree with *** marriage. I reckon he done did make cakes for ***s for other events, but just not for thar wedding. All y'all will not expect cake maker to make cake for a satanic ritual would you! Not tryin to compare the two, but just sayin that he done has the right to refuse to make a cake for something he... what's the word I be looking for... not agrees with.

This.

[sturg33]

Such a joke that folks actually believe a private business owner shouldn't be allowed to refuse service.

I'm going to call a Colorado wedding photographer to take pics of my wedding in Virginia. If he refuses, then he's discriminating against me because I live 2,000 miles away!!!

I suggest that anyone (except the government) should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. If Goldy is right and the overwhelming market has "evolved," then in this day and age of the internet, that photographer will be put out of business because the public will revolt and stop going to his store, right?

[zitothebrave]

Such a joke that folks actually believe a private business owner shouldn't be allowed to refuse service.

I'm going to call a Colorado wedding photographer to take pics of my wedding in Virginia. If he refuses, then he's discriminating against me because I live 2,000 miles away!!!

I suggest that anyone (except the government) should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. If Goldy is right and the overwhelming market has "evolved," then in this day and age of the internet, that photographer will be put out of business because the public will revolt and stop going to his store, right?

Hooray more stupid analogies that have nothing to even remotely do with the topic on hand.

But I'll not hound on you too much because you're at least consistent unlike some others.

[BedellBrave]

That is just playing a simple game of word play by saying it is choice if you want to use it that way

Which I thought we both know isn't the case of what we are talking about



Just can't ever be a choice - such an interesting position to hold. Telling, I think.

[BedellBrave]

Ever hear of hasbians gold?

Anne Heche?

LUGS

[zitothebrave]

Just can't ever be a choice - such an interesting position to hold. Telling, I think.

Why does the potential of being a choice matter?

[BedellBrave]

Why does the potential of being a choice matter?


Ask those who keep wanting to rule choice out of the equation.

[zitothebrave]

Ask those who keep wanting to rule choice out of the equation.

I'd rather ask why it matters are all to someone who keeps bringing up various points as a seeming counter argument to why a homosexual shouldn't be granted basic civil liberties protected by law to other minorities.

[BedellBrave]

I'd rather ask why it matters are all to someone who keeps bringing up various points as a seeming counter argument to why a homosexual shouldn't be granted basic civil liberties protected by law to other minorities.


I'm all for giving the LGBT crowd the right of civil unions (equal to the same rights recognized by the state for those who are married). And as I've stated plenty of times I know that you all will see fit for the State to give the word marriage to such unions as well and I've resigned myself to that inevitability though I don't agree with it. So, what exactly are you asking me? Pray tell.

[BedellBrave]

I'd rather ask why it matters are all to someone who keeps bringing up various points as a seeming counter argument to why a homosexual shouldn't be granted basic civil liberties protected by law to other minorities.


So why do you want to rule choice out of the equation Z?

[zitothebrave]

So why do you want to rule choice out of the equation Z?

Am I? I find it largely irrelevant in my civil rights belief. I think the fact that there are more than a few who don't have the choice is enough to make you believe that rights should be protected.

On a semi-related topic, what are the odds that there are more people choosing to be straight than choosing to be ***? I'd put healthy odds on that.

[zitothebrave]

I'm all for giving the LGBT crowd the right of civil unions (equal to the same rights recognized by the state for those who are married). And as I've stated plenty of times I know that you all will see fit for the State to give the word marriage to such unions as well and I've resigned myself to that inevitability though I don't agree with it. So, what exactly are you asking me? Pray tell.

Civil liberties and civil marriages are not the same.

[BedellBrave]

Sorry Bedell, but you're not in the right here. We're not talking about the government forcing churches to marry,etc. that are protected religious rights, we're talking about someone who does business with the general public having a right to discriminate. There was a law passed many years ago that stopped such an event from happening to a black man or woman, that also protects homosexuals. People who are *** are not choosing to do it, just like people who're straight don't choose it. Sure there's some blurred lines where *** people pretend to be straight to avoid social stigmas but they're thinning.



Yeah, you are.

[BedellBrave]

Science indicates that it doesn't. Whether people believe that or not doesn't matter.


Yeah, you did it again.

[BedellBrave]

Am I? I find it largely irrelevant in my civil rights belief. I think the fact that there are more than a few who don't have the choice is enough to make you believe that rights should be protected.

On a semi-related topic, what are the odds that there are more people choosing to be straight than choosing to be ***? I'd put healthy odds on that.


Was there an answer in there?

[BedellBrave]

Civil liberties and civil marriages are not the same.


Right. All must submit. We've covered that. Gotcha.

Btw, you are just advocating one set of civil rights of one group over the civil rights of another. It's all just a power play. Happens all the time.

[zitothebrave]

That wasn't the only part of my argument and some people choosing doesn't ruin the other parts.

[zitothebrave]

Right. All must submit. We've covered that. Gotcha.

I guess you're cool with Jim Crow laws and the sort then.

[BedellBrave]

That wasn't the only part of my argument and some people choosing doesn't ruin the other parts.


So you were just using hyperbole?

[BedellBrave]

I guess you're cool with Jim Crow laws and the sort then.


No. Why should I be?

[zitothebrave]

No. Why should I be?

Well your constant submit, blah blah blah thing you do. Could easily slide it around.

[zitothebrave]

So you were just using hyperbole?

Hyperbole to a degree. But lots of truths as well.

[BedellBrave]

Hyperbole to a degree. But lots of truths as well.


I actually think you just overstated your case. But why? Why were you hell bent on ruling out choice?

[BedellBrave]

Well your constant submit, blah blah blah thing you do. Could easily slide it around.


It's the truth though. You're view is that everyone must submit on this point.

And you had based it on your false premise that all LGBT are what they are not of their choosing. So they, as an entire block, are just like blacks.

[sturg33]

Curious how ensuring a business takes picture of your *** wedding is a "civil right"

Also curious why the *** person's "right" to be served is always trumping the business owner's "right" to refuse service

[BedellBrave]

Curious how ensuring a business takes picture of your *** wedding is a "civil right"

Also curious why the *** person's "right" to be served is always trumping the business owner's "right" to refuse service


That was my point that Z is just choosing one set of "rights" over another. Again, it's just a power play.

[zitothebrave]

Curious how ensuring a business takes picture of your *** wedding is a "civil right"

Also curious why the *** person's "right" to be served is always trumping the business owner's "right" to refuse service

Because there are laws in place in most states that protect people from being discriminated upon.

As far as right to refuse service, there's no real gray area. You're into total equality one way or another.

[Julio3000]

Because there are laws in place in most states that protect people from being discriminated upon.

As far as right to refuse service, there's no real gray area. You're into total equality one way or another.

You're whistling in the dark. Sturg doesn't like laws.

[Krgrecw]

Curious how ensuring a business takes picture of your *** wedding is a "civil right"

Also curious why the *** person's "right" to be served is always trumping the business owner's "right" to refuse service


You can't refuse someone because they are ***. If you refuse someone's service because they may be *** or black, etc you need to find reasons to refuse the service other then the fact that are ***. It can be done.

[sturg33]

Because there are laws in place in most states that protect people from being discriminated upon.

As far as right to refuse service, there's no real gray area. You're into total equality one way or another.

You're whistling in the dark. I don't like laws.

[sturg33]

You can't refuse someone because they are ***. If you refuse someone's service because they may be *** or black, etc you need to find reasons to refuse the service other then the fact that are ***. It can be done.

Why can't I refuse service to someone who is ***? (Other than a bureaucrat told me I can't)?

Frankly, it seems like it should be the responsibility of the consumer to find a photographer that fits his/her needs. And it's the responsibility of the photographer to find a couple that aligns with his/her business/core values.

[Julio3000]

That was my point that Z is just choosing one set of "rights" over another. Again, it's just a power play.

I'm sorry that you see it that way.

I'm still not sure what "rights" are being infringed upon when a business is legally enjoined to not discriminate against someone on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The libertarian argument is IMO more compelling than the religious freedom argument. I simply don't understand how one's religious rights are infringed upon in this situation. Personal sensibilities? Sure.

[Julio3000]

Why can't I refuse service to someone who is ***? (Other than a bureaucrat told me I can't)?

Frankly, it seems like it should be the responsibility of the consumer to find a photographer that fits his/her needs. And it's the responsibility of the photographer to find a couple that aligns with his/her business/core values.

Some bureaucrat didn't make the law. The people made the law. That's right—they decided to use their individual liberty to assemble and agree to be governed by laws. Then they passed some laws. Some were useful, some were not. One of the laws they passed prevented businesses from discriminating against customers on the basis of sexual orientation.

You don't have to like it. I'm interested in hearing compelling arguments against it. However, I think that you should drop the pretense that some bureaucrat is imposing this rule on free citizens.

[Krgrecw]

[QUOTE=sturg33;80602]Why can't I refuse service to someone who is ***? (Other than a bureaucrat told me I can't)?

Frankly, it seems like it should be the responsibility of the consumer to find a photographer that fits his/her needs. And it's the responsibility of the photographer to find a couple that aligns with his/her business/core values.[/


You can refuse service to someone is *** but you can't do it because they are ***. All the bakery has to do is fill up its walls with Biblical Mumbo jumbo and make the store uninviting to ***s, where they wouldn't want to go in.

[sturg33]

My argument against it is it completely erodes individual liberty. I should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, if I am a private business.

Like I said, if the people are so against this notion, I should be out of business within a month. If a restaurant put a sign in their window that said "no blacks allowed", guess what? I would not go to that restaurant. And I imagine 90% of people that don't live in the deep south would either.

But... that would allow a free market to work. And we can't be having that...

[jpx7]

No kidding, I haven't seen that many $50 words used together in one sentence in years!!!

So pay up; my secretary handles billing.

[jpx7]

I'll try to state my position on this issue as eloquently as jpx did.

I done think the man who makes cakes should not have to make them for a *** wedding if he doesn't want to. Aint no nevermind to me whether or not ***s get married, but y'all have to understand that some folks just don't agree with *** marriage. I reckon he done did make cakes for ***s for other events, but just not for thar wedding. All y'all will not expect cake maker to make cake for a satanic ritual would you! Not tryin to compare the two, but just sayin that he done has the right to refuse to make a cake for something he... what's the word I be looking for... not agrees with.

***s are Satan. Got it.

[weso1]

***s are Satan. Got it.

I wouldn't say Satan is that bad.

[57Brave]

My argument against it is it completely erodes individual liberty. I should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, if I am a private business.

Like I said, if the people are so against this notion, I should be out of business within a month. If a restaurant put a sign in their window that said "no blacks allowed", guess what? I would not go to that restaurant. And I imagine 90% of people that don't live in the deep south would either.

But... that would allow a free market to work. And we can't be having that...

Pretty sure you can legally refuse service to any"one"
The catch comes when/if a business has a pattern of refusing service to similar peoples. Color-race-religion or sexual preference. Etc
People vote along lines of their civil rights because they do kinda affect their everyday lives - as in where and when you can go places- what events you can attend or what/how you decide issues of your body

Am I safe in assuming you are a Neo-Conferderate that would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I remember labeled public water fountains for "Negroes" and White People and restaurants advising "Negroes " not totry to eat inside.
How would you solve these social picadillos?

[sturg33]

Pretty sure you can legally refuse service to any"one"
The catch comes when/if a business has a pattern of refusing service to similar peoples. Color-race-religion or sexual preference. Etc
People vote along lines of their civil rights because they do kinda affect their everyday lives - as in where and when you can go places- what events you can attend or what/how you decide issues of your body

Am I safe in assuming you are a Neo-Conferderate that would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I remember labeled public water fountains for "Negroes" and White People and restaurants advising "Negroes " not totry to eat inside.
How would you solve these social picadillos?

There is a difference between public water fountains and private water fountains. I'm absolutely not OK with the government discriminating.

But I'm absolutely fine with private business discriminating. It is their right to do so. And they can pay the consequences with the lost business.

No - I would not have supported the 64 civil rights act - specifically because of the private business section

[AerchAngel]

[QUOTE=sturg33;80602]Why can't I refuse service to someone who is ***? (Other than a bureaucrat told me I can't)?

Frankly, it seems like it should be the responsibility of the consumer to find a photographer that fits his/her needs. And it's the responsibility of the photographer to find a couple that aligns with his/her business/core values.[/


You can refuse service to someone is *** but you can't do it because they are ***. All the bakery has to do is fill up its walls with Biblical Mumbo jumbo and make the store uninviting to ***s, where they wouldn't want to go in.

I said this before and it has happened to me on several occasions in Iowa and Wisconsin. They made it their point I was not welcomed in their establishment, instead of crying "racist", "look at what they are doing", I just don't go there and if I have friends that went there, I tell them how much they sucked. They will get the picture and won't go as well.

Because of the this publicity, just like chic-fil-a, their business will blossom.

If I don't want to do something for you because I don't agree with it and the GOVERNMENT forced me to, you ain't getting the best service, you can believe that.

[jpx7]

Curious how ensuring a business takes picture of your *** wedding is a "civil right"

Also curious why the *** person's "right" to be served is always trumping the business owner's "right" to refuse service

Well let's try an example that's a little more essential than weddings or photographs. Say you live in a neighborhood with only one grocery in a substantial radius—a common circumstance in many large urban areas, as well as elsewhere—and the proprietor determines that you self-identify into a category of which he or she doesn't approve. Like most humans, you need food to live; like most humans, in this country at least, you also lack the space or means to generate or cultivate such food entirely by yourself.

Learning of your self-identification, the grocer decides to materially extend their disapproval: he or she exercises her or his right to refuse to sell you food. Now, you must travel far from your home, at great personal cost—both in terms of time and money—to acquire the materials necessary for sustenance. Perhaps, indeed, you literally cannot afford the additional expense, lost time, or either of those things. Perhaps, indeed, you will become malnourished, bankrupt, or both without some sort of intervention.

Do you really believe a business' rights-of-refusal are so paramount, so sacrosanct, that the government should not—cannot, rightfully—intervene in such a situation?

[jpx7]

Civil coexistence always includes some infringement upon rights. Sometimes, it's even a good thing: my right to murder people has been substantially infringed by the government (unless it's a black teenager equipped with tell-tale hoodie, skittles, and can of iced-tea!). So, in these situations, it's useful to consider—borrowing the language of the capitalists—the relative costs and benefits of one infringement versus the other.

Is the grocer—or the baker, or the photographer—really gaining anything of much utility (beyond a petulant statement of disapproval) through the absolute preservation of their rights-of-refusal? Meanwhile: what is the customer losing in this instance? Possibly, as in my example, their only reasonable access to certain goods or services.

[sturg33]

Do you really believe a business' rights-of-refusal are so paramount, so sacrosanct, that the government should not—cannot, rightfully—intervene in such a situation?

Yes

[zitothebrave]

Yes

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/320/1/2/i_don_t_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore_by_gbr sou-d6uh5ce.jpg

[jpx7]

Do you really believe a business' rights-of-refusal are so paramount, so sacrosanct, that the government should not—cannot, rightfully—intervene in such a situation?


Yes

Why?

[sturg33]

Why?

Starting your own business is hard. Not many people can do it, and even fewer are willing to do it.

If someone takes a mega-risk in starting a business, he/she is doing a lot of great things for the community.

1. He's providing a service that people want (in your example, food)

2. He's providing jobs that people need

3. He's paying a lot more in taxes to our great friend

To me, that person should have absolutely every right to run his business the way he feels it should be run (providing their not impacting the rights of others).

If that person decides he doesn't want a *** person shopping in his store, then he should be allowed to be open about that and not allow it. In your example, there are two options that I see:

1. The person can try to start a competing business - but that would be extremely risky and like I said before, few can or are willing to do it.

2. The person should move

I simply don't believe that the government should have the ability to dictate how you run your business. But obviously, that is not the world we live in.

Now, back to the original example - let's make sure we force that photographer to take nice wedding picture for something he is 100% morally opposed to. Yeah, that seems like the right thing to do.

[jpx7]

To me, that person should have absolutely every right to run his business the way he feels it should be run (providing their not impacting the rights of others).

What about the right to life, with which starvation is counter-indicated? How do you justify you implicit claim that the business' refusal of service doesn't impact the refused individual's right to remain alive?


If that person decides he doesn't want a *** person shopping in his store, then he should be allowed to be open about that and not allow it. In your example, there are two options that I see:

1. The person can try to start a competing business - but that would be extremely risky and like I said before, few can or are willing to do it.

2. The person should move

If a person isn't affluent enough to travel far out of their way to procure foodstuffs from a grocery that doesn't deny them service on grounds of self-identification, they almost certainly can't afford to move, and they damn sure can't afford to start a competing business.

[sturg33]

What about the right to life, with which starvation is counter-indicated? How do you justify you implicit claim that the business' refusal of service doesn't impact the refused individual's right to remain alive?
.

You're implying it's the business owner's responsibility to ensure everyone is fed...

[yeezus]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone be as consistently dense while arguing as you, sturg..congrats. The way you see so many issues as black and white is astounding.

[yeezus]

Also, I guess ***s are LITERALLY HITLER.

[sturg33]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone be as consistently dense while arguing as you, sturg..congrats. The way you see so many issues as black and white is astounding.

Thanks!

[weso1]

Also, I guess ***s are LITERALLY HITLER.

Hitler isn't that bad.

[Tapate50]

Also, I guess ***s are LITERALLY HITLER.

Wouldn't that be Hitler(s) plural?

[jpx7]

Wouldn't that be Hitler(s) plural?

A single *** could not hope to be Hitler. It requires the collective force of all ***s.

[jpx7]

You're implying it's the business owner's responsibility to ensure everyone is fed...

There's a difference between actively ensuring someone is fed and actively denying access to the means that feed them.

But hey: maybe if our government spent enough time and funds ensuring everyone single person is fed to a healthy, livable standard, our society could afford to give business-owners the leeway to refuse essential services for any queer reason that might enter their minds. Something tells me that wouldn't appeal to you, either, however.

[50PoundHead]

Bedell, don't crap your pants, but I agree with you that there are individuals who commit homosexual acts and perhaps have a same sex partner that aren't homosexual at their core. I also believe there are people who are homosexual at their core who have chosen to be in a heterosexual relationship. Human sexuality is complex and I believe it can be fluid for some people, which makes conscience and responsibility to that conscience crucial in the discussion.

As for this particular issue, I have mixed feelings, but I tend to side with the customers, although I don't know why anyone would go out of their way to solicit business from someone who obviously was uncomfortable by what you are asking them to do. One would think there would be enough GLBT-friendly businesses where this type of confrontation could be avoided. I'm not excusing bigotry, but why inject rancor into what is supposed to be one of the most important days of one's life?

[Julio3000]

My argument against it is it completely erodes individual liberty. I should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, if I am a private business.

Like I said, if the people are so against this notion, I should be out of business within a month. If a restaurant put a sign in their window that said "no blacks allowed", guess what? I would not go to that restaurant. And I imagine 90% of people that don't live in the deep south would either.

But... that would allow a free market to work. And we can't be having that...

That's very brave of you to say, decades after people fought, were beaten, jailed, and died in the service of the civil rights movement. Maybe even true, too, except that a month is probably exaggerated and 90% sounds optimistic. Do you live in or have you spent much time in the deep south? Do you think the situation you posit would have been true in 1960? 1970? 1990?

I get your argument. I think it's nice, in a sorta cute and naive way. So, let's go back in time a few decades. Tell me with a straight face that the erosion of individual liberty that took place at America's universities and lunch counters did more harm than good.

I think that when you advance this argument, you display a limited understanding of the scale, scope, and depth of racial discrimination in America in the postwar era. It was public and private. It covered housing, employment, education, commerce—everything that could be used to maintain an order that elevated one race above another. Your glib suggestion that a free market could have quickly resolved it strikes me as silly.

My hometown of Greenville, SC, is also the home of Bob Jones University. BJU had an interracial dating ban that persisted until a national spotlight shone on it in the year 2000. I use that example to show how racial discrimination persists. It's also a good opportunity to go back to the topic. This ban on interracial dating was defended on the basis of religious conviction. In fact, that was the exact argument that was used when BJU sued the government, attempting to maintain its tax-exempt status. What was, in essence, a personal/institutional preference was advanced as a religious proscription. I'm not aware that the bible instructs Christians not to engage in commerce with homosexuals. It seems to me that the refusal to photograph a same-sex couple's wedding or to bake them a wedding cake amounts a personal preference rather than obedience to a religious conviction. As a small business owner, I'm sympathetic to the issue of being compelled to do business with anyone. On the other hand, a majority of states (representing a substantial majority of the population) have passed laws that prohibit this particular kind of refusal.

I'm sympathetic, BB, to your concern for the rights of the minority and for religious freedom. I also agree with Hawk that—dialogue, understanding, and respect being paramount—compromise is generally desirable. I've just never understood the case that religious freedom is what's at stake here.

[The Chosen One]

My hometown of Greenville, SC, is also the home of Bob Jones University. BJU had an interracial dating ban that persisted until a national spotlight shone on it in the year 2000. I use that example to show how racial discrimination persists. It's also a good opportunity to go back to the topic. This ban on interracial dating was defended on the basis of religious conviction. In fact, that was the exact argument that was used when BJU sued the government, attempting to maintain its tax-exempt status. What was, in essence, a personal/institutional preference was advanced as a religious proscription. I'm not aware that the bible instructs Christians not to engage in commerce with homosexuals. It seems to me that the refusal to photograph a same-sex couple's wedding or to bake them a wedding cake amounts a personal preference rather than obedience to a religious conviction. As a small business owner, I'm sympathetic to the issue of being compelled to do business with anyone. On the other hand, a majority of states (representing a substantial majority of the population) have passed laws that prohibit this particular kind of refusal.
.

Words could not be spoken truer. Beautiful.

[AerchAngel]

Words could not be spoken truer. Beautiful.

I wonder what bible passages would led them to this conclusion? That place sound like a cult university and who in their right mind would go to an institution like that? Back then there weren't any colors, everyone was the same color more olive skinned. I can see heathen/non-heathen, jew/non-jews passages or even yoked/unequally yoked in regards to marriage, but blacks and whites dilly dallying does not show up in the bible.

[Dalyn]

I wonder what bible passages would led them to this conclusion? That place sound like a cult university and who in their right mind would go to an institution like that? Back then there weren't any colors, everyone was the same color more olive skinned. I can see heathen/non-heathen, jew/non-jews passages or even yoked/unequally yoked in regards to marriage, but blacks and whites dilly dallying does not show up in the bible.

Deuteronomy 22:10 is clearly a cry against homosexuality - "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together." - Much like 22:11 is clearly a cry against interracial relationships - "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

[Dalyn]

I wonder what bible passages would led them to this conclusion? That place sound like a cult university and who in their right mind would go to an institution like that? Back then there weren't any colors, everyone was the same color more olive skinned. I can see heathen/non-heathen, jew/non-jews passages or even yoked/unequally yoked in regards to marriage, but blacks and whites dilly dallying does not show up in the bible.

Seriously, though, it shows up plenty. People were not all one color.

[50PoundHead]

I wonder what bible passages would led them to this conclusion? That place sound like a cult university and who in their right mind would go to an institution like that? Back then there weren't any colors, everyone was the same color more olive skinned. I can see heathen/non-heathen, jew/non-jews passages or even yoked/unequally yoked in regards to marriage, but blacks and whites dilly dallying does not show up in the bible.

There are some things in Genesis about the scattering of the nations that has been interpreted by some to preclude interracial marriage, but the view is very passe and hardly voiced by anyone anymore. There's a Biblical allowance or prohibition for just about anything if one reads the Bible out of context.

PS--After reading Dalyn's entries, does a black person show up in the Bible prior to Simon of Cyrene? Bedell would know.

[Dalyn]

There are some things in Genesis about the scattering of the nations that has been interpreted by some to preclude interracial marriage, but the view is very passe and hardly voiced by anyone anymore. There's a Biblical allowance or prohibition for just about anything if one reads the Bible out of context.

PS--After reading Dalyn's entries, does a black person show up in the Bible prior to Simon of Cyrene? Bedell would know.

Yes. Long before.

[AerchAngel]

Seriously, though, it shows up plenty. People were not all one color.

I know you are just jesting, but seriously, that university sounds like a cult with their rules. I believe the youngest of the family pulled a Thomas Jefferson at one point when his pops finally denounced the interracial part and he was very happy. I guess having mixed babies makes it hard for them to check caucasian/black box on Federal forms.

Too many analogies for my liking that men wants to interpret words for their own power over another individual.

[jpx7]

Deuteronomy 22:10 is clearly a cry against homosexuality - "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together." - Much like 22:11 is clearly a cry against interracial relationships - "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

Obviously that's the correct gloss of 22:10. However, I always read 22:11 as a proscription of wet-suits and the like—the Abrahamic god's anti-snorkel clause.

[Dalyn]

I know you are just jesting, but seriously, that university sounds like a cult with their rules. I believe the youngest of the family pulled a Thomas Jefferson at one point when his pops finally denounced the interracial part and he was very happy. I guess having mixed babies makes it hard for them to check caucasian/black box on Federal forms.

Too many analogies for my liking that men wants to interpret words for their own power over another individual.

They sound little different than what I grew up hearing. This is the face of religion. Many try to hide it, but it is there for a reason; they all have found scripture to feed their hatred. It is a vicious circle, because many have that hatred BECAUSE of those scriptures.

[AerchAngel]

There are some things in Genesis about the scattering of the nations that has been interpreted by some to preclude interracial marriage, but the view is very passe and hardly voiced by anyone anymore. There's a Biblical allowance or prohibition for just about anything if one reads the Bible out of context.

PS--After reading Dalyn's entries, does a black person show up in the Bible prior to Simon of Cyrene? Bedell would know.

Oh I know there were different colors back then, but what I was getting at it was not a prominent thing. Heck, they said Moses was black and he lead the Israelites and he married a white woman with God presiding. So..........the university at that time hid behind that false dictation of the bible to keep the divide open. If I offend anyone about labeling them as so, I am sorry.

It seems that they had cleaned up their act, props to the grandson in trying to undo all the damage they've done over the years.

[Dalyn]

Oh I know there were different colors back then, but what I was getting at it was not a prominent thing. Heck, they said Moses was black and he lead the Israelites and he married a white woman with God presiding. So..........the university at that time hid behind that false dictation of the bible to keep the divide open. If I offend anyone about labeling them as so, I am sorry.

It seems that they had cleaned up their act, props to the grandson in trying to undo all the damage they've done over the years.


You have it backward regarding Moses. King David also married a black woman (after basically having her husband killed because David slept with her and got her pregnant and couldn't get the husband to sleep with her to cover it up).

[AerchAngel]

They sound little different than what I grew up hearing. This is the face of religion. Many try to hide it, but it is there for a reason; they all have found scripture to feed their hatred. It is a vicious circle, because many have that hatred BECAUSE of those scriptures.

I have no doubt, none at all. People think I am anti-gay, which is furthest from the truth, on the list of friends on my facebook, at least 8 of them are gay, 2 are my family, but you wouldn't know that - well maybe on a couple if you looked at that them closely or hear them talk, dead give-away.

My thing is marriage, nuclear family, procreation philosophy, family units can produce biological offspring, two same sexes can't unless one is a hermaphrodite if possible. That is why I am behind unions one hundred percent and they are happy and they don't force me to accept "homo-marriage". It is my belief and choice to see it as a union which I have for a family member and yes they are on my Facebook as well and the family see them as such. Our family, meaning all and extended of them do not talk about it but accept it as is and everyone is happy.

[Dalyn]

family units can produce biological offspring

Not all. And that is why that whole argument really doesn't make much sense once you think about it.

[AerchAngel]

You have it backward regarding Moses. King David also married a black woman (after basically having her husband killed because David slept with her and got her pregnant and couldn't get the husband to sleep with her to cover it up).

I haven't read the bible since I took bible school over 33 years ago, so my old testament is rusty. I just remembered my grandpaps giving me a color bible (Cliff notes version and I could swear Moses was black and my paps told me he was and then the bible scripture backing it up). There were a few more then, but the gist of it was that it was not taboo then.

Since the grew up in Tennessee, Kentucky before settling in Illinois, his trust for white people wasn't the best and he told me never to trust them as they would jip you on any transaction and lie for the betterment of their own. Funny, I have seen that in my 46 years of life at times.

[zitothebrave]

I have no doubt, none at all. People think I am anti-gay, which is furthest from the truth, on the list of friends on my facebook, at least 8 of them are gay, 2 are my family, but you wouldn't know that - well maybe on a couple if you looked at that them closely or hear them talk, dead give-away.

My thing is marriage, nuclear family, procreation philosophy, family units can produce biological offspring, two same sexes can't unless one is a hermaphrodite if possible. That is why I am behind unions one hundred percent and they are happy and they don't force me to accept "homo-marriage". It is my belief and choice to see it as a union which I have for a family member and yes they are on my Facebook as well and the family see them as such. Our family, meaning all and extended of them do not talk about it but accept it as is and everyone is happy.

So someone who's sterile can't be married? Or because the general man woman thing works then it's still ok?

[Dalyn]

Solomon married two or three of just about every color he could find.

[AerchAngel]

Solomon married two or three of just about every color he could find.

Pimpin' ain't easy...........

[Dalyn]

Obviously that's the correct gloss of 22:10. However, I always read 22:11 as a proscription of wet-suits and the like—the Abrahamic god's anti-snorkel clause.

Oh, I was being facetious. But people DO argue those points. Deuteronomy is a favorite of theirs. Leviticus is another. #realchristiansdontsnorkel

[AerchAngel]

Not all. And that is why that whole argument really doesn't make much sense once you think about it.

Procreation is the number one rule in marriage. That is the very nature of my argument.

I heard zito throw the sterile meaning out there. Well there are people who thought they were sterile and then have kids, but I know for a guaranteed fact that two males can't have a baby by natural means nor two females unless they are a new species of human. The only human known to have a baby without sperm was Mary and even that is iffy to me. She would be National Inquire material if that happened today.

[Dalyn]

Procreation is the number one rule in marriage. That is the very nature of my argument.

I heard zito throw the sterile meaning out there. Well there are people who thought they were sterile and then have kids, but I know for a guaranteed fact that two males can't have a baby by natural means nor two females unless they are a new species of human. The only human known to have a baby without sperm was Mary and even that is iffy to me. She would be National Inquire material if that happened today.

That is what I meant by not all. Should someone who has had a hysterectomy not be allowed to marry? etc etc It is really rather silly. And for someone who agrees with me regarding the population problem, I am surprised to see you take such a stance.

[jpx7]

#realchristiansdontsnorkel

#scubaisforsinners

[Dalyn]

#scubaisforsinners

#ikissedafishandilikedit

[jpx7]

#ikissedafishandilikedit

http://www.petsami.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/kanye-west-gay-fish.jpg

[AerchAngel]

That is what I meant by not all. Should someone who has had a hysterectomy not be allowed to marry? etc etc It is really rather silly. And for someone who agrees with me regarding the population problem, I am surprised to see you take such a stance.

But the word "marriage" is what I am getting at, not union which I 100 percent agree with. People of the same sex say they are married, and I will agree to that by GOVERNMENT definition for tax purposes or if a divorce is in question, but not religious in which I will refer to them as a couple or union and that will never ever ever ever ever ever change.

now for population control, we see eye to eye but I am much strict than you unless I am missing something.

Now married people who have children, usually are ones who plans it, by planning for it or by the barrel of a shotgun. Those who have kids for more money from the government, whoring around, that is where we need population control by either making them sterile until they prove they can actually take care of kids or get their dicks cut off if you don't want to be responsible.

Think of this way, movie Starship Troopers, they couldn't have kids until they were citizens and they had to prove themselves as a citizen before even thinking of procreating. I don't mind something similar to that.

And before you yahoos think I advocate abortion, no, we can even prevent, spread your legs and have an abortion because it was an oops forfeit your right as a parent, PERMANENTLY. You have no husband, no means to support, you forfeit your right until you are not a drag on society. If I have to pay for your kids, I want some say so in it.

[BedellBrave]

Dang, you guys have been busy since I've been gone. I look forward to reading all of your pearls of wisdom. I've been thinking about the practicalities of this issue and read the following posted elsewhere which I think may have some merit.


"We have a distinction between a 'public accomodation' here (i.e. bakery which has a public storefront) versus private performance (say a wedding singer or photographer who is 'performing' in a private space).
The latter has a great deal of freedom to pick and choose their clients and set all types of conditions (i.e. "I don't do Jewish Weddings") while the former does not (i.e. "We don't serve blacks here").
As I pointed out, the storefront has less right to discriminate but still reserves the right to choose its offerings (i.e. "We don't make cakes with bride and bride or groom and groom on top")"


Makes some sense - but I still don't hold out much hope that y'all will tolerate anything like this. I doubt though that y'all will tolerate the photographer with such latitude. No, it'll be "submit, or don't do business." And I think y'all will also bitch to the point that the baker can't limit his offerings in any way that offends you and your views on LGBT issues.

[BedellBrave]

Does a Mennonite who owns an aluminum plant have to sell his aluminum to the military knowing it will be used as a component in weaponry?

Must a Muslim who owns a public custodial business serve a bank?

[HT: First Things]

[BedellBrave]

Can't we tolerate these convictions? Even if we don't hold them?

[zitothebrave]

Does a Mennonite who owns an aluminum plant have to sell his aluminum to the military knowing it will be used as a component in weaponry?

Must a Muslim who owns a public custodial business serve a bank?

[HT: First Things]

1. Military buys things off contract, so unless he's a military contractor that isn't a problem.

2. No he doesn't have to if he wants to because

3. Business entities are not people and aren't protected by civil rights.

[Dalyn]

On topic -

I think private businesses should be able to do what they want (within reason). They will have to face the social consequences, of course, but I just don't see how they should have to face legal ones.

[jpx7]

Business entities are not people and aren't protected by civil rights.

Well, they shouldn't be ... but the Supreme Court had some queer opinions about that.

[Dalyn]

Well, they shouldn't be ... but the Supreme Court had some queer opinions about that.

*whisper* Subtle attempt to get the conservatives to turn against those opinions. Nicely done, but I'm not sure it's going to work.

[BedellBrave]

Civil coexistence always includes some infringement upon rights. Sometimes, it's even a good thing: my right to murder people has been substantially infringed by the government (unless it's a black teenager equipped with tell-tale hoodie, skittles, and can of iced-tea!). So, in these situations, it's useful to consider—borrowing the language of the capitalists—the relative costs and benefits of one infringement versus the other.

Is the grocer—or the baker, or the photographer—really gaining anything of much utility (beyond a petulant statement of disapproval) through the absolute preservation of their rights-of-refusal? Meanwhile: what is the customer losing in this instance? Possibly, as in my example, their only reasonable access to certain goods or services.


That's the point I was making a bit earlier. And society is deciding to infringe upon this group then that. Someone loses.

[jpx7]

"We have a distinction between a 'public accomodation' here (i.e. bakery which has a public storefront) versus private performance (say a wedding singer or photographer who is 'performing' in a private space).
The latter has a great deal of freedom to pick and choose their clients and set all types of conditions (i.e. "I don't do Jewish Weddings") while the former does not (i.e. "We don't serve blacks here").
As I pointed out, the storefront has less right to discriminate but still reserves the right to choose its offerings (i.e. "We don't make cakes with bride and bride or groom and groom on top")"

I don't think it's an irrelevant discrimination to make at all, actually, between these two types of business. In the same manner, I'm a lot more concerned about the government interposing protections when it comes to basic or essential businesses or services than I am about government doing anything with respect to racist private golf courses.

[AerchAngel]

On topic -

I think private businesses should be able to do what they want (within reason). They will have to face the social consequences, of course, but I just don't see how they should have to face legal ones.

+ 100000

I didn't bitch and moan when my food got served cold, waited an hour and was giving my money back with a hint don't come back here, so guess what I did, I told all my friends about it and they refuse to go to that place because picked up what I was getting at.

You do not have to accept my skin color or me marrying white and I am not going to make you. Who the hell are you in the grand scheme of things? If you don't want me around, I will go to somebody who does.

[sturg33]

On topic -

I think private businesses should be able to do what they want (within reason). They will have to face the social consequences, of course, but I just don't see how they should have to face legal ones.

Thank you

[jpx7]

You do not have to accept my skin color or me marrying white and I am not going to make you. Who the hell are you in the grand scheme of things? If you don't want me around, I will go to somebody who does.

As Julio said, that's all very easy to say in 2014, but there was a time when "go[ing] to somebody who does" was a very difficult proposition—and, for some groups and types of people, it still is.

[BedellBrave]

1. Military buys things off contract, so unless he's a military contractor that isn't a problem.

2. No he doesn't have to if he wants to because

3. Business entities are not people and aren't protected by civil rights.


Is the Muslim allowed to refuse his services to a banker (to clean the banker's home)?

Is the Mennonite allowed to refuse to sell his aluminum to an individual who tells him he is designing a prototype weapon to market and he needs aluminum?

Trying to think how far y'all's benevolent tolerance extends.

[AerchAngel]

As Julio said, that's all very easy to say in 2014, but there was a time when "go[ing] to somebody who does" was a very difficult proposition—and, for some groups and types of people, it still is.

They are places catered to people, even today.

Would I want to go to some dive that would pull a knife on my black ass if I step one foot in their establishment, hell yeah there is, even in this city?

As for those who likes the same sex, I do not see that problem and haven't. Now personal services that is toward the religious aspect, I can see that, but should they forfeit their beliefs to submit to another. No, they shouldn't, it is infringing on their rights.

Like I said before, if someone forces me to do something I don't want, I will not give my best effort if you know what I mean.

So I will not go somewhere I am not welcomed as I have other choices and if these religious based people do not want them around there are other choices, but going to the media is just going to behold the business even more.

[zitothebrave]

Is the Muslim allowed to refuse his services a banker (to clean the banker's home)?

Is the Mennonite allowed to refuse to sell his aluminum to an individual who tells him he is designing a prototype weapon to market and he needs aluminum?

Trying to think how far y'all's benevolent tolerance extends.

If they want to yes. Because there is no one who's born to make weapons or born to be a banker.

[BedellBrave]

If they want to yes. Because there is no one who's born to make weapons or born to be a banker.


So you are going back to that argument?

Was it you who used an analogy about mixed-religious marriages?

[BedellBrave]

Could a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a Roman Catholic-Caucasian guy and his Muslim-Caucasian girlfriend because of the baker's conviction that two people of different faiths shouldn't marry?

[Dalyn]

+ 100000

I didn't bitch and moan when my food got served cold, waited an hour and was giving my money back with a hint don't come back here, so guess what I did, I told all my friends about it and they refuse to go to that place because picked up what I was getting at.

You do not have to accept my skin color or me marrying white and I am not going to make you. Who the hell are you in the grand scheme of things? If you don't want me around, I will go to somebody who does.

I feel the same way about many things -

I think private citizens should be able to do what they want (within reason). If two men want to marry, they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. If a black man and a white woman want to marry (or the other way around/whatever), they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. etc etc I don't want the government in private bedrooms or private businesses or whatever. Less, in this regard, is more. If there are currently laws on the books that make private citizens have to pay legal consequences for such things (instead of just social), then I support getting them removed or amended.

[zitothebrave]

So you are going back to that argument?

Was it you who used an analogy about mixed-religious marriages?

It's not really going back to any argument. I don't think that discriminating on someone because of anything they identify themselves as is cool. But your profession isn't.

That said, I don't think I've ever met someone who's been discriminated for being a banker or working as part of the MIC.

[jpx7]

I feel the same way about many things -

I think private citizens should be able to do what they want (within reason). If two men want to marry, they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. If a black man and a white woman want to marry (or the other way around/whatever), they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. etc etc I don't want the government in private bedrooms or private businesses or whatever. Less, in this regard, is more. If there are currently laws on the books that make private citizens have to pay legal consequences for such things (instead of just social), then I support getting them removed or amended.

The problem is, not all basic or essential services fall within the domain of the legal and/or governmental. And if basic or essential services are being denied on the merits of self-identification (for instance), then the consequences extend well beyond the mere "social"; at this point, some sort of institutional intercession is not just necessary but right.

I'm fine with making the sorts of distinction Bedell suggests, but I'm not fine with the protect businesses at all cost mantra strug advocates.

[Dalyn]

The problem is, not all basic or essential services fall within the domain of the legal and/or governmental. And if basic or essential services are being denied on the merits of self-identification (for instance), then the consequences extend well beyond the mere "social"; at this point, some sort of institutional intercession is not just necessary but right.

I'm fine with making the sorts of distinction Bedell suggests, but I'm not fine with the protect businesses at all cost mantra strug advocates.

Oh, I agree. Once the consequences are no longer solely social, it is a different story. But removing social consequences by hiding everything dirty under a militant blanket is a great way to keep true discrimination alive and thriving in the worst possible places (and in the worst possible ways). Most revolutions start at the social level. If you remove that option...

[BedellBrave]

It's not really going back to any argument. I don't think that discriminating on someone because of anything they identify themselves as is cool. But your profession isn't.

That said, I don't think I've ever met someone who's been discriminated for being a banker or working as part of the MIC.


Yeah it is. You are going back and saying that because it is genetic, then to refuse them service is discriminatory.

[BedellBrave]

Try swinging a dead cat (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371856/live-and-let-live-law-editors)

[zitothebrave]

Yeah it is. You are going back and saying that because it is genetic, then to refuse them service is discriminatory.

Well, I do believe that it isn't a choice for almost all homosexuals. Your sexuality is not something you generally actively choose. Not saying some don't, but your own sexuality is just that your own. And I don't believe no matter what your sexual preference is you should be discriminated upon.

That said, comparing a profession to a sexual preference is still apple and oranges, wouldn't normally give you a serious response. But I'm bored and into discussions.

[weso1]

So itt I learned that gays are born gay except that some aren't, but I'm still not sure if I figured out why it really matters in a political sense.

[Julio3000]

#ikissedafishandilikedit

#wetgoddess

I'm amused and a little disturbed that this is the second time I've had occasion to reference this on the boards.

[goldfly]

So itt I learned that gays are born gay except that some aren't, but I'm still not sure if I figured out why it really matters in a political sense.

well bedell from the start successfully changed the topic to debate that instead of the topic being about so called christians doing the opposite of how Jesus would act on this issue

[zitothebrave]

Could a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a Roman Catholic-Caucasian guy and his Muslim-Caucasian girlfriend because of the baker's conviction that two people of different faiths shouldn't marry?

Personally my opinion is no, but you're still at apples to oranges. If your thing is making wedding cakes (which most bakers aren't so they have a reason for refusal I'm sure) then you should be doing that unless you have too much work to do.

Again there's really only 2 options here, either you're for discrimination protection or against it. You can then argue where you want to go between those 2 as for what you think should be protected. As someone who's you know, not locked in the dark ages, sexuality is generally something that you are predisposed to become. No amount of teaching, shaming, etc. is going to change who you are inside. It may change how you act, but not who you are. And for that reason I think sexuality in any of it's forms should be protected. I do debate on the ability of business to refuse. I go back and forth on it. While I want to support everyone's rights, I know that for just about 200 years of our country's approx 250 year existence that people were treated substandardly and that lead to many many problems. Most that we're still dealing with repercussions today. So knowing that, I have to wonder if we allowed business to run as it wants to if we wouldn't be right back where we were? So for that reason I yoyo, right to be a bigot in business vs betterment of society.

[yeezus]

well bedell from the start successfully changed the topic to debate that instead of the topic being about so called christians doing the opposite of how Jesus would act on this issue

It is really funny/sad how these people treat others like garbage in the name of their religion...yaaa that's what jesus would have wanted you guys to do, right? such hypocrites.

[BedellBrave]

Well, I do believe that it isn't a choice for almost all homosexuals. Your sexuality is not something you generally actively choose. Not saying some don't, but your own sexuality is just that your own. And I don't believe no matter what your sexual preference is you should be discriminated upon.

That said, comparing a profession to a sexual preference is still apple and oranges, wouldn't normally give you a serious response. But I'm bored and into discussions.


If you base your argument on genetics, then it would be permissible to refuse serving those of whom it was a matter of choice.

[BedellBrave]

well bedell from the start successfully changed the topic to debate that instead of the topic being about so called christians doing the opposite of how Jesus would act on this issue


Whatever, Mr. Jesus Expert.

[BedellBrave]

Personally my opinion is no, but you're still at apples to oranges. If your thing is making wedding cakes (which most bakers aren't so they have a reason for refusal I'm sure) then you should be doing that unless you have too much work to do.

Again there's really only 2 options here, either you're for discrimination protection or against it. You can then argue where you want to go between those 2 as for what you think should be protected. As someone who's you know, not locked in the dark ages, sexuality is generally something that you are predisposed to become. No amount of teaching, shaming, etc. is going to change who you are inside. It may change how you act, but not who you are. And for that reason I think sexuality in any of it's forms should be protected. I do debate on the ability of business to refuse. I go back and forth on it. While I want to support everyone's rights, I know that for just about 200 years of our country's approx 250 year existence that people were treated substandardly and that lead to many many problems. Most that we're still dealing with repercussions today. So knowing that, I have to wonder if we allowed business to run as it wants to if we wouldn't be right back where we were? So for that reason I yoyo, right to be a bigot in business vs betterment of society.


So your position moves from a genetic one to something else.

Your second paragraph was too long for me to read. I'm tired.

[BedellBrave]

It is really funny/sad how these people treat others like garbage in the name of their religion...yaaa that's what jesus would have wanted you guys to do, right? such hypocrites.


Garbage I tell you. Just garbage. :roll:

[BedellBrave]

well bedell from the start successfully changed the topic to debate that instead of the topic being about so called christians doing the opposite of how Jesus would act on this issue


Not that it matters, but actually you can blame Z. I just challenged him on his overstatements.

[goldfly]

Whatever, Mr. Jesus Expert.

are you saying Jesus would follow in the steps of what arizona is doing?

[goldfly]

https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1779840_882719645090823_1901323619_n.jpg

[Oklahomahawk]

Didn't the Supreme Court decide a while back that as long as a business didn't accept federal money they could serve/not serve whomever they pleased?? Isn't this the same thing as the Boy Scouts not having gay scoutmasters? Personally I think not serving someone "you don't like the looks of" is silly bordering on stupid but as long as there's no federal money involved and you aren't providing those "essential services" (which of course would also bring those federal monies back into the picture) I'm relatively sure you can serve or refuse to serve anyone you choose, though once again if you're turning away business in these times you must be doing really really really well with the customers you do choose to serve. If anyone has any documentation otherwise by all means present it.

[Krgrecw]

Makes sense OKlahoma hawk. Isn't that how the Citadel kept women out for so long and got away with it? No government money.

[Oklahomahawk]

Makes sense OKlahoma hawk. Isn't that how the Citadel kept women out for so long and got away with it? No government money.

I believe that's the way they ruled it and haven't changed their minds yet, though the fact that you say it makes sense definitely makes me wonder, this is the government we're talking about and the only thing that scares me more than when they don't make sense is when it seems like they are making sense, cause I'm sure I must have missed something. LOL

[BedellBrave]

"Gay Americans, like many members of minority groups, are poorly served by their self-styled leadership. Like feminists and union bosses, the leaders of the nation’s gay organizations suffer from oppression envy, likening their situation to that of black Americans — as though having to find a gay-friendly wedding planner (pro tip: try swinging a dead cat) were the moral equivalent of having spent centuries in slavery and systematic oppression under Jim Crow. Their goal is not toleration or even equal rights but official victim-group status under law and in civil society, allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values."

[BedellBrave]

are you saying Jesus would follow in the steps of what arizona is doing?

I am saying you are no expert.

I am saying that Jesus didn't endorse that which he considered sin. Spend time with sinners? Absolutely. Love sinners? Absolutely. Endorse that which was sinful. No. Define "love" in anyway which approved of sin? No.

[goldfly]

I am saying you are no expert.

I am saying that Jesus didn't endorse that which he considered sin. Spend time with sinners? Absolutely. Love sinners? Absolutely. Endorse that which was sinful. No. Define "love" in anyway which approved of sin? No.

haha

none of that answers my question.

you ducked and dodged

[yeezus]

I am saying you are no expert.

I am saying that Jesus didn't endorse that which he considered sin. Spend time with sinners? Absolutely. Love sinners? Absolutely. Endorse that which was sinful. No. Define "love" in anyway which approved of sin? No.

He also said all sins are equal, and only those who have not sinned should cast stones.
So homosexuals are no more sinners than anyone else.
It's so sad that still today, "religious" nuts feel they can judge others, as if they're any better.
It would be amusing if some day, businesses were able to identify "devout christians" (i put it in quotations because most of them are a joke who hardly practice what they preach) and not serve them, and see how it truly feels to be discriminated against based on pretty much nothing, nothing to do with character or the type of person one is.
These "highly religious" bigots are clinging to any hope they have of their outdated and offensive viewpoints remaining in tact, knowing that it's crumbling and people are waking up a little.
If only they practice what jesus/god/holy spirit/whoever he is this week told them - love thy neighbor as thyself, don't cast stones. They are so ass-backwards from what they "believe." As if gay people are doing them personal harm. It is a sad, sad joke.

[yeezus]

"Gay Americans, like many members of minority groups, are poorly served by their self-styled leadership. Like feminists and union bosses, the leaders of the nation’s gay organizations suffer from oppression envy, likening their situation to that of black Americans — as though having to find a gay-friendly wedding planner (pro tip: try swinging a dead cat) were the moral equivalent of having spent centuries in slavery and systematic oppression under Jim Crow. Their goal is not toleration or even equal rights but official victim-group status under law and in civil society, allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values."

The comparisons are easy to draw while recognizing the situation is a tad different.
The whole Michael Sam/NFL thing is similar to the Jackie Robinson/baseball thing.

[BedellBrave]

haha

none of that answers my question.

you ducked and dodged


I've read the proposed AZ law and to be honest, I ain't good at lawyer speak. But if you think that Jesus would celebrate/endorse/promote that which he considered a violation of the moral law and which didn't match the creational intent nor picture the relationship between himself and his bride, then no, you aren't an expert of the Jesus of the NT Gospels.

[BedellBrave]

1. He also said all sins are equal, and

2. only those who have not sinned should cast stones.


So homosexuals are no more sinners than anyone else.
It's so sad that still today, "religious" nuts feel they can judge others, as if they're any better.
It would be amusing if some day, businesses were able to identify "devout christians" (i put it in quotations because most of them are a joke who hardly practice what they preach) and not serve them, and see how it truly feels to be discriminated against based on pretty much nothing, nothing to do with character or the type of person one is.
These "highly religious" bigots are clinging to any hope they have of their outdated and offensive viewpoints remaining in tact, knowing that it's crumbling and people are waking up a little.
If only they practice what jesus/god/holy spirit/whoever he is this week told them - love thy neighbor as thyself, don't cast stones. They are so ass-backwards from what they "believe." As if gay people are doing them personal harm. It is a sad, sad joke.


Well you are wrong on 1 and 2 so I didn't read further.

[goldfly]

I've read the proposed AZ law and to be honest, I ain't good at lawyer speak. But if you think that Jesus would celebrate/endorse/promote that which he considered a violation of the moral law and which didn't match the creational intent nor picture the relationship between himself and his bride, then no, you aren't an expert of the Jesus of the NT Gospels.

again


are you saying Jesus would follow in the steps of what arizona is doing?

you're still trying to change the subject to "celebrate/endorse/promote" instead of what my question asks

[BedellBrave]

The comparisons are easy to draw while recognizing the situation is a tad different.
The whole Michael Sam/NFL thing is similar to the Jackie Robinson/baseball thing.


Just a "tad" you say? Not getting a wedding cake from a particular baker. Gotcha.

[BedellBrave]

again


are you saying Jesus would follow in the steps of what arizona is doing?

you're still trying to change the subject to "celebrate/endorse/promote" instead of what my question asks

What else do you want me to say? I don't think Jesus would be the photographer at the wedding of Fred and Arnold. He'd feed them fish and bread, pass'm a cup of good wine, hang out with Fred and Arnold though. As would I, if they'd have me.

[goldfly]

What else do you want me to say? I don't think Jesus would be the photographer at the wedding of Fred and Arnold. He'd feed them fish and bread, pass'm a cup of good wine, hang out with Fred and Arnold though. As would I, if they'd have me.

i still think you are walking a nice tight rope to not really answer it

but whatever


it's sad that we as a country are legislating hatred again in this country and yet again, it is the people that say they love Jesus the most that are justifying it

[goldfly]

http://www.joshuakors.com/phelpscollagewithoutshadow2a.jpg

no better than these people

[Hawk]

Brewer vetoes the bill.

[BedellBrave]

Brewer vetoes the bill.


She really had no choice.

But I was interested in reading this - link (http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8883). I respect minds like Mary Ann Glendon's. Yet, the gold & yeezuses of the world would rather equate this with the hatred of folks like Westboro crowd.

[BedellBrave]

http://www.joshuakors.com/phelpscollagewithoutshadow2a.jpg

no better than these people


I am sorry you think that.

[Hawk]

Yet, the gold & yeezuses of the world would rather equate this with the hatred of folks like Westboro crowd.

A shamefully small-minded approach.

[BedellBrave]

A shamefully small-minded approach.


Agreed.

[goldfly]

A shamefully small-minded approach.

i am fine with you and bedell thinking that when it comes to this issue

the more i see the right wing in this country act, the more they are like the muslims they say they hate in the middle east

just evolved in a different way.

[BedellBrave]

i am fine with you and bedell thinking that when it comes to this issue

the more i see the right wing in this country act, the more they are like the muslims they say they hate in the middle east

just evolved in a different way.


Never mind.

[AerchAngel]

i am fine with you and bedell thinking that when it comes to this issue

the more i see the right wing in this country act, the more they are like the muslims they say they hate in the middle east

just evolved in a different way.


I never heard anyone say they hated gays, quite the opposite, I think the only thing they said was, like me, we don't agree with the religious MARRIAGE part of the equation. I am for 100% unions or Federal Government recognition of marriage, but under God they are not married. I have gay friends and gay family members, they understand the difference between a religious marriage and government marriage contract. They accept it from those who voice their opinions and they do not wish for us to change our stance. They also understand certain members of the family looks down on them and their way of life, but they have enough intestinal fortitude to accept it and not cause drama as well, meaning what is between them stays at their home and the topic is off limits in a family environment.

[Julio3000]

"Gay Americans, like many members of minority groups, are poorly served by their self-styled leadership. Like feminists and union bosses, the leaders of the nation’s gay organizations suffer from oppression envy, likening their situation to that of black Americans — as though having to find a gay-friendly wedding planner (pro tip: try swinging a dead cat) were the moral equivalent of having spent centuries in slavery and systematic oppression under Jim Crow. Their goal is not toleration or even equal rights but official victim-group status under law and in civil society, allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values."

In general, my antennae are well attuned to specious comparisons with Jim Crow discrimination and the Civil Rights movement, but I find this to be a cavalier and disingenuous dismissal. Of course, the section I bolded above sounds ridiculous, but to say that it's constructed of straw is putting it mildly. Gay americans have been systematically discriminated against, deemed criminals, victimized by crime based on their sexual orientation, classified as mentally ill, and prohibited from openly taking part in large segments of society. To subscribe to the above thinking sounds rather small-minded and dismissive of the very real discrimination and demonization that homosexuals have faced.

allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values.

Maybe, but that certainly applies to many interest groups, including organized Christian opponents of gay marriage.

So, this seems to be the playbook: Don't say anything inflammatory about gays. Instead, criticize the equality movement and its leaders as excessive. Claim that opponents of equality are the ones being discriminated against, and appeal to "fairness" on those grounds. Use the Civil Rights movement as a wedge issue. Say that gays want "special rights."

The funny thing is, all of those tactics (except the Civil Rights one) were deployed during opposition to policies designed to help the African-American community, once overt racism became passe.

[weso1]

Well, I see this thread quickly went down the toilet with they typical accusations of bigotry. Crump certainly took the personal attack to a whole new level though, so that's interesting.
:Sad:

[AerchAngel]

Well, I see this thread quickly went down the toilet with they typical accusations of bigotry. Crump certainly took the personal attack to a whole new level though, so that's interesting.
:Sad:

What did you expect? If you are not 100% down with accepting or submitting, you are a bigot according to the left, there is no respect, no compromising with them. They are as much of a bigot as those who they say against.

Left doesn't believe in respecting someone opinions that is different than theirs. Their way or no way.

[jpx7]

Left doesn't believe in respecting someone opinions that is different than theirs. Their way or no way.

Again with the massive (over)generalizations, huh?

[goldfly]

Well, I see this thread quickly went down the toilet with they typical accusations of bigotry. Crump certainly took the personal attack to a whole new level though, so that's interesting.
:Sad:

where?

[BedellBrave]

In general, my antennae are well attuned to specious comparisons with Jim Crow discrimination and the Civil Rights movement, but I find this to be a cavalier and disingenuous dismissal. Of course, the section I bolded above sounds ridiculous, but to say that it's constructed of straw is putting it mildly. Gay americans have been systematically discriminated against, deemed criminals, victimized by crime based on their sexual orientation, classified as mentally ill, and prohibited from openly taking part in large segments of society. To subscribe to the above thinking sounds rather small-minded and dismissive of the very real discrimination and demonization that homosexuals have faced.

allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values.

Maybe, but that certainly applies to many interest groups, including organized Christian opponents of gay marriage.

So, this seems to be the playbook: Don't say anything inflammatory about gays. Instead, criticize the equality movement and its leaders as excessive. Claim that opponents of equality are the ones being discriminated against, and appeal to "fairness" on those grounds. Use the Civil Rights movement as a wedge issue. Say that gays want "special rights."

The funny thing is, all of those tactics (except the Civil Rights one) were deployed during opposition to policies designed to help the African-American community, once overt racism became passe.


Interesting.

[AerchAngel]

Again with the massive (over)generalizations, huh?

Considering the amount of HATE thrown to the Right or religious followers.......yeah. This board is proof of that.

[goldfly]

Considering the amount of HATE thrown to the Right or religious followers.......yeah. This board is proof of that.

you're mistaking the "HATE" of the right and religious followers"

it is hating making your religious ideas as law for everyone to follow

i thought that was a pretty simple idea to follow

i honestly don't care if in your personal life if you believe that homosexuals are going to hell and are deserving of being treated different. you can believe that. just like how racists can feel the same about blacks or mexicans. don't try to pass laws to treat people different though

that is where i have problem


but i give credit, keep playing the persecution. it's as if you believe people just made this "hate" out of thin air and none of the actions led to this "hate"

[AerchAngel]

you're mistaking the "HATE" of the right and religious followers"

it is hating making your religious ideas as law for everyone to follow

i thought that was a pretty simple idea to follow

i honestly don't care if in your personal life if you believe that homosexuals are going to hell and are deserving of being treated different. you can believe that. just like how racists can feel the same about blacks or mexicans. don't try to pass laws to treat people different though

that is where i have problem


but i give credit, keep playing the persecution. it's as if you believe people just made this "hate" out of thin air and none of the actions led to this "hate"


I never said I hated anyone, I never said anything that is classify as hating, all I said is that I do not agree with gays getting married in the church, that is all. I said, many times I might add, that government sponsored marriage/union is acceptable but when you start intruding up my religious rights, that is where I have a problem.

Do you think a Jew should be forced to allow a Nazi to cut their hair, serve them food, or vice versa, or that pork is the only dish served at a wedding for Muslims. Do you think it is right for the government to FORCE you to give up your religious rights to allow a another group to have their way. There is a reason for separation of government and church. The church should exercise their rights and some allow it some don't but at least they have that right. The church I grew up doesn't and never will as blacks have a hard time even under government rules about it, I know, I have family that are gay and still not fully accepted and they are Democrats to the core. I am not a Democrat nor Republican accept them as gays and don't mind them marrying under government rules.

That is what I meant by compromising. I say marriage under government auspices is okay, but you want everything.

Hate is something that is coming from you. You hate the idea that I will not accept or submit to your wrong way of thinking, aka force a person to do something they morally are against based on religious principals and not compromising to the overall benefit of societ. It is not going to hurt a gay person if they married under government rule (at least the ones I know have no issue with it), not one bit, they get all the benefits as a straight couple and then some. There is no hate in that, but there is hate from your side because I and others do no welcome them in a religious frame of mind and not be pressured to accept or submit to your will or thinking.

Lastly, I am not a judge nor ever will be so whatever you want to do with your life is yours. I have no say so. Also I will not force you to accept or submit to my thinking, unlike you. I have my opinions and feelings and they stay with me. What I think about gays is a far cry from what you think, a very far cry. They are people just like you and me but when it comes to religion everyone of them have their boundaries and all most respect those boundaries. Do you think it upsets me that Catholics will not allow me to have communion? No, doesn't bother me one bit, but it should. It is their rules and I accept it. Should I be mad that Muslims won't allow me to eat bacon? No, it is their rules. It has been their rules for a very long time. People honor those rules and do not scream and cry bigotry, racism, sexism or what not. They have been establish a very long time ago and you just want them to just throw them away.

Take the compromise, you get what you want, but the church may or may not give you what you want, those are the breaks.

[57Brave]

Government intervention in marriage has to do with how it applies to government employees and benefits. I don't think legislators or judges care who kisses who(m) - but their involvement comes when the privileges of marriage such as hospital visitation, leave and sick time for spouse , next of kin etc.

Government intervention in marriage is legally no more than the above. Christians howling about the LBGT leadership or some other such nonsense is like goldfly says, crying the victim.
Lets keep a running tab of issues where the Christian Right claims victim-hood

1) Civil Rights of women,gays races or even religions being seen on equal footing of Christianity

2) The Unborn --- that discussion is tiresome. The issue was legally solved 40 years ago and is ingrained in everyday life. The fetus is not a child but a part of a woman's anatomy until the chord is cut.
The only reason Goober puts those idiotic license plates or proposal denying a woman the right to decide what happens in her body is because Big Business gins up the fever to get elected anti Regulation candidates. That, talk the "Pro Life" talk

3) Youth culture in general. Video games and Rap Culture. There hasn't been a "Rap Culture" for 20 years

4) Weapon Regulation- never could draw the parallel between the Christian Right and their love affair with NRA or other weapon lobbies. Perhaps some enlightened soul can help here

5) Environmental Regulations - this makes no sense. Why would a normal person have such strong opinions on climate science. Funny thing is most of those talking the loudest probably got a C in high school science. It's Friday - C+

6) Unions - have taken away their right to work 80 hour weeks in unsafe factories and doesn't allow them to send their 10 or 12 year olds off to the coal mines.

[57Brave]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhlGlDVCUAALPfl.jpg:large

[goldfly]

one of the most insane conversations i have when i am out of the country is trying to explain the right wing in this country to people

people in Australia REALLY didn't understand it


i am asked all the time how a group that says they are Christian (predominantly in the eyes of people outside the country) can support the death penalty, be on the side of big business, not be on the side of the workers and the poor, be pro gun, pro war, against welfare and helping kids that are born into poverty and think locking up drug users is the way to go. for starter topics of the conversations i have had

[goldfly]

I never said I hated anyone, I never said anything that is classify as hating, all I said is that I do not agree with gays getting married in the church, that is all. I said, many times I might add, that government sponsored marriage/union is acceptable but when you start intruding up my religious rights, that is where I have a problem.

Do you think a Jew should be forced to allow a Nazi to cut their hair, serve them food, or vice versa, or that pork is the only dish served at a wedding for Muslims. Do you think it is right for the government to FORCE you to give up your religious rights to allow a another group to have their way. There is a reason for separation of government and church. The church should exercise their rights and some allow it some don't but at least they have that right. The church I grew up doesn't and never will as blacks have a hard time even under government rules about it, I know, I have family that are gay and still not fully accepted and they are Democrats to the core. I am not a Democrat nor Republican accept them as gays and don't mind them marrying under government rules.

That is what I meant by compromising. I say marriage under government auspices is okay, but you want everything.

Hate is something that is coming from you. You hate the idea that I will not accept or submit to your wrong way of thinking, aka force a person to do something they morally are against based on religious principals and not compromising to the overall benefit of societ. It is not going to hurt a gay person if they married under government rule (at least the ones I know have no issue with it), not one bit, they get all the benefits as a straight couple and then some. There is no hate in that, but there is hate from your side because I and others do no welcome them in a religious frame of mind and not be pressured to accept or submit to your will or thinking.

Lastly, I am not a judge nor ever will be so whatever you want to do with your life is yours. I have no say so. Also I will not force you to accept or submit to my thinking, unlike you. I have my opinions and feelings and they stay with me. What I think about gays is a far cry from what you think, a very far cry. They are people just like you and me but when it comes to religion everyone of them have their boundaries and all most respect those boundaries. Do you think it upsets me that Catholics will not allow me to have communion? No, doesn't bother me one bit, but it should. It is their rules and I accept it. Should I be mad that Muslims won't allow me to eat bacon? No, it is their rules. It has been their rules for a very long time. People honor those rules and do not scream and cry bigotry, racism, sexism or what not. They have been establish a very long time ago and you just want them to just throw them away.

Take the compromise, you get what you want, but the church may or may not give you what you want, those are the breaks.

i don't think a church should be forced to marry someone


a church i went to as a kid wouldn't marry my sister and her husband cause they lived together before marriage.

[weso1]

This might be the worst thread ever.

:snort:

[The Chosen One]

one of the most insane conversations i have when i am out of the country is trying to explain the right wing in this country to people

people in Australia REALLY didn't understand it


i am asked all the time how a group that says they are Christian (predominantly in the eyes of people outside the country) can support the death penalty, be on the side of big business, not be on the side of the workers and the poor, be pro gun, pro war, against welfare and helping kids that are born into poverty and think locking up drug users is the way to go. for starter topics of the conversations i have had

It's god's will and the path Jesus put us on for glory.

[weso1]

No... it definitely is the worst thread ever. Lord have mercy on its soul.

[AerchAngel]

i don't think a church should be forced to marry someone


a church i went to as a kid wouldn't marry my sister and her husband cause they lived together before marriage.

And that is terrible. I can understand your resentment.

I think Catholics are like that, but they didn't say anything to my wife and I. Also we did not marry in the church either because of that, but we did something better than the church ever would...got married in Jamaica in a secluded location.

[Oklahomahawk]

...got married in Jamaica in a secluded location.

Eww, I'll bet that was really tough, huh? LOL

[Oklahomahawk]

i am asked all the time how a group that says they are Christian (predominantly in the eyes of people outside the country) can support the death penalty, be on the side of big business, not be on the side of the workers and the poor, be pro gun, pro war, against welfare and helping kids that are born into poverty and think locking up drug users is the way to go. for starter topics of the conversations i have had

Just curious, speaking as someone who would probably be among the last in line to be considered as a role model (by myself or most of the Christian community) how many of these things would you guesstimate I would be found guilty of?

[BedellBrave]

And that is terrible. I can understand your resentment.

I think Catholics are like that, but they didn't say anything to my wife and I. Also we did not marry in the church either because of that, but we did something better than the church ever would...got married in Jamaica in a secluded location.


Why is it terrible? Why does a couple shacking-up want a church wedding? If they were professing Christians, and the Christian ethic holds that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and if Christians are making holy vows before God, then why is it terrible for a minister or church to say, "hey, your lifestyle isn't matching your profession in this very public way, we really want you to be married, but we want you to repent and take these vows seriously. Stop engaging in premarital sex, don't live together (if possible) and then let's get you married."

A part of the reason the church has so little credibility in this matter of same-sex marriage is because it has winked at shacking-up and no-fault divorce.

We are all sinners - but we (professing Christians) are to be sinners that are seeking to repent of our sins and trust Christ even when his teaching seems counter to what we want.

[BedellBrave]

Douthat knocks it out of the park (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html).

The terms of our surrender….

[BedellBrave]

"…I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose."

[AerchAngel]

Eww, I'll bet that was really tough, huh? LOL

After 7 years we still talk about it. I want to go back, but with kids now it is difficult and if we take the kids with us, the wife will not let them out of her eyesight, so it would not be fun at all.

[zitothebrave]

Why is it terrible? Why does a couple shacking-up want a church wedding? If they were professing Christians, and the Christian ethic holds that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and if Christians are making holy vows before God, then why is it terrible for a minister or church to say, "hey, your lifestyle isn't matching your profession in this very public way, we really want you to be married, but we want you to repent and take these vows seriously. Stop engaging in premarital sex, don't live together (if possible) and then let's get you married."

A part of the reason the church has so little credibility in this matter of same-sex marriage is because it has winked at shacking-up and no-fault divorce.

We are all sinners - but we (professing Christians) are to be sinners that are seeking to repent of our sins and trust Christ even when his teaching seems counter to what we want.

I could be wrong but I think by shacking up AA was talking about living together not necessarily knowing each other in a Genesis kind of way.

That said, I agree with you. If your values don't mesh with your churches then don't expect their approval, I'd honestly go elsewhere.

An example I can give, my girlfriend's grandfather was a member of a church for years and years. They had a member who was transgendered and the pastor was very judgy of that person and he left. Despite being a member for an obscenely long time.