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

sturg33 said:
You're implying it's the business owner's responsibility to ensure everyone is fed...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
sturg33 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Julio3000 said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

Words could not be spoken truer. Beautiful.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Words could not be spoken truer. Beautiful.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AerchAngel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
AerchAngel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously, though, it shows up plenty. People were not all one color.
 
AerchAngel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
50PoundHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. Long before.
 
Dalyn said:
Seriously, though, it shows up plenty. People were not all one color.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dalyn said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
AerchAngel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
50PoundHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AerchAngel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Dalyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
AerchAngel said:
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.
Click to expand...

So someone who's sterile can't be married? Or because the general man woman thing works then it's still ok?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top