All this time I thought it was because of some automatic* assumption that everyone who is gay must also be a pedophile.
--Patrick
*and erroneous.
Arizona Passes Law that Allows Discrimination
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
--Patrick
*and erroneous.
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/razing-arizona
George Takei shares his thoughts on the matter. I had no idea about how the state tried to ignore Martin Luthor King Day. Wow.
George Takei shares his thoughts on the matter. I had no idea about how the state tried to ignore Martin Luthor King Day. Wow.
You said it.
Zappit
Staff member
Seriously, what are these assholes thinking? This law wouldn't even hold up in a food court.
Even low intelligence business owners would know better. The boycotts from them discriminating would put them out of business.
You know, I don't talk about religion much, but here's my take on the whole thing. The New Testament is the new code for Christians. Jesus died on the cross to absolve us of our sins, and lived his life to personally demonstrate the manner in which Christians should live their lives. He defended the defenseless, and showed infinite compassion to those society spurned. His was an inclusive, brotherly worldview, and hate and exclusion have no purpose in it.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. NOTHING. Once he died, the slate was wiped clean and the Old Testament, which was the holy law for a people just gaining their freedom from slavery, no longer applied, having been replaced by the teachings of Jesus. To cherry pick lines from the Old Testament while ignoring others is essentially saying that Christ dying on the cross wasn't good enough, that his sacrifice to free us of those ancient rules and sins doesn't count. That he died for nothing. What could be more heretical than telling God that sacrificing his son wasn't good enough?
We've also proven that homosexuality is not a choice, and that there is a gene behind it. You take that as meaning God did in fact make them that way, and there might even be a reason for it. Humanity was given the instruction to go forth and be fruitful, growing the population. Our great danger with that is overpopulation. What's a way to control that growth? People not attracted to the opposite sex. There are so many loving gay couples that want children that could adopt - many denied that - yet the world is filled with children with no family to call their own. Wouldn't accepting that homosexuals are different, are human, and that many would care for unwanted children completely in step with the compassionate teachings of Jesus?
That's why I just can't see the homophobic crowd having any legitimate point. None. Especially on religious grounds, where they seem to contradict all of Jesus's teachings. The bigots scream gays will go to hell with a vengeful fury, but personally, I see them facing that fate. I don't want the bigots to burn; I just want them to learn they are wrong when they reach the afterlife.
Even low intelligence business owners would know better. The boycotts from them discriminating would put them out of business.
You know, I don't talk about religion much, but here's my take on the whole thing. The New Testament is the new code for Christians. Jesus died on the cross to absolve us of our sins, and lived his life to personally demonstrate the manner in which Christians should live their lives. He defended the defenseless, and showed infinite compassion to those society spurned. His was an inclusive, brotherly worldview, and hate and exclusion have no purpose in it.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. NOTHING. Once he died, the slate was wiped clean and the Old Testament, which was the holy law for a people just gaining their freedom from slavery, no longer applied, having been replaced by the teachings of Jesus. To cherry pick lines from the Old Testament while ignoring others is essentially saying that Christ dying on the cross wasn't good enough, that his sacrifice to free us of those ancient rules and sins doesn't count. That he died for nothing. What could be more heretical than telling God that sacrificing his son wasn't good enough?
We've also proven that homosexuality is not a choice, and that there is a gene behind it. You take that as meaning God did in fact make them that way, and there might even be a reason for it. Humanity was given the instruction to go forth and be fruitful, growing the population. Our great danger with that is overpopulation. What's a way to control that growth? People not attracted to the opposite sex. There are so many loving gay couples that want children that could adopt - many denied that - yet the world is filled with children with no family to call their own. Wouldn't accepting that homosexuals are different, are human, and that many would care for unwanted children completely in step with the compassionate teachings of Jesus?
That's why I just can't see the homophobic crowd having any legitimate point. None. Especially on religious grounds, where they seem to contradict all of Jesus's teachings. The bigots scream gays will go to hell with a vengeful fury, but personally, I see them facing that fate. I don't want the bigots to burn; I just want them to learn they are wrong when they reach the afterlife.
Last edited:
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02...ve-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/
It's long, but for those actually interested in getting past all the overblown assumptions and mischaracterizations, it might provide some insight to an opposing perspective. You will likely disagree, but hopefully you will at least understand. Here is a short selection near the end:
----------
In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.
It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.
The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options?
...
No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.
I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.
...
It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.
-----------
I haven't read the law as put forth, but I'm guessing none of you have either, so I suppose there's no point in debating what it actually says or how it will likely play out in the real world. However the above falls largely in line with the distinction I make between discriminating against a person, and discriminating against an activity. A cake shop that refuses to sell any kind of cake to a gay person is discriminating against the person. A cake shop that sells birthday cakes, celebration cakes, etc to a gay person, but then refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding is discriminating based on an activity, not a person.
It's long, but for those actually interested in getting past all the overblown assumptions and mischaracterizations, it might provide some insight to an opposing perspective. You will likely disagree, but hopefully you will at least understand. Here is a short selection near the end:
----------
In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.
It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.
The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options?
...
No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.
I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.
...
It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.
-----------
I haven't read the law as put forth, but I'm guessing none of you have either, so I suppose there's no point in debating what it actually says or how it will likely play out in the real world. However the above falls largely in line with the distinction I make between discriminating against a person, and discriminating against an activity. A cake shop that refuses to sell any kind of cake to a gay person is discriminating against the person. A cake shop that sells birthday cakes, celebration cakes, etc to a gay person, but then refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding is discriminating based on an activity, not a person.
I'm fine with a private citizen or business refusing to serve or associate with homosexuals, but only if they shut the fuck up and stop crying "oppression!" when people complain about them being bigots. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to refuse service to someone, you need to accept that they will not be happy, people will boycott, etc.
Last edited:
But the act in question is to bake a cake for many people to eat at a reception. They are not asking the baker to take part in an uncomfortable sex act.
GasBandit
Staff member
Alright just for arguments sake then, I'll wade in.
Does that mean it's ok to insist on pork from a Muslim catering service because the caterers won't actually be eating it?
GasBandit
Staff member
It's pretty common for the menu to be customized to the client when catering is brought on.
Let's add another thing in there, too. Legality aside, would it be ok to force a pharmacist to sell sudafed to someone who made it known they were going to use it in a meth lab?
Matt Walsh is known as one of the biggest dicks in the "christian blogger" world. He spends most of his time trying to piss everyone off and get page hits. I read his post and it's garbage, this isn't an issue about religion, if it was these same people would never bake cakes for people getting remarried or sell t-shirts to anyone who eats junk food. It's about picking one "sin" and elevating it over all others in order to pursue one's political goals (or, on a more sympathetic note for many I suspect it's about a fear of people they don't understand or are told are out to get them. I understand that. It's still a bad excuse for discrimination, but it's more logical than trying to root this in scripture). I repeat: This is NOT about religion.
Here's a response to the issue from my pastor, a well known scholar and someone who I think understands the message of the gospel about a million times better than Matt and those who are pushing this thing (sorry, it's long):
Here's a response to the issue from my pastor, a well known scholar and someone who I think understands the message of the gospel about a million times better than Matt and those who are pushing this thing (sorry, it's long):
Last edited:
To the best of my knowledge, the pharmacist has to sell the sudafed. But he has to keep a record of who is buying it, and in what quantity.
Having a party is legal, doing meth is not.
@Espy it isn't about grading sins, it's about choosing not to participate in a sin. Jesus may have "partied" with egregious sinners, but He didn't go out and sin with them.
I agree with you that if someone wants to open a religiously strict business, then they should attempt to provide equal treatment across the board. If it's a sin to marry someone of your own sex, or divorce, or remarry, or eat junk food in their religion, then they should avoid participating in all those sins, and more importantly they should have the choice whether to do so or not.
Further, if they choose to sin in one thing, that doesn't immediately invalidate their choice not to sin in another way, regardless of the "weight" of the sins, and doesn't remove their right to protect their religious expression by not participating in acts they consider sinful.
I agree with you that if someone wants to open a religiously strict business, then they should attempt to provide equal treatment across the board. If it's a sin to marry someone of your own sex, or divorce, or remarry, or eat junk food in their religion, then they should avoid participating in all those sins, and more importantly they should have the choice whether to do so or not.
Further, if they choose to sin in one thing, that doesn't immediately invalidate their choice not to sin in another way, regardless of the "weight" of the sins, and doesn't remove their right to protect their religious expression by not participating in acts they consider sinful.
Can we fuck the cake? I just want to know where the boundaries are.
Sin is subjective to most religious people @stienman . They claim Homosexuality is a sin yet completely ignore all the other -so called sins- that would inconvience their every day life if they followed the -book-
@stienman - I'm sure you realize I could go on and on. It's all about discrimination, not about things you consider a sin. There's no way to cover it up, the facts are plain. These people pushing forth the law don't want to discriminate because of their religious views, they want to discriminate cause the customer is gay and they personally have an issue with it, not because they're devout religious people.
I guess store owners can now start ejecting people with round haircuts and trim beards.
Damn, there goes bacon in all Catholic/Christian restaurants.
Welp there goes all the people with tattoos. They're sinners anyway.
Damn, guess noone is going to be allowed to wear polyester or get booted from that place of business.
@stienman - I'm sure you realize I could go on and on. It's all about discrimination, not about things you consider a sin. There's no way to cover it up, the facts are plain. These people pushing forth the law don't want to discriminate because of their religious views, they want to discriminate cause the customer is gay and they personally have an issue with it, not because they're devout religious people.
To the best of my knowledge, none of my gay friends that present themselves as married, fucked at the wedding or reception.
I don't see why not. I don't remember seeing "Thou shall not fornicate with baked goods" in the bible.
If they are advertised as a "Muslim Caterer" then no, it is not ok. If they are listed simply as a caterer and then get upset when you want something that should be easy for them, but is forbidden by their religion; say alcohol since it is not something they would have to prepare; then they could possibly be sued.
There is a bit of a difference there, though. Being Muslim, Christian, etc. is a choice. You choose to go to the services and adhere to the practices. Being Gay is NOT a choice. That is why it is discrimination. The business in question is denying service to a segment of the population based on something they can not help.
If I were to start a business and then turned away anyone with red hair, I'd be sued into oblivion. If I then said it was based on my deeply held religious conviction that red hair is a sin, what would happen to me then?
Fair enough, lets dig in here a bit: See people keep throwing this phrase, "including me in their sin" or "condoning their sin" or "participating in their sin" or some variation, but how exactly is that the case? What scripture indicates that if you sell something to someone you are in any way participating in their sin? Heck, lets stick close to home here and say, what part of Jesus' message indicates this?
The whole reason it's "relevant" that Jesus hung out and made wine and had dinner with the worst of sinners is that the religious folks of his day condemned him for it. Yet he did it anyway. He was seen as "participating" in their sin merely by his association with them. That seems disturbingly familiar to the line of thought that many seem to have on this issue.
Depends, are you a Far Right Conservative Senator? If so you'd pass a bill like this.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's why I said "legality aside."
But it's news to me (not saying you're wrong) that if I went into a pharmacy and said "I need sudafed for my meth lab" I would still walk out with sudafed. Perhaps into the waiting arms of a policeman, but still.
@Espy & @Gilgamesh now you are trying to discuss whether something is, or should be, considered a sin to a specific religion. It's not your place to tell others what they believe so there's no point in arguing whether it's a sin or not.
So at this point we have to weigh their religious liberty against what you say is discrimination against a person, and they would say is discrimination against a sin.
You are essentially stating that the fourteenth amendment trumps the first amendment, and that free exercise of religion is of less constitutional value than equal protection under the law.
I don't think there is a good way to balance the two, and honestly I've not completely made up my mind about it. I just thought I'd inject an alternative perspective into this echo chamber.
So at this point we have to weigh their religious liberty against what you say is discrimination against a person, and they would say is discrimination against a sin.
You are essentially stating that the fourteenth amendment trumps the first amendment, and that free exercise of religion is of less constitutional value than equal protection under the law.
I don't think there is a good way to balance the two, and honestly I've not completely made up my mind about it. I just thought I'd inject an alternative perspective into this echo chamber.
Why am I not surprised the question was completely sidestepped.
Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten that response.
It's like when Science counter-points the Bible, except I use the actual Bible in my examples and it's still ignored.
Also @stienman don't try and act like a devil's advocate on the subject either claiming that everyone here feels the same way about everything. There's plenty of religious people on this board who know better that to side with this Law.
Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten that response.
It's like when Science counter-points the Bible, except I use the actual Bible in my examples and it's still ignored.
Also @stienman don't try and act like a devil's advocate on the subject either claiming that everyone here feels the same way about everything. There's plenty of religious people on this board who know better that to side with this Law.
Ugh much better put than mine, well said.
I have no idea how you got that from my post. I'm very confused.
You seem to be saying that a religious person is not allowed to believe that providing a cake is condoning the sin.
Again, I don't think there's any reason to try and debate what is a sin or not.
Only where the boundary between free religious expression ends and equal rights begins when they are in conflict.
There's no debate because you ignore counter-points. Krisken made it clear that the Amendments on the Constitution are clear and will be what is used by Supremacy to cut down this law.
Do you want to know where Free Religious Expression ends? When it affects someone who isn't of your same Religion.
That's just common sense.