The frosting is not yet set on this cake. That was the message sent by the United States Supreme Court after it vacated a ruling that effectively put a pair of Christian bakers out of business for sticking to their religious guns.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweetcakes bakery in Oregon, were sued by a gay couple after refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding in 2013. They argued it was against their religious beliefs to create a custom cake for such an occasion. But their argument did not win out several court rulings later, the couple was ordered to pay a $135,000 fine and eventually closed the business.
However, the Supreme Court has now sent the case back to the Court of Appeals of Oregon "for further consideration" a huge win for the couple and the larger movement to expand legal protections for religious freedom objections.
A Familiar Tune
This latest decision by the Court falls closely in line with its 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the justices ruled that Colorado had shown an unconstitutional anti-religious bias toward Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after punishing him for a similar offense.
"To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical something insubstantial and even insincere," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in response to the reasoning used by a state civil rights commission.
"This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation."
But despite this strong wording, the Court only issued a narrow ruling in Phillips' favor. They cited clear evidence of anti-Christian bias, but declined to say whether or not business owners have the right to discriminate against clientele for religious reasons.
Where Do Things Go from Here?
This question of religious freedom vs. discrimination has stirred a national debate over how much power should be afforded to those who claim exemptions based on sincere religious beliefs.
Many faith groups have sided with Jack Phillips and the Kleins, arguing that this is an important test of our nation's founding principle of religious freedom. But they also claim it is a matter of free speech that is to say, that no cake maker, florist or wedding planner should be forced to create art against their will by the government.
But opponents point out such a standard is nonsense because it could be applied arbitrarily to justify discrimination against other groups, too. According to this logic, they insist, a bartender could theoretically refuse to mix up a cocktail for someone of Hispanic descent, and a nail salon could refuse service to a Jewish woman. After all, how does one define what is, or is not, art?
Although to this point the Supreme Court has succeeded in dancing around the important underlying question in these cases, the time may soon arrive for them to confront the issue head on and decide whether the core and character of this nation should be defined by its religious convictions or its commitment to equal treatment for all.
212 comments
-
Sheila
Rev. Blue - I think this is a good answer to your question: https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/
The short of it is: "Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include: Race or color. National origin or citizenship status."
-
Rev. Blue
I was always under the impression that any retail business had the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. Seen signs up that even say that...
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Rev. Blue, what is the difference between "refusing business to anyone for any reason" and illegal discrimination against some people because there doesn't sound as though there is any actual difference between the two?! If just refusing business to whomever you like were still a "valid and reasonable" practice in business, black people still wouldn't be being served in the whites only section of restaurants or in some restaurants at all or being given rooms in hotels or allowed to ride in the front of buses or being served in many other businesses. So, it must not still be a "vaild and reasonable" practice in business, since it never was, anyway, no matter how many signs you have seen up stating that. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is the minimum health code requirement for a business to serve anyone (and, of course, that they have good hygiene and don't stink to high heaven!!), but anyone who meets those requirements and isn't causing trouble is entitled to service.
-
-
Howard
Lori July 8, 2019 at 1:52 pm So you, Howard, truly believe Kimberly should council and minister to others of Christian faith???? Wow!
Hi Lori. If you or Kim or anyone else, will teach what is written in the Bible, I think you are doing what we are to do. Anybody on here, can spread all the gossip, hatemongering, taking things out of context, dropping the Scriptures they don't like, but the Bible is the Bible. This is a very liberal website. I neither Hate them, or despise anyone on here, I don't care to associate with some radical groups, but I don't hate them.You are welcome to tell me what your beliefs are, and if they are taken from the Bible, God bless you. If you're on your own tangent, following some obscure minister with a new faith,, you're on your own too.One faith one Lord one baptism. I do have a problem with Satan worship, and I think those that claim to be atheists have their head in the sand. I don't hate them, but I don't have to fellowship with Them.
-
Lori
Howard, you only offer God's blessings to those who believe as you do? Sadly for you, there are many faiths and beliefs. God is not just for those like you. God is for everyone. Your mind is as closed as Kimberly's. Your arrogance and ego about your personal beliefs are enormous, but may God bless you anyway.
-
Howard
I apologize Lori for misjudging you. I thought you did follow the Bible, You certainly have a right not to, Just like that Mr. rev. I surely am not on here to fight with you or anyone else. I surely have nothing against anybody that sees it different than I do. You're all entitled to your own beliefs. If you want to use the Bible as a guide, bless you for it, and if you don't want to, bless you anyway. Mr. rev wants to leave out certain verses of the Bible, he surely can, after all, we all answer for ourselves. Please go your own way in peace and I promise to stay off this site. When you get a chance, please read Matthew, the 15th chapter verse 14. Goodbye now.
-
Lori
Glad to hear you're more open than I thought. It's a big wide wonderful world.
-
-
-
-
Sheila
T'Keren Valmaz - Freedom of religion is NOT a bad thing. Breaking moral law is a bad thing.
-
The Doctor
To highlight a few realities of history for those decrying acceptance and tolerance of those not of their faith let me do so now without bothering to waste energy replying to the specific god fear mongering willfully ignorant and delusional fools.
Accepting this behavior is the opposite of being like the Nazi, who murdered those they deemed deviant alongside Jews. They in fact where very pro christian as they used that faiths animosity for the Jewish scholars stating Jesus was not the figure of their ancient prophecy as another way to rally the people against the Jews.
The Russian Orthodox Church was the state endorsed religion under Stalin,who also had those deemed deviants persecuted and executed along with other innocent people. Both of these nations despite the labels used by those leaders were Dictatorships. Dictators use dehumanizing language to isolate and degrade while using fear of the "Others" to motivate and rally the ignorant masses.
We also saw this behavior under Spain during the reconquesta to persecute and drive out the Moors for being muslim who had brought culture and education to a country that had otherwise been largely ignorant masses of savages and it was the loss of the moorish culture that began the proverbial Dark Age that the Catholic church did its best to maintain for centuries through persecution and torture, and murder.
The people here on these forums who yearn fora modern crusade or inquisition, who wish to put the real power of government in the hands of their chosen church, who wish to see those they deem as deviant, whom they attack with falsehood and degradation as they unjustly make accusations with no proof, and define all as they see as "Others" as evil and perverse while side stepping the truth of the crimes actually perpetuated among their own faction show themselves to follow in the foot steps of the fascist dictators of the past.
-
Sheila
Oh, and duh... Freedom of religion is a basic human right. By what you say, Canada isn't supporting that one.
-
Sheila
Woo hoo, America! But, you can move to Canada. My real country is here. Though I look forward to the day of a better government.
-
kimberly
Yes...please vote in conservatives to replace those crazy nuts and clowns in the house.
-
Sheila
I seek the candidates that support choice for vaccinations.
-
-
-
northernnerd76
Why not become a real country like Canada and just rule religion doesn’t supersede basic human rights, oh wait it’s America
-
kimberly
I don't see anyone storming the border of Canada to get in.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Sheila, your agreeing with me that America isn't a theocracy and so a theocracy doesn't get to be imposed on everyone, but then turning right around and saying, in essence and paraphrase, neither does the "theocracy" of gay people's demanding that straight people and homophobes, especially, treat them fairly, nondiscriminatingly, acceptingly, noninsultingly, and equally under the law "get to impose its will on society" is just more making words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean again. "Theocracy" no more means whatever anyone wants it to mean than "love" means whatever homophobes or other people want it to mean and when they are told that they can't impose a theocracy on the rest of society, they just turn it around and say "Well, you can't impose your 'theocracy' of equal rights and treatment and acceptance of gay people on us, either!", which is the "adult" version of the kids' tactic of "If I am, so are you, and what you say about me bounces off and sticks to you!". This is just very dishonest and childish and gets very convoluted and distorted very quickly!! Gay people aren't the ones imposing their will on the general society or in a position to discriminate against all straight people (even if they can and do against some of them because of how straight people have treated them and generalizing, therefore, about them, as human beings do about a group that is against them) by their asking for and expecting equal treatment and the end of discrimination against them. So how could they possibly be a theocracy?!! Expecting and asking for fairness and equality just isn't a theocratic demand on society because, if it is, then black people and Jews were being "theocratic", too, in their demand for social equality and an end to discrimination against them, which is ridiculous!!! You throw out a lot of scenarios of gay people insulting Asians and pork eaters fighting and arguing with non-pork eaters, etc., more, I believe, as a way of muddying the waters and convoluting and confusing the matter more and to make room for your de facto contention that "just any kind of 'hate' speech is the same as any other and all of it is okay" than out of any genuine desire to promote understanding here. As I have told "Comrade" Kimberly (since she insists on calling Democrats "socialists", despite any denials or proof that they could ever put forward to her that they aren't socialists, and so she is also a Socialist, despite her denials of that!!) and many other people here, I wouldn't advise any of them to go walking through a black neighborhood shouting the hate speech of the N word and "I hate black people!!" just because they felt like it, on the stupid assumption that their hate speech is "protected" and so they will have no problems there, since it may very well be the last thing that they do on Earth!!! Things also would get absurd in a hurry if really anything that anyone wanted to say about or to anybody were okay and people really had no other recourse than the law to make some words and actions, in actual practice, illegal, no matter what the courts have ruled on the matter!! If hate speakers are going to impose their hate speech on people, then those people have the right to impose their justice and swift retaliation and retribution right back on the hate speakers!!! There is more than one way of a formal law against it to make hate speech or anything else de factoedly illegal!! Besides, speaking out and acting against hateful people isn't hate speech or hate action or else we shouldn't have fought the Nazis during WWII or be protesting against Klan and neo-Nazi groups today, but is merely self-defense and self-preservation and fighting against evil!!! Was Jesus himself using hate speech when he called the Pharisees "whited sepulchres" and "vipers and hypocrites" or when he told the moneychangers in the temple "This is a house of prayer and you have made it a den of thieves!!" and "Take these things out of here!!" or was he using hate action when he drove them out of the temple with a scourge?!! If all denunciation and condemnation of anything is going to be called "hate speech", we have no longer any reasonable option left to us for criticizing any wrong or evil thing in this world and have to just accept homophobia and Nazism and all other truly hateful and evil things and do nothing about them and get lumped indiscriminately in with them!!! That is ridiculous!!! Homophobia and Nazism and white racism are hate speech, not any speech against any of that, which is just our defending ourselves against that and fighting evil!!! Yes, words don't hurt people as much as physical attacks and murders do, but we don't, on that account, say that it is okay for white racists to call black people the N word or call Jews "kikes" or Mexicans "wetbacks" or "mud people" or for black people to call white people "honkies", "crackers" or "peckerwoods" because words do still hurt other people and hurt them, sometimes, enough that they will physically hurt those who say them, in return!! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words do, sometimes, hurt me and others and so it isn't loving our neighbors as ourselves or doing unto others as we would have others do unto us to go on using those words!! You wouldn't think that it is alright for someone to make a sexually suggestive comment about yourself or a female relative, would you? So, don't go on saying that words said about other people and sexually bigoted terms for gay people or actions against them are okay, by the same standard that you apply to yourself. Gay people don't want to validate homophobes' refusing them services or keeping them out of churches by just doing the same thing right back again to straight people and homophobes by keeping them out of gay churches and refusing them services, tit for tat, but for this whole nonsense to stop and everyone to receive equal treatment everywhere and all discrimination against people to stop!!! I believe that you try to be a loving person, but you have the personal flaw of fencesitting and trying to get along with both homophobes and pro-gay rights people and seeing too many sides of an issue and being friendly with everyone. Nobody can get along with or be everything to everybody and you do finally have to pick a side. If you try to go along with every point of view, as the man discovered in Aesop's fable, you end up not getting along with anybody and losing everything!! As the bat in Aesop's fable, too, who said that it was a "bird" to the animals and an "animal" to the birds, was finally abandoned by both of them, so, too, will fencesitters and people playing politics with both sides of homophohes and gay rights supporters be abandoned by both sides!! As Elijah also said "If Baal is God, worship him, but if God is God, worship him". So, I say to you, if you are really for gay rights, then come over completely to our side, but if you are against gay rights, then go over completely to the homophobes' side, but stop trying to get along with both of us and be everything to everybody and pick a side and stick to it. That is what Jesus did against the Pharisees. I'll end this overly long post here and wait for your reply.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Sheila, you said that homophobes should be legally able to keep gay people out of their churches, to paraphrase, since I'm not going to go through the rigmarole of your phrasing of it again. But it isn't a question of what they can legally get away with doing, since they and their kind also got away legally, anyway, with segregating churches by either keeping black people out of white churches entirely or else keeping them in their own sections, the same as in blacks only sections of restaurants and in "colored" restrooms and with "colored" water fountains. It isn't about just what can churches get away with doing, according to man's laws, but what they should be doing, as supposed "representatives of Jesus Christ", who loved and accepted everyone equally (when they allowed him to do so, which excluded the Pharisees by their own choice!!). We would have to just take these gay condemning and excluding "churches" word for it that they are "representatives of Christ" because there is certainly NO!!! evidence of that in their excluding and condemning actions, words, and attitudes toward gay people and, if we bought that lie from them, we would be in desperate need of being sold a bridge and some "prime Florida real estate" (swamp land) by some other people because we would certainly be gullible enough to believe that, too!!! If these "churches" aren't going to lead on the issue of gay rights and acceptance, the same as they and their kind didn't lead on civil rights for black and all minority people or be any better or different than other hateful people in this world, why should those people look to them for any kind of moral leadership or think that they are different than they are?!! It is the TRUE!!! churches' responsibility to lead in the fight against sexual, racial, ethnic, and all other bigotry, and not be contributors to or supporters of any of that!!! If these phony "churches" and "Christians" don't want to fight against homophobia and racism and other evils, they need to get out of the way of those who do and stop calling themselves "churches" and "Christians" because they just don't measure up to or meet the job requirements!! You have told other people that they are "bigots" because they say that other people are wrong for calling homosexuality "wrong", but that is, once again, making words mean whatever you want them to mean, instead of their meaning what they objectively, factually, and non-propagandistically and non-partisanly mean. The word "bigotry", if it is going to have any meaning for the world at all and not be just an arbitrary and meaningless term, has to be reserved for people who are initiating hateful attitudes, practices, and words against other people, such as the Nazis against the Jews and other people, Ku Klux Klansmen against black people, Catholics, and Jews, and homophobes against gay and transgender people, and not just used indiscriminately to describe anyone who is fighting back against these bigots' hatred because these homophobes, Nazis, Klansmen, and other initiating haters want to feel "victimized", "persecuted", "justified", and "discriminated against", too, the same as actual victims!! It isn't all about just perspective and "any perspective is as good as any other perspective", which is nonsense and ridiculous, since there are self-"justifying" and rationalizing perspectives, too, such as these Nazis, Klansmen, and homophobes have and the Pharisees also had about themselves, but it is about truly honest perspectives about ourselves. Everybody is "right" (in their own eyes, at least), but that isn't the same thing at all as actually right. If it were, there wouldn't be anything wrong ever being done in the world at all, to hear these people tell it!! That is enough trying to hack through all of this convoluted and self-"justifying" shrubbery and game playing of conservatives and homophobes for now and wearing myself out on this and I really will wait now for your reply.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Correctiion; "with both sides of homophobes and gay rights supporters".
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Bigot defined according to Google's dictionary: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." So like a person intolerant of allowing a person to believe the Irish are the superior race, would be a bigot. And, the Irish supremacist would be a bigot if he did not tolerate the belief of others that all races are equal, or even that Irish equate to being "untouchables" - as lowest people.
BTW, who is the bigot in this situation by your standard of bigots: 1) People who hate other people who eat pork because those people are eating what is possibly the 3rd most intelligent animal on the planet (excluding people from the list) or 2) People who promote the killing of pigs by eating pork being haters of people who hate them for eating pork?
By how I understand "bigot" both groups are bigots. But, I'm curious how your standards of "bigot" fit the situation.
And no, I'm not trying to say “just any kind of ‘hate’ speech is the same as any other and all of it is okay.” I really do think some hate speech is way worse than other hate speech (personal opinion) - and I differentiate the severity of swear words, too (personal opinion - general backed by what's allowed on free TV networks). But, hate speech is not illegal. Still that's not a license to be stupid about it. There's actually an article about that - but I can't find it now. I hadn't saved the link because it seemed self-explanatory. Here's a similar article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201903/should-hate-speech-be-free-speech .
You say, "If hate speakers are going to impose their hate speech on people, then those people have the right to impose their justice and swift retaliation and retribution right back on the hate speakers!!!" - Yeah, most definitely in the form of more LEGAL hate speech. Once it steps into illegal bounds, then it's not legal anymore.
You ask, "Was Jesus himself using hate speech when he called the Pharisees 'whited sepulchres' and 'vipers and hypocrites' or when he told the moneychangers in the temple 'This is a house of prayer and you have made it a den of thieves!!' " My answer - maybe He was using hate speech in all those situations. I'm not an expert on identifying that. But, if it was "hate speech" it was most definitely the right thing to do. All the more reason to keep hate speech legal in the United States.
You said, "So, don’t go on saying that words said about other people and sexually bigoted terms for gay people or actions against them are okay, by the same standard that you apply to yourself. " I NEVER said that was ok to do to homosexuals. Apply the same laws equally!
BTW, huge difference in segregated public drinking fountains, etc; and a private club (or home) choosing to have a segregated drinking fountain, etc, for the wayward traveler they don't feel comfortable with, etc. As in, NOT ok to segregate public stuff and plenty fine (legally) to segregate what is private.
Yes, in the United States, churches should be/and are allowed to legally keep homosexuals out of them (I don't know any that do) and churches should be/and are allowed to legally keep heterosexuals out of them (I don't know any that do). Freedom of religion is a basic human right. It also belongs in the public sector as freedom of speech, but not as discrimination (except by speech) - in the United States.
Everyone and ALL christians miss the boat on what it means to love. We do NOT see clearly yet (1:Cor. 13:12). Name calling christians who think being a practicing homosexual is a sin as "not christians" and such christians name calling christians who think practicing homosexuality is NOT a sin as "not christians" is not helpful - and certainly is not loving of either set of christians. Or, how do you explain it as loving to call christians who think practicing homosexuality is sin as "not christians"? As christians, we are to be judgemental of each other (1 Cor. 5:12), but we are not to be petty about it (Romans 14:4 & Romans 14:13).
But, sexual sin is a serious thing (1 Cor. 6:18). BTW, I think Rom 1:18-28 is clearly about heterosexuals doing homosexual desires. It's not natural for a heterosexual to do that, just as it is not natural for a homosexual to be heterosexual - but I do not discourage homosexuals who claim do have successfully done that (because "be fruitful and multiply" I don't see how homosexuals successfully being heterosexuals is sinful). But, Rom 1:18-28 is about unnatural desires and is specific about everyone involved was heterosexual orientated. Again, I think this is a very educational piece for certain christians to stop putting "homosexuals" in the list (1 Cor. 6:9-11) of people who don't go to heaven http://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf .
That brings me to the double standard many interpreters of the Bible have.
I think I'm understanding your view of why the belief that "homosexuality is 'sinful'" is a double standard with regards to the Bible. As I understand it, the double standard you are seeing rests upon the belief that anything in the Bible that is "anti-homosexuality" was written by a homophobe. I think http://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf explains well that the writers were penning what they were supposed to, and the intended message of the writers was not homophobic - not even in the Old Testament.
The double standard I'm seeing is not in the writers, but in the interpreters alone. The interpreters are not discerning the message the writers meant correctly. What I'm looking at is the New Testament. Adultery is defined in the epistles as for instance, if you divorce and marry another, and your previous spouse is still alive, then you have committed adultery by marrying another, and the person you married is also committing adultery. Yet, obviously the people of that adulterous marriage are NOT included among the people who won't go to heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If they were, Paul would have told them to get divorced to save their souls, but he did not tell them to do that, and he did directly address the issue.
So, here's the double standard many interpreters of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 have: 1) The adulterers in the list are obviously promiscuous adulterers ONLY Verses 2) lumping "those who give themselves up to a soft, luxurious, and indolent way of living" https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1-corinthians/6-9.html as "effeminate" because translators didn't come up with a better description; and the violent raping of men by other men and pagan sexual practices to false gods as homosexuality - because translators didn't come up with a better description.
Any homosexuals truly within the list of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 would be referring to idolaters (such as specifically performing sexual acts for a false god) or promiscuous fornicators.
So the double standard is, adulterers in a committed married relationship that are NOT cheating on each other CAN go to heaven; but homosexuals in a committed relationship (such as marriage) that are NOT cheating on each other CANNOT go to heaven?
That's the double standard. And, of course the truth is christian homosexuals in a committed relationship (such as marriage) that are NOT cheating on each other CAN go to heaven. What would it be like if all christians saw the double standard in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and recognized the truth instead?
I see I've kind of been using the term "theocracy" incorrectly - but at the same time I recognize the accepted definitions as discriminatory. Regardless - Iran is a theocracy. But, from my perspective a theocratic tendency is any time a religious belief (beyond moral law such as "thou shalt not murder") is legislated on everyone, even in their private lives, (Unless the person happens to agree with said imposed law - then they already get to do whatever they want in their private lives).
You said, "Sheila, your agreeing with me that America isn’t a theocracy and so a theocracy doesn’t get to be imposed on everyone, but then turning right around and saying, in essence and paraphrase, neither does the 'theocracy' of gay people’s demanding that straight people and homophobes, especially, treat them fairly, nondiscriminatingly, acceptingly, noninsultingly, and equally under the law 'get to impose its will on society' is just more making words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean again."
No, that's NOT "just more making words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean again." No discrimination in the United States is for the PUBLIC sector - because that upholds the right of equally pursuing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. Discrimination IS a freedom of the PRIVATE sector - because that upholds the right of equally pursuing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. But, people can insult each other all they want in the United States - freedom of speech as long as you're not committing defamation/libel/slander. "Treat them fairly" would be the anti-discrimination laws meant for the PUBLIC sector.
How could homosexuals impose a theocracy (legislate their beliefs on everyone) specific to their sexuality you ask? Well, duh, make it law for the PRIVATE sector to not be allowed to discriminate. And, duh, it's NOT a theocratic tendency for gays or the Irish, etc., to impose anti-discrimination legislation on the PUBLIC sector.
You described of me: "I believe that you try to be a loving person, but you have the personal flaw of and trying to get along with both homophobes and pro-gay rights people and seeing too many sides of an issue and being friendly with everyone. Nobody can get along with or be everything to everybody and you do finally have to pick a side. If you try to go along with every point of view, as the man discovered in Aesop’s fable, you end up not getting along with anybody and losing everything!!" I think that's a good observation, and then so be it! Jesus did the same thing, but at least we know He was right. I think gay is okay. That's picking a side. I don't see christians who think it's not okay on the same standard that I understand Jesus to have seen the pharisees. A huge difference was the pharisees definitely at least sometimes knew better - hence why Jesus once told the pharisees not to speak against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12: 24-33). The United States is about, "...trying to get along with both..." (accommodate all peoples) & "...being friendly with everyone." Let's hope it never loses everything. But the country does take it's stands, and so do I - regardless if you understand it.
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Bigot defined according to Google's dictionary: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." So like a person intolerant of allowing a person to believe the Irish are the superior race, would be a bigot. And, the Irish supremacist would be a bigot if he did not tolerate the belief of others that all races are equal, or even that Irish equate to being "untouchables" - as lowest people. BTW, who is the bigot in this situation by your standard of bigots: 1) People who hate other people who eat pork because those people are eating what is possibly the 3rd most intelligent animal on the planet (excluding people from the list) or 2) People who promote the killing of pigs by eating pork being haters of people who hate them for eating pork?
By how I understand "bigot" both groups are bigots. But, I'm curious how your standards of "bigot" fit the situation.
And no, I'm not trying to say “just any kind of ‘hate’ speech is the same as any other and all of it is okay.” I really do think some hate speech is way worse than other hate speech (personal opinion) - and I differentiate the severity of swear words, too (personal opinion - general backed by what's allowed on free TV networks). But, hate speech is not illegal. Still that's not a license to be stupid about it. There's actually an article about that - but I can't find it now. I hadn't saved the link because it seemed self-explanatory. Here's a similar article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201903/should-hate-speech-be-free-speech .
You say, "If hate speakers are going to impose their hate speech on people, then those people have the right to impose their justice and swift retaliation and retribution right back on the hate speakers!!!" - Yeah, most definitely in the form of more LEGAL hate speech. Once it steps into illegal bounds, then it's not legal anymore.
You ask, "Was Jesus himself using hate speech when he called the Pharisees 'whited sepulchres' and 'vipers and hypocrites' or when he told the moneychangers in the temple 'This is a house of prayer and you have made it a den of thieves!!' " My answer - maybe He was using hate speech in all those situations. I'm not an expert on identifying that. But, if it was "hate speech" it was most definitely the right thing to do. All the more reason to keep hate speech legal in the United States.
You said, "So, don’t go on saying that words said about other people and sexually bigoted terms for gay people or actions against them are okay, by the same standard that you apply to yourself. " I NEVER said that was ok to do to homosexuals. Apply the same laws equally!
BTW, huge difference in segregated public drinking fountains, etc; and a private club (or home) choosing to have a segregated drinking fountain, etc, for the wayward traveler they don't feel comfortable with, etc. As in, NOT ok to segregate public stuff and plenty fine (legally) to segregate what is private.
Yes, in the United States, churches should be/and are allowed to legally keep homosexuals out of them (I don't know any that do) and churches should be/and are allowed to legally keep heterosexuals out of them (I don't know any that do). Freedom of religion is a basic human right. It also belongs in the public sector as freedom of speech, but not as discrimination (except by speech) - in the United States.
Everyone and ALL christians miss the boat on what it means to love. We do NOT see clearly yet (1:Cor. 13:12). Name calling christians who think being a practicing homosexual is a sin as "not christians" and such christians name calling christians who think practicing homosexuality is NOT a sin as "not christians" is not helpful - and certainly is not loving of either set of christians. Or, how do you explain it as loving to call christians who think practicing homosexuality is sin as "not christians"? As christians, we are to be judgemental of each other (1 Cor. 5:12), but we are not to be petty about it (Romans 14:4 & Romans 14:13).
But, sexual sin is a serious thing (1 Cor. 6:18). BTW, I think Rom 1:18-28 is clearly about heterosexuals doing homosexual desires. It's not natural for a heterosexual to do that, just as it is not natural for a homosexual to be heterosexual - but I do not discourage homosexuals who claim do have successfully done that (because "be fruitful and multiply" I don't see how homosexuals successfully being heterosexuals is sinful). But, Rom 1:18-28 is about unnatural desires and is specific about everyone involved was heterosexual orientated. Again, I think this is a very educational piece for certain christians to stop putting "homosexuals" in the list (1 Cor. 6:9-11) of people who don't go to heaven http://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf .
That brings me to the double standard many interpreters of the Bible have.
I think I'm understanding your view of why the belief that "homosexuality is 'sinful'" is a double standard with regards to the Bible. As I understand it, the double standard you are seeing rests upon the belief that anything in the Bible that is "anti-homosexuality" was written by a homophobe. I think http://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf explains well that the writers were penning what they were supposed to, and the intended message of the writers was not homophobic - not even in the Old Testament.
The double standard I'm seeing is not in the writers, but in the interpreters alone. The interpreters are not discerning the message the writers meant correctly. What I'm looking at is the New Testament. Adultery is defined in the epistles as for instance, if you divorce and marry another, and your previous spouse is still alive, then you have committed adultery by marrying another, and the person you married is also committing adultery. Yet, obviously the people of that adulterous marriage are NOT included among the people who won't go to heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If they were, Paul would have told them to get divorced to save their souls, but he did not tell them to do that, and he did directly address the issue.
So, here's the double standard many interpreters of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 have: 1) The adulterers in the list are obviously promiscuous adulterers ONLY Verses 2) lumping "those who give themselves up to a soft, luxurious, and indolent way of living" https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1-corinthians/6-9.html as "effeminate" because translators didn't come up with a better description; and the violent raping of men by other men and pagan sexual practices to false gods as homosexuality - because translators didn't come up with a better description.
Any homosexuals truly within the list of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 would be referring to idolaters (such as specifically performing sexual acts for a false god) or promiscuous fornicators.
So the double standard is, adulterers in a committed married relationship that are NOT cheating on each other CAN go to heaven; but homosexuals in a committed relationship (such as marriage) that are NOT cheating on each other CANNOT go to heaven?
That's the double standard. And, of course the truth is christian homosexuals in a committed relationship (such as marriage) that are NOT cheating on each other CAN go to heaven. What would it be like if all christians saw the double standard in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and recognized the truth instead?
I see I've kind of been using the term "theocracy" incorrectly - but at the same time I recognize the accepted definitions as discriminatory. Regardless - Iran is a theocracy. But, from my perspective a theocratic tendency is any time a religious belief (beyond moral law such as "thou shalt not murder") is legislated on everyone, even in their private lives, (Unless the person happens to agree with said imposed law - then they already get to do whatever they want in their private lives).
You said, "Sheila, your agreeing with me that America isn’t a theocracy and so a theocracy doesn’t get to be imposed on everyone, but then turning right around and saying, in essence and paraphrase, neither does the 'theocracy' of gay people’s demanding that straight people and homophobes, especially, treat them fairly, nondiscriminatingly, acceptingly, noninsultingly, and equally under the law 'get to impose its will on society' is just more making words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean again."
No, that's NOT "just more making words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean again." No discrimination in the United States is for the PUBLIC sector - because that upholds the right of equally pursuing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. Discrimination IS a freedom of the PRIVATE sector - because that upholds the right of equally pursuing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. But, people can insult each other all they want in the United States - freedom of speech as long as you're not committing defamation/libel/slander. "Treat them fairly" would be the anti-discrimination laws meant for the PUBLIC sector.
How could homosexuals impose a theocracy (legislate their beliefs on everyone) specific to their sexuality you ask? Well, duh, make it law for the PRIVATE sector to not be allowed to discriminate. And, duh, it's NOT a theocratic tendency for gays or the Irish, etc., to impose anti-discrimination legislation on the PUBLIC sector.
You described of me: "I believe that you try to be a loving person, but you have the personal flaw of and trying to get along with both homophobes and pro-gay rights people and seeing too many sides of an issue and being friendly with everyone. Nobody can get along with or be everything to everybody and you do finally have to pick a side. If you try to go along with every point of view, as the man discovered in Aesop’s fable, you end up not getting along with anybody and losing everything!!" I think that's a good observation, and then so be it! Jesus did the same thing, but at least we know He was right. I think gay is okay. That's picking a side. I don't see christians who think it's not okay on the same standard that I understand Jesus to have seen the pharisees. A huge difference was the pharisees definitely at least sometimes knew better - hence why Jesus once told the pharisees not to speak against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12: 24-33). The United States is about, "...trying to get along with both..." (accommodate all peoples) & "...being friendly with everyone." Let's hope it never loses everything. But the country does take it's stands, and so do I - regardless if you understand it.
-
-
-
-
Bill Fox
I'm sure Walmart or a grocery store will sell gay cakes. Why not go down the street to the Muslim baker and force him to make a gay cake?
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Kim, that's the problem with you because you and your ilk keep wanting only conservatives and those who agree with you to have any rights or freedom here at all and nobody else to have even the right to drive down the street and keep calling people "perverts" who aren't perverts!! That actually makes YOU!!! and everyone else who "thinks" like you perverts because the human mind isn't supposed to work that way and "think" that everyone who is different than they are are "perverts" and "immoral" and that only they should have any rights or freedom at all!! You are the pervert here by "thinking" the way that you do!!! You are also learning and comprehension disabled because the stand of the ULC ministry where you are posting your garbage is open to gay and lesbian and atheist and Satanist and people of all faiths and sexual preferences and lifestyles and so your homophobic posts don't fit in here!! If you don't agree with the position of the ULC, then go find a church that you do agree with and stop subjecting yourself to being around people whom you disrespect and call "perverts" and "wrong", since you aren't going to convert anyone here to your idiocy (except other idiots!), and, more importantly, give all of us non-perverted "thinking" people (non-conservative people and liberals and pro-human and gay rights people) a break from reading any more of your hateful garbage!!!
-
kimberly
The fly in yer pudding "puddin" is that perversions aren't the opposite of conservatism as you try to make it. In general, Liberal politicians are some of the most perverse people imaginable. Not conservatives.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Kimberly, you either don't know how to put your sentences together or just twist other people's statements, as well as words, to make them mean whatever you want them to mean or a little or lot of both!!! You are a very confused person, who "thinks" that it is other people who are "confused", as most schizophrenics do!!! You really don't have any good qualities at all that I have seen here yet! Anyway, I never said that perversions are the opposite of conservatism (except in your confused and twisted "thinking") because perversions are the same as conservatism and conservatives are perverts!! Read my post again, honestly, if you can ever be honest about anything, because I wrote "That actually makes YOU!!! and everyone who 'thinks' like you perverts because the human mind isn't supposed to work that way...". Quite obviously, actual perverts, such as yourself, aren't capable of judging anyone else to be a "pervert", since you don't even know the truth about yourselves!! Whatever you say about Liberals or gay people or anyone else, due to your own confusion, self-deceit, dishonesty, and deviousness, is necessarily a LIE!!!
-
kimberly
You apparently missed the subtlety of my meaning....conservatism and liberalism go together as political parties. But there is no political party of perverts. There are just perverts. And the reality is that most pervs who get into politics do so as liberals. Now if ULC accept all kinds then this is where I am most sorely needed and equally welcome. So get over it and lose the intolerance.
-
-
Howard
Hi Kim. I've been just referring these people like Mr. Partin to the Bible and the Scriptures as found in first Corinthians chapter 6, verses nine through 10. Then if they will continue on and read verse 11 maybe they will understand it. Is fine with me if they want to write their own Bible. I'm not sure either one of us belong on here, you should contact an association Entitled, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS.
-
Lori
So you, Howard, truly believe Kimberly should council and minister to others of Christian faith???? Wow.
-
kimberly
Taking the specificity of "we" in that passage and applying it to generically include "us" is falsely interpreting Paul's letter in so many ways.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Kim, there is no subtlety to your meaning, but only blatant offensiveness and ignorance to it!! I am intolerant of the intolerant, such as you and Nazis and Klansmen, because all of you are intolerant and hateful toward other people and it is right to be intolerant of you!! We even fought WWII because of our intolerance and hatred of the intolerant and hateful Nazis and Jesus called the intolerant and hateful Pharisees "whited sepulchres"!!! So, intolerance of some people, such as yourself, is really a good thing!! Why should you receive something that you refuse to give to other people: acceptance or even tolerance?!! You shouldn't at all!! "Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap". Give name calling and disrespect to people and you deserve to get that back on you and will get it back on you!! If it is "right", according to you, to call gay people "perverts", then, by your own standard, it is right for other people and myself to call you and all other conservatives perverts for real because small and narrow mindedness is a greater perversion of the human mind than all of the sexual so-called "perversions" or even real perversions put together and has caused more death and destruction in the world than all of them!!! It wasn't even sick child molesters who caused the Holocaust and killed 6 million Jews and millions of other people, but, rather, the SMALL and NARROW minded anti-Semitic and racist Nazis who did that and practiced the same small and narrow mindedness that you advocate every time that you post in here!!! They hated gay people, too, and did what you and many other conservatives would like to do to them, but can't get away with doing (because of constraints on your actions by "damn demonic liberals" or else you would be killing them, too!!). Most of the repressiveness and bigotry in this country and world is coming from you GD conservatives, not from liberals, who are about acceptance and liberation of people (except according to you illogical and convoluted "thinking" people) and that makes all of you the party of perverts!! ULC accepts all kinds of people who accept all other kinds of people, but that is, quite obviously, not you or the other homophobes and right-wingers in here! So, wouldn't you really just be happier and fit in better on a Klan or neo-Nazi web site, where you could spout all of the hateful garbage that you wanted and those idiots would just eat it up?!! For yourself, wouldn't that be better?! Because nobody needs that here on a web site about openness and acceptance of other people, which you will never be about!! The Klan and the Nazis are waiting eagerly to hear from you and benefit from your "great wisdom"!! So, don't keep them waiting and give the rest of us a break from all of that BS!!!
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Howard, I'm not interested in 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 or any other homophobic verses in the Bible, which were just put into it in order to make "God agree with those Bible writers" and "sanctify" and "justify" their views and impose them on other people much easier and I certainly won't learn anything from them other than that you are all bigots and suckers!!! We don't need a whole new Bible ( for that, anyway), but just need to only accept what is actually from love in the Bible and not what is, obviously, merely from man and hate!! As for Kimberly's ministering to other Christians, I agree with Lori that you must be joking and "Wow!". That would be the blind leading the blind or not as blind as her! Neither of you really fit among loving and accepting actual Christians, but you certainly fit here even less and as the saying goes in bars at closing time: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here!".
-
kimberly
Partin me Partin but I've observed that the longer the post, the more hatred the person contains. Its not logical as Spock would say but it is often true.
-
Sheila
Kimberly, you say, "...I’ve observed that the longer the post, the more hatred the person contains" Most certainly NOT always true. You're quite concise about how you pack your hatred - Name-calling: "your damn kids" "fool" "worse than an infidel" Yes, you're proof how concisely a whole lot of hatred can be delivered. And, that unique isn't always a good thing.
And, I don't see John Matthews post July 3, 2019 at 9:44 am as hatred filled, but it's quite long.
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - I think it's unfortunate you aren't interested in Corinthians 6:9-11 or any other verses in the Bible that appear to be homophobic,
I support Howard's interpretation because in context of the Bible as a whole it seems reasonable - and his freedom of religion is the sweet smell of freedom - it's important that America support that, and enforce that citizens be law-abiding, particularly in accordance with moral law.
However, I do interpret Corinthians 6:9-11 differently than Howard does, also in context of the whole Bible. It doesn't mean I'm right. At the very least, it does mean I hope I'm right. That's why it particularly bothers me that you aren't interested in the verses. The entire Bible is true. And, it's important that christians "...in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1Pe.3:15-16). Howard defends his interpretation while honoring in his heart Christ the Lord as holy; and I do the same. So ought you to do the same. Howard's interpretation may be right, mine may be right - or both are wrong. But, it's important that we each defend the hope that is in us - probably because gathering of believers leads to truth (no I don't have a Bible verse for that - but it is my hope - James 8:4 says by seeking God we get closer to Him, & Bible says not to forsake the gathering of believers) and telling unbelievers is evangelism.
The part about others being put to shame in that passage is not promised as always an immediate thing. Verse 17 makes that clear by saying, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." Doesn't really sound like immediate shame always happens for people in the wrong, esp. if the person in the right ends up being the one to suffer.
As christians, we are to impose to a degree on other christians, but NOT on unbelievers - "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" (1 Cor. 5:12)
-
-
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Drat you left christians off your list = (
I'm looking to vote for candidates who are for allowing choice for vaccinations.
-
kimberly
get your dam kids vaccinated you fool.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
-
Sheila
Kimberly,
Stop vaccinating your dam kids you fool.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
You cheapskate fool who won't get your kids homeopathic nosodes that REALLY work.
I hope you know kids/babies die from vaccinations. You don't even know my kids' situation. But, regardless of your kids' situation, they are also better off with nosodes, and vaccinations harm them.
Find your sign and wear it. And, post pictures all over the place of you wearing it to remind yourself.
Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause. (Isaiah 1:17) I don't see you paying for the damage "vaccinations" did to my kids - hypocrite
Degreed scientist - whatever. You've probably made a god out of the "scientific method." Did they teach you the downfalls of the "scientific method" during the time of your prestigious education? I learned the downfalls of the "scientific method" back in elementary school - and it was a public school, so you know it's got to be true.
1) Or, if you're truly smart, and not just indoctrinated, so tell me what are the downfalls of the "scientific method" ?
Now, since your on a roll with doing a more difficult task - let's move to a simpler one (one I knew before being taught the downfalls of the "scientific method" ): 2) What are the downfalls of vaccinations?
That's right, I was taught at the doctor's office giving the vaccinations long before being taught the downfalls of the "scientific method."
If you are incapable of answering those simple 2 questions, Kimberly you are brainwashed beyond what I imagined.
-
kimberly
Homeopathy is a lie. Any homeopathic "remedy" has no active ingredients. They've been diluted out to the point of non-detsctability. Waste of money.
-
Sheila
Kim, How about you try out answering these questions?:
1) What are the downfalls of the “scientific method” ? 2) What are the downfalls of vaccinations? 3) Have you ever used a homeopathy by a homeopath that does them right?
And, when it comes to homeopathies, you are wrong. Homeopathies DO work. I know a homeopath who recently cured herself while she was coming down with tetanus using her homeopathy. I used a homeopathy to stop side effects of zoloft (such as really rapid weight gain, and caused me to have an allergy to a soap [rash] - horrible dreams as well, etc). After starting the homeopathy specific for zoloft, I rapidly lost the weight I had gained on the zoloft (without trying!) and the soap allergy and bad dreams, etc. all went away (all while the used of actual zoloft continued!).
Case-in-point, what little you know about homeopathies is useless to you because you believe a lie that they do not work, and so you will not try them.
I've lots of other personal examples that homeopathies work. Truthful studies also prove them to work.
But, go on being an wrong about it. Just keep your erroneous info about it out of other people's lives.
-
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Sheila, I will certainly try to be much more civil and pleasant in my reply to you than I was to Kimberly, but I still don't lump everything in the Bible indiscriminately under the heading of "God's words" because there is just far too much of it that is, obviously (to anyone who is looking at it honestly), from human beings and the Bible has been so manipulated, corrupted, mistranslated, distorted, and outright manufactured over the centuries for any reasonable person to swallow it all hook, line, and sinker!! "You shall not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is, quite clearly, a hateful human idea and not from God. So, I only accept what is truly love in it as actually coming from God, since God is love, and all the homophobia and other hatred and bigotry in it is just from man and should be dispensed with and ignored. Any other approach to the Bible than that is suckerish and gullible, which is also against Christian teaching. "Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1) and "And it is not wonderful, for Satan himself appears as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). That is the long and short of my explanation to you and there is no need to drag it out any more.
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Sorry to drag things out more. I am wanting to say more about it, and I hope it's ok and even helpful. Yes, you are right that I don't agree with your method of what to discount in the Bible. But, that doesn't make me right - of course I just think I'm right. But, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and it sounds like you are there. It's also my hope, which I would defend using your very beliefs that I DO agree with. And, of course I hope I am there, too.
I think your beliefs about seemingly homophobic passages (& witches, etc) contribute to you being intolerant of those who interpret those verses that homosexuality is sinful. But, I tolerate the beliefs even when they seem to be obviously double standards. Such as Paul (or anyone) never recommended people to divorce out of adulterous marriages (one or more of the people married to each other were previously married to someone else, and that someone else is still alive) so that adultery was no longer occurring, and so live the rest of their lives alone and unmarried. Yet, adulterers are listed among the people who won't go to heaven - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Seems quite obvious it's referring to people cheating on their current spouse, since divorce was NEVER recommended for people who married into adultery. My point being that perhaps people are missing true interpretation of Scripture - such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:10 ESV). I am confident that is what you are doing. But, I think most people feeling compelled to refuse services to homosexuals based on religious beliefs are also having loving reasons for homosexuals. That probably doesn't make sense. But, when a person interprets Scriptures to mean that unless homosexuals quit being homosexual, they will not go to heaven - well then it becomes as dire as illegal drug use to the people who believe that - they want to save the person being harmful to themselves. And, some consider shunning to be the loving thing to do in certain cases (I don't). It's still my hope that these christians interpreting Scripture that way would serve homosexuals, but exercise their freedom of speech that they may express their religious beliefs. The homosexuals wanting service can also think about "love does no wrong to a neighbor" - and that it's loving to pave the way for all homosexuals to freely pursue happiness equal to heterosexuals (&/or property).
I think open communication is key for people with beliefs that are polar to each other - yet both people are seeking to be loving. And, that it involves balance of freedom of speech and religion.
BTW, yes I'm one of those people who honestly accepts the Bible as “God’s words” (meaning what He was wanting to get put there) because there's so much in there that if you wanted people to believe it, you wouldn't put that stuff in there - such as Jesus using an adulterous Samaritan woman at a well to preach the gospel to her home town. And, it's freaky how when old scrolls are found, they translate SO CLOSE to what our current Bibles are. But, those are my beliefs. Of course I think I'm right, but it doesn't mean I am.
-
kimberly
"I think" is the wisdom of fools.
-
Sheila
Kim - you say: “'I think' is the wisdom of fools." - Ha ha! And I suppose, "I don't think" is better? Yeah, you keep trying that and let me know how that goes for you.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Sheila, I disagree with your belief and/or practice that we should tolerate the beliefs of homophobes or anyone when they are a double standard. Why should we do that? Jesus didn't tolerate the double standard practice or beliefs of the scribes and Pharisees or the money changers in the temple, but, respectively, called them "vipers and hypocrites" and "whited sepulchres" and said "this is a house of prayer and you have made it a den of thieves!". That doesn't sound as though, by Jesus' own example, that we should just tolerate all kinds of wrong "thinking" and actions and not call them wrong! God isn't a bigot and homophobia is bigotry and, therefore, didn't come from God, but, quite obviously, from the men who wrote the Bible. Why should we put man-made ideas, prejudices, and teachings on the same level as truly Godly ideas and teachings and treat bigotry the same as love and make no distinction between the two? "Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20). But that is exactly what we are doing when we say that bigotry is really "goodness" and loving people as they are is "evil". You said that people who refuse services to gay people because of their belief that "homosexuality is immoral" might still be "showing love to those gay people and not wanting them to go to Hell", but refusing equal treatment to people even for the "holiest" of motives is still injustice and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. You can't do a wrong thing for a "right" or "holy" reason and actually change it, thereby, into anything other than still a wrong thing. America isn't a theocracy and so people's religious beliefs don't get to deny other people equal treatment, rights, and justice here!! The Inquisitors certainly thought that they were "showing love to and helping" all of the people whom they tortured and killed, but their being convinced of that didn't actually change the evil of what they did into goodness and neither does homophobes' being convinced of their "loving gay people by refusing them service" actually change what they are doing into love. Real love does no harm to the neighbor and doesn't just convince itself that "harm isn't harm" and "whatever it wants to do the neighbor is good and loving". That is self-delusion, not clear knowledge of what is actually good and loving. Homosexuality isn't a sin, except according to homophobic bigots who put their words into God's mouth, in order to make him "agree with them" and so impose their will on other people even easier and control them!! They didn't and still don't speak for God!! God loves and accepts gay people as they are and doesn't require them to abandon their sexuality, which isn't a sin, in order for Him to love and accept them!! That is true loving practice toward gay people, instead of the rejection, repression, and bigotry put forward as "love" by homophobes!! We can't mollycoddle or pussyfoot around with these bigots or be "diplomatic" with them or pretend that they "aren't bigoted and are loving", as they lie to themselves that they are, but must confront them, as Jesus did to the pretentious people of his time and place, and call them out on their hypocrisy and pretentiousness, as he did!! That is truly following Jesus' example with these people!!
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Thank you for so clearly laying out your beliefs and the reasons for the hope you have in you.
But, I'm sorry I'm not understanding what you are referring to when you say the beliefs of people who believe homosexuality is sinful is a double standard. How is it a double standard? (I realize it is, but I don't think people who believe homosexuality is a sin realize the double standard, and I'm wondering what you see as the double standard).
When I said, "But, I tolerate the beliefs even when they seem to be obviously double standards." I was referring to how people interpret Scripture. I wasn't meaning that I purposely withhold myself from telling them that they are wrong. But, freedom of religion, it is their interpretation of Scripture. It doesn't trump their obligation to follow ethical laws.
Thank you for this verse: “Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). Christians who believe homosexuality to be wrong would also use this verse against christians who believe homosexuality to be not wrong. Such christians would say the Bible says it's wrong, but woe to the people calling it not wrong and calling the people evil who are calling it wrong. I'm just showing perspective.
I'm not finding that Jesus directly addressed homosexuality in the gospel. I'm also not seeing how it compares with the double standard practices that Jesus DID speak of. The closest possibility of homosexuality addressed in the gospels that I can think of is the story of centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13. I've read that's it's possibly referring to that there was a homosexual relationship between the centurion and his servant that was special to him. That in the original language, the word the centurion used for his servant referred to that - and others say that no that word doesn't necessarily mean that. Anyway, whether or not the relationship was homosexual was of importance because in verses 14-16 Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law at her home, and many were brought to Jesus that He healed by casting out demons and healed all who were sick. Then verse Mt. 8:17 says "This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: 'He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.' " The point being that if the relationship between the centurion and his servant was homosexual, there is NO mention of the homosexuality being healed. And, if that is so, then homosexuality is NOT a disease or infirmity or a sin to heal.
You said, "That doesn’t sound as though, by Jesus’ own example, that we should just tolerate all kinds of wrong 'thinking' and actions and not call them wrong!" I agree. I'm all for free speech. If we think people are being bigots, we have free speech to tell them that.
You said, "We can’t mollycoddle or pussyfoot around with these bigots or be diplomatic' with them or pretend that they 'aren’t bigoted and are loving', as they lie to themselves that they are, but must confront them, as Jesus did to the pretentious people of his time and place, and call them out on their hypocrisy and pretentiousness, as he did." We have free speech to do that - also people of wrongful beliefs have free speech. Jesus also told the adulterous woman "go and sin no more" - John 8:11. Christians offtrack on their beliefs about homosexuality would say this to married homosexuals being faithful to their relationship - because such christians believe homosexuality to be a sin. So they, too, use Jesus' example to justify their beliefs. This may be a good booklet for teaching people who think homosexuality is sinful to think otherwise: http://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf .
You said, "America isn’t a theocracy and so people’s religious beliefs don’t get to deny other people equal treatment, rights, and justice here!" Yet, America has freedom of religion. Missouri Synod churches in general have closed communion. Only members of the church may partake, in general. And, it should stay that way. Freedom of religion is important. But, in the public sector, we do have anti-discrimination laws. All of this is important when it comes to pursuing having equality for all in the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. Freedom of religion is important in the private sector, and it's important in the public sector in the form of free speech - NOT in the form of denying service.
On the topic of love... If you are hallucinating that you see your brethren walking off the edge of a cliff, and you don't realize you are hallucinating; isn't it still the loving thing to do to tackle your brethren to the ground that you are so sure is hallucinating that NO cliff is there? Of course it's the loving thing to tackle your brethren to the ground because you think your are REALLY saving that person's life. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Love did not cause tackled brethren to break a tooth when he was forced to the ground short of the "cliff." A hallucination caused it. Love does not cause christians who believe homosexuality to be wrong to shun homosexuals with the hope that the homosexual will change and go to heaven. Wrongful belief causes it. It's not the love involved that's wrong, it's whatever else that's in the picture that causes the harm, not the love. It's important to distinguish that. I like how you put this, " You can’t do a wrong thing for a 'right' or 'holy' reason and actually change it, thereby, into anything other than still a wrong thing." So true! Tackling your brethren to the ground when there was no cliff is the wrong thing to do no matter how convinced you were that there was really a cliff there.
Thank you for this example of yours,"The Inquisitors certainly thought that they were 'showing love to and helping' all of the people whom they tortured and killed, but their being convinced of that didn’t actually change the evil of what they did into goodness and neither does homophobes’ being convinced of their 'loving gay people by refusing them service' actually change what they are doing into love." All of that is so completely true - thank you. Yes, what the Inquisitors did was not love, although possibly their intentions were love. The love did not torture and kill people - wrongful reasoning tortured and killed people. And, yes, if people refusing homosexuals service are in the wrong, convincing themselves that it's the loving thing to do, doesn't make it the loving thing to do. And, the love involved is not what is doing the harm, it's the wrongful reasoning doing the harm.
And, if you break your brethren's tooth knocking them to the ground from a REAL cliff the brethren was hallucinating was NOT there - then that'd be the loving thing to do. Love did not cause the brethren's tooth to break - the brethren hallucinating a cliff was NOT there caused the situation where a tooth broke. Love does no harm to a neighbor.
I really like your point along the lines of don't go around convincing yourself that “harm isn’t harm” and “whatever you want to do to the neighbor is good and loving.” 1 Cor. 13 is good reminder of what real love is. But, if someone is "hallucinating" - they do things they think are loving when it's not. What does one do to shake people to reality? Free speech and laws for the public sector that enforce equal treatment I suppose - and hope that does it.
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Thank you for your further explanation. I don't agree with a lot of it. I do agree gays ought to have all the freedoms to the public sector as everyone should. I also support freedom of speech & freedom of religion of owners of businesses to express their conscience. I do not support businesses denying service based on discrimination.
No, our country is NOT a theocracy. And so NO, a theocracy doesn't get to be enforced on everyone else. Such as the theocracy of turning the expectations of the public sector (referring to expectations you agree with) into a morality to be enforced upon the private sector as well. Yes, a person can search for a country that provides enforcing such a theocracy on the private sector; but it is not the United States with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. A country with a theocracy such as that doesn't allow people to have private clubs exempt from public laws - or allow people to do what they want even privately in their own homes; but it is not the United States with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
"... while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose." https://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil.../private_discriminate_religious.htm .
As much as you may hate the beliefs of others regarding what actions are WRONG that you do not consider WRONG, or people who believe their race to be superior to other races, or a gender to be superior to the opposite gender - you don't get to enforce your ideal theocracy on the private sector.
If gays want to have a church that denies heterosexuals as immoral - they can do that, because our country allows for that, and it's called freedom (yes we can still make babies without heterosexuals having sex). Freedom is all people allowed complete and equal freedom to the public sector; and all people allowed complete and equal freedom to do as they want in the private sector. Yes, laws determine what is "common sense" for both sectors - which in turn is determined by the "people" whether those laws really are common sense. And, all that still fails - but continuing to try can't be a bad thing. It's our country's vision to achieve complete and equal freedom for public and private sectors. Public sectors the freedom to know it's all inclusive; and private sector the freedom of personal preferences to be exclusive if so chosen.
"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States & "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[11] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
Hate speech can also be perpetrated on hateful people. You can have a group of homosexuals throwing racial slurs at Asians because those particular homosexuals hate Asians; and those very same Asians throwing slurs back at the homosexuals because they hate homosexuals. You can have a group of people who detest eating pigs throwing all sorts of hate speech at people who do eat pigs. And, who are the haters there? The people wanting to save the intelligent pig? Or, the pig killer supporters eating the pigs? Really it's pretty hateful to kill anything - and that's coming from me who eats lots of meat. Using hate speech at people for hating people, is in itself hate speech. Things get absurd in a hurry when "hate speech" is illegal. People ought be allowed to express their religions in the U.S. that has freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech to express an opinion that homosexuality is sinful most definitely does NOT compare to outright killing someone. Anyone from the "stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" era, abundantly understands the absurdity in that comparison. The laws in our country support moral law (such as thou shall not kill). And, killers who think otherwise are punished under this Country's laws (if caught). And, yes, if they don't like it - they can try finding a country that supports their beliefs.
BTW, tax exemption is legal to remove from private sector entities that are not upholding public anti-discrimination laws.
-
-
kimberly
Sheila dear...."I don't know" is what you should be using.
-
Sheila
Kim - Condescend much?
"I think ..." is the process of coming up with a hypothesis.
Since you are so down on the Scientific Method as being "the wisdom of fools"- Do tell ... What are all the rest of the downfalls of the “scientific method” ?
And, what exactly is the process that you are using that you think is so much better?
-
Lionheart
Kim is a bit of an enigma. She claims to have a scientific background yet ignores science completely when it comes to determining and demonstrating the existence of her god. A typical common scientific method is:
1: Ask a question. 2: Do background research. 3: Construct a hypothesis. 4: Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment. 5: Determine if the experiment can be repeated. 6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. 7: Write a paper and share your results with peers for their review.
?❤️
-
kimberly
Sheila. You are not a scientist. I am. Scientific method begins with a question. Not a cognitive assumption.
-
kimberly
Lion sweetie...the bible emphasizes law rather than science. it is the record of arbitration between men and God. And it will be God who wins in the court of judgement on that day.
-
Lionheart
...in your opinion Kim. But there you go again, hanging onto your imaginary god from your fictional book.
You might want to try reading some other fictional books, but try not to take them too literal.
?♥️
-
Lori
Wow. This really turning into the "Kimberly" show. Isn't it getting old?
-
Sheila
Kimberly - you say, "Sheila. You are not a scientist" - Good cognitive assumption! A good guess. From there you could formulate a hypothesis.
You know: "Following the scientific method, we come up with a question that we want to answer, we do some initial research, and then BEFORE we set out to answer the question by performing an experiment and observing what happens, we first clearly identify what we 'think' will happen" https://www.sciencebuddies.org/blog/a-strong-hypothesis
Like I said, "'I think …' is the process of coming up with a hypothesis."
-
Sheila
Lion Heart - Yes, I agree that is a typical common scientific method that you showed.
But, do you realize that the scientific method itself is a hypothesis - if only it could be disproven? As, it is, it can't be qualified as even a hypothesis, let alone be a theory for exploration.
If there is no experimental test to disprove the hypothesis, then it lies outside the realm of science.
Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." (Dictionary Google used)
Whatever process a person uses to try to achieve advancement of science, is just a guess that it will find reliable valid answers.
So, what experimental test exists that would disprove the validity of the Scientific Method?
-
kimberly
Sheila honey....The test of whether God exists or not is death. It's really quite simple. I suggest you wait until the appropriate time to perform it however. Don't you think that's a good idea lion dear?
-
kimberly
Lori....do you need a hug?
-
Lionheart
Actually, Kim, all we will determine at death is whether there is something “after” mortal death. We might be in another realm, and still not knowing if any god exists, or, there might be nothing at all.
?❤️
-
kimberly
Lion....dead is dead. If you think it is some kind of doorway to another realm then you are still holding onto a religious lie.
-
Lionheart
Yes of course dead is dead. I’m not holding onto any fixed belief, as possibly you are. I leave the doorway open to whatever there is, or whatever there isn’t, when the end of this life comes.
?❤️
-
kimberly
So you finally acknowledge the possibility that God exists. I'm quite disappointed in you as an atheist dear.
-
Lionheart
I’m actually hoping that fairies, elves, and pixies exist. They have the possibilities, and appearance, of being more fun to have around.
If there is a god, I still look forward to punching him on the nose for all of his brutality, and stupidity, to mankind.
Never shut the door to all possibilities of thought. We might find that after death Lord Krishna really exists.
?❤️
-
kimberly
Lion. You'll be dead. You're still thinking like a non-atheist which means without God, you'll stay dead. I'm real and you can't even reach me to punch me in the nose.
-
Sheila
Lionheart - so you are saying that Kimberly is really saying is, "I think the test of whether God exists or not is death." Sounds like the process of coming up with a hypothesis. It boggles my mind how we supposedly can't know God exists in the "here & now" - sleeping sheeple that we are. Job 12:7-10 reveals that even beasts, birds, plants, fish, and the earth itself know what the hand of the Lord has done, & in His hand is life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. Yet, when it comes to people - the parting of the red sea, Moses & the prophets, all the miracles of Jesus, whatever signs and wonders given, people still do not believe. Yet people continue to claim if "such-and-such" happened then they'd believe. What a lie. Luke 16:30-31 is of Jesus telling the story of a rich man in an "after death place of torment" where the rich man is talking to Abraham who is not in the place of torment: "And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ” It still speaks today. There's proof even today of the Red Sea crossing led by Moses. And, people will not hear it - will not hear Moses & the prophets. Neither would anything convince them - save when every knee shall bow (Rom. 14:11-12). Crazy. I am fortunate that I've seen miraculous things firsthand. God cares that much - even though it does not achieve what we tell Him it will achieve - belief.
You believe the Bible is a fable. Then treat it as such. Find all the allegory in it and translate it into what's real, like you would any piece of fiction - except the Bible because apparently it scares you. How stupid is that?
And, the idea that the test of whether God exists or not is really quite simple - death. Well, that's simply stupid. If only we weren't.
-
kimberly
Sheila...if you think you can "prove" God exists by extrapolating God from the creation you are mistaken. God is not supernatural. God is EXTRAnatural. Any god extrapolated from the creation is a human-centric contrivance and a false god. Lion understands this intuitively but makes the presumptive mistake that God doesn't exist when in fact the contrived deity is what doesn't exist.
-
Lionheart
Yep, I extracted god from my extrapolation years ago. He is no longer part of any creational formulae. His validity has now become the lowest common denominator.
?♥️
-
Sheila
Kimberly, The Bible tells us creation IS proof God exists (Romans 1:18-20). It does NOT say we can extrapolate Him from it. Just because you have enough details that someone exists, does not mean that by those details alone that you can get an accurate picture. All the false gods are the result of those who attempted to extrapolate God from nature (if even only by the nature of themselves).
If you want to find God - seek Him. Those who do, God will draw closer to Him (James 8:4). But it is not of their own that anyone seeks, because no one can come to Jesus except that the Father draws them (John 6:44), and Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father (John 14:6).
So, even if a person finds the Bible to be a fable. It is not beyond that person to find all the allegory in it an translate it into what's real, like the person would any piece of fiction. Yet, the Bible apparently scares such people. And, that is stupid.
The idea that we need to die to find out proof of God is also stupid. We've had plenty in the "here & now" to believe - but we do not because sleeping sheeple are stupid. We are promised that if we seek Him, He will draw us closer - and of course that's true even when we're in the stupor of sleeping. But, it's difficult to have a grip on what's real when you're sleeping verses when you're awake.
Yes, I had it figured between ages 4 and 6 that people can come up with the idea of God, and use it to control behaviors of the masses. And, no I didn't make the mistake of then believing God doesn't exist. Typically, being willing think things through is not a bad thing - to really reflect and think things through. Maybe the rocks, earth, plants, birds, fish, and other animals told me. There's been evidence plants can read our thoughts (I first saw that on a documentary in 5th grade). Maybe plants can send thoughts, too, and we mistake the thoughts as our own.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Sheila, no doubt homophobes interpret "Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil..." differently than I or other pro-gay rights people do, but what they are calling "good" is denying gay people their rights and continued bigotry against gay people, while calling "evil" giving gay people their rights and equality and ending bigotry against gay people, whereas we are calling evil (as it plainly is!) denying gay people their rights and equality and calling good giving them their rights and equality and fighting against and ending bigotry against them. Words can't mean just whatever anyone wants them to mean because if they do, then they no longer mean anything at all and communication becomes impossible!! Giving gay people freedom and equality and opposing bigotry against them is clearly good. Denying them freedom and equality and encouraging, "justifying", and maintaining less or no freedom and equality for them and more or the same old bigotry against them is evil and doesn't become good just because some people want to call it "good". Freedom of speech and thought aren't absolutely unlimited and there are consequences (and, sometimes .very severe or fatal consequences!!) to someone's saying or thinking the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people, as anyone who goes into a black neighborhood and screams the N word and "I hate black people" will very quickly and unpleasantly discover!! Homophobic comments are hate speech. just as much as those hateful remarks in a black neighborhood or anti-Semitic remarks to Jews or anti-Islamic remarks to Muslims or anti any other people comments would be to those people!! We can't just say "Well, that is those people's beliefs and so they have a right to those beliefs" because it affects other people and you lose your right to say and think whatever you want when it adversely affects other people!! Nazis were free to hate Jews and everybody else that they wanted to hate, as long as they kept that garbage to themselves, but when it spilled out of their heads and mouths and began affecting and killing millions of other people and causing misery in the world, they lost the right to say and think just whatever they wanted to say and think because it just didn't concern them alone any more!! The same with homophobes: they can think and say whatever they want about gay people among other homophobes and to themselves, but NOT!!! when their hate speech and hate thoughts begin adversely affecting gay people and working against their freedom!! Hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech and not an example of it and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Hate speakers want to hide behind the 1st Amendment and claim that that gives them the "right" to spew whatever garbage they want on to other people, but that is more evidence of their wrong thinking and being out of touch with reality!! Speaking out against hateful people isn't hate speech because they are the ones who are hating and this is just retaliation against that and giving them back what they give to other people, since, otherwise, no hatefulness commited or spoken by anyone could ever be contradicted and fought against!! We didn't fight a war against the Nazis because we thought that "That is just their belief and they have a right to their own beliefs, even though they are hurting and killing other people because of those beliefs", to reiterate my point once more. Hate speech is only against non-hateful people, who aren't doing you or anyone any harm and are minding their own business, as they expect you to be and as you should be doing. This clearly is the case with speech directed against gay people by homophobes, which makes it hate speech. "Doing harm to someone" doesn't mean just your not liking what someone is saying or not liking that person because, if it were, nobody with any different opinion than yours about anything would have the right to that opinion, which is ridiculous, but refers specifically to bodily or psychological or emotional harm done to another person. Nobody gets to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre hecause of the danger of the people's stampeding for the exits and some people's getting trampled or killed and anyone who does so risks being put in jail or prison for public endangerment!! Likewise, homophobes don't have the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded world against homosexuals and risk their being beaten or killed because of their inciting other people to acts of violence or murder against them because that is an abuse of free speech. Your right to swing your fists around ends at somebody else's nose and your right to swing a baseball bat or two by four ends at somebody else's head!! Freedom also doesn't mean just whatever anyone wants it to mean, but only exercising your rights until they impinge on other people's rights, with whom you share this world (other than just their not liking you or approving of you or resenting your very existence "impinging", according to them, on their rights, as homophobes think and say about gay people wrongly, which nothing can be done about and is irrelevant and ridiculous!!). You agreed that we don't live in a theocracy, but said that churches can still decide to deny gay people their rights because of their belief that gayness is "immoral", which is really the same as saying "Yeah, we really do live in a theocracy because these churches can go against the laws of the country guaranteeing equality and freedom for gay people". If they don't want to follow our laws in this country giving gay people equality, then they should start their own country where there is no higher law than their Bible, which is a theocracy, but as long as they still live here in this country, they should abide by our laws which give equality to gay people. Serial killers may also "think" that they are "loving" people by killing them, but they don't have the right to act on that belief and kill people, and neither do homophobes have the right to act on their beliefs and impinge on gay people's rights and indirectly cause gay people physical harm or death. This post is already way too long and so I'll end it here and reply to your other points later and wait for your reply.
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Thank you for your further explanation. I don't agree with a lot of it. I do agree gays ought to have all the freedoms to the public sector as everyone should. I also support freedom of speech & freedom of religion of owners of businesses to express their conscience. I do not support businesses denying service based on discrimination.
No, our country is NOT a theocracy. And so NO, a theocracy doesn't get to be enforced on everyone else. Such as the theocracy of turning the expectations of the public sector (referring to expectations you agree with) into a morality to be enforced upon the private sector as well. Yes, a person can search for a country that provides enforcing such a theocracy on the private sector; but it is not the United States with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. A country with a theocracy such as that doesn't allow people to have private clubs exempt from public laws - or allow people to do what they want even privately in their own homes; but it is not the United States with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
"... while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose." https://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil.../private_discriminate_religious.htm .
As much as you may hate the beliefs of others regarding what actions are WRONG that you do not consider WRONG, or people who believe their race to be superior to other races, or a gender to be superior to the opposite gender - you don't get to enforce your ideal theocracy on the private sector.
If gays want to have a church that denies heterosexuals as immoral - they can do that, because our country allows for that, and it's called freedom (yes we can still make babies without heterosexuals having sex). Freedom is all people allowed complete and equal freedom to the public sector; and all people allowed complete and equal freedom to do as they want in the private sector. Yes, laws determine what is "common sense" for both sectors - which in turn is determined by the "people" whether those laws really are common sense. And, all that still fails - but continuing to try can't be a bad thing. It's our country's vision to achieve complete and equal freedom for public and private sectors. Public sectors the freedom to know it's all inclusive; and private sector the freedom of personal preferences to be exclusive if so chosen.
"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States & "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[11] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
Hate speech can also be perpetrated on hateful people. You can have a group of homosexuals throwing racial slurs at Asians because those particular homosexuals hate Asians; and those very same Asians throwing slurs back at the homosexuals because they hate homosexuals. You can have a group of people who detest eating pigs throwing all sorts of hate speech at people who do eat pigs. And, who are the haters there? The people wanting to save the intelligent pig? Or, the pig killer supporters eating the pigs? Really it's pretty hateful to kill anything - and that's coming from me who eats lots of meat. Using hate speech at people for hating people, is in itself hate speech. Things get absurd in a hurry when "hate speech" is illegal. People ought be allowed to express their religions in the U.S. that has freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech to express an opinion that homosexuality is sinful most definitely does NOT compare to outright killing someone. Anyone from the "stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" era, abundantly understands the absurdity in that comparison. The laws in our country support moral law (such as thou shall not kill). And, killers who think otherwise are punished under this Country's laws (if caught). And, yes, if they don't like it - they can try finding a country that supports their beliefs.
BTW, tax exemption is legal to remove from private sector entities that are not upholding public anti-discrimination laws.
-
Sheila
Rev. John D. Partin - Sorry for the double post. One disappeared - so over 12 hours later, tried again and they both showed up as in moderation.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Sheila, the double standard between calling homosexuality "sinful" and actual loving teaching of God is, quite obviously, that that teaching isn't loving toward gay people and condemns them for what they just naturally are and so the teaching isn't from God!! I don't know what your reason is for knowing that that teaching is a double standard, since you said that you had one, but that is my reason for calling it a double standard. I get very suspicious when people in the Bible or out here in the world tell me that they know what God thinks about anything or that "He has revealed his will or word to them" because we have only their word about that and anybody can say anything and then say "It's from God" and since there is no way for us to check that out directly with God, we're stuck with just their word for it, which makes all who take their word for it very naive and gullible people and in desperate need of being sold a bridge or some "prime Florida real estate" (swamp land!). I wouldn't trust these people about directions across town, much less telling me what God thinks about anything or has on his mind!! Homophobic Bible writers just put their own views and words against homosexuality into God's mouth in the Bible, in order to "sanctify" and "justify" them and impose them on other people much easier and control them. That is what makes that belief that homosexuality is a "sin" a double standard, since those Bible writers didn't and conservatives and homophobes today don't speak for God. God is love and, therefore, nothing that is truly love is contradictory or antithetical to God. Homophobes' "thinking" that homosexuality is "contradictory to love" and its actually being so are two entirely different things, especially since homophobes don't even know the truth about themselves when they falsely believe that they are "in line with godly love and truth" and so, obviously, couldn't know the truth about homosexuality, either, or its standing in God's sight. There were even homosexual lovers in the Bible (David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Jesus and John the disciple) and they were approved by God and so homosexuality couldn't be against God's will or outside of his love. You have a great many thoughts and questions in your posts and so I will have to reply to them in segments, but, at least, have tried to answer your question here about the belief that homosexuality is "sinful"'s being a double standard. Let me know if I did so to your satisfaction and reply soon.
-
-
-
-
-
Secretary3rd
Then the gay truck drivers also have their right not to buy from the baker, deliver goods to the bakers, maybe the insurance company will also look if that is a problem. They will go out of business when others who believe they are wrong refuse to deal with them.They can be undercut by another business.
-
kimberly
there are no gay truck drivers.
-
Lionheart
I don’t know how you come up with your comments Kim, unless your comment was meant as a joke. I know of two gay truck drivers, and one of them is a woman.
?❤️
-
kimberly
When driving, gay is irrelevant. It's only while not driving that truckers exchange loads.
-
Tom B
Kim...i appreciate your sense of the ridiculous...and as I have said before; if your business is supported/protected by municipal/sounty/State/federal services, such as police, fire, sanitation etc, which are paid for by taxes, you have no right to discriminate against any member of the public...Peace...Tom B
-
Howard
Good humorous reply. Let those who insult you read into it any way they want to.
-
kimberly
Breaking News from Tea Party Pac...………….. Pedophilia Next Stop On The Sexual Deviance Normalization Agenda - Massive Child Pornography Ring Out Of Toronto Busted...
-
kimberly
That's the problem.....perverts used to be satisfied with being private. Now they want publically noticed.
-
-
-
-
-
LISA L KOHLER
Remember the golden rule?? Treat others the way you would like to be treated. I choose respect and compassion. Get on board people!
-
John Matthews
This thread is to bait people to make comments. Unfounded, gossip laden, hateful comments. Using the religious belief defense for picking and choosing who is allowed commerce within any business is against the existing civil law code for most Americans. Christians, for example, believed for decades that the black person was not to be dealt with on any level because they had the mark of Cain. Absolutely ridiculous, but true. So why can't we deny service or goods because of one's skin color? Federal law, which trumps state laws, prohibits that discrimination, no matter the religious belief.
One could use that defense in not serving a black person in their store according to the thinking of the supporters of the recent SCOTUS ruling. Religious freedom means that the government cannot enter your place of worship and tell you how to conduct services or how to believe. Crossing the public line changes all of those protections. When dealing with the public, religious law is not the standard; any religion's laws. Civil law takes over and there are laws in place to prevent most discrimination cases. LGBTQ discrimination does not fall under the existing discrimination laws in every state. That will come, and, from the federal government.
As far as the SCOTUS, it did not side with the baker's religious discrimination of gay marriage or their freedoms concerning their religious beliefs. It stemmed from the decision given by a lower court and the justification thereof. Gay marriage is legal in every state because the federal government stepped in, as they should. Marriage is not a religious condition in the USA. It is a legal status. A church can decide who their clergy can marry. Ask the Methodists, who will be splitting in the next couple of years because of this subject. Regardless, using religious convictions when dealing with the public can not be reasons to deny goods or services.
The best example I can think of is the following: I own a mom and pop grocery store in a small town. A single, pregnant woman comes into my store and wants to buy milk. I refuse to sell it to her because she is pregnant out of wedlock and, therefore, is a sinner. I am firm in my religious beliefs and will not sell to known sinners. Am I right to refuse to sell to her? Am I serving my Christian beliefs? Wake up and smell the coffee people.
For you Christians out there, Jesus dealt with sinners much more than believers. And using the Bible to justify denying commerce to non-believers is wrong. There is no scripture supporting the denial of commerce based on religious belief as these bakers did.
And one more point then I will quit. We get laws changed in this country by doing exactly what the couple did in Oregon. Whether or not they really wanted a cake is not the point. Using that act to get a law changed is perfectly legal; perfectly in concert with our rights as Americans and a non-violent way to get the public and the authorities involved. Good for them.
Take the emotion out of the conversation people. Use fact to support your position. Use respect to discuss the subject. Too many on this site are using foul language and raw emotion to justify their opinion. Most will just bypass your diatribe as ignorance personified.
-
Patrick
Yuup,
-
-
john shephard
A private business operating in public has the right to refuse service to anyone on the basis of their conscience and spiritual beliefs. Gender rights do not supercede spiritual rights.
-
jim mertz
The choice to serve any customer is that of the businessperson. If they offend anyone then the customer has the right to "vote with their feet" and shop elsewhere. A wise business owner does not let personal belief and feeling interfere with feeding his family and employees. As a corporate store owner and eventual owner I always apply the 250 rule ... ie. that every customer influences 250 people. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Commerce is commerce, business is business. I believe it is best to Influence others with love, inner peace, and patience, the ways I'd like to think Jesus taught. Unless business and bankers try to bend the church to its will ... then the fury of Jesus should be shown.
-
kimberly
1 John 5:16
-
Lionheart
"It does not to dwell on dreams and forget to live"
Albus Dumbledore
?♥️
-
Carrie
Excellent!
-
-
-
Ben
There is NO WHERE written in the Bible that anyone can justify Christian religion against doing business. So anyone who uses the Bible as a shield and justification for not making a cake needs to go back and read the book and understand to do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets. Again - NO WHERE does the BIBLE say treat others with disrespect when you disagree with their lifestyle....
-
Sheila
Kim, 1 John 5:16 says to pray for people. It doesn't say to deny service.
-
kimberly
It says there are two kinds of sin and o e kind isn't helped by prayer. Prayer includes capitulation and/or acceptance which infers offering to participate. It's up to the conscience to decide what participation is.
-
Sheila
Kim - So are you saying deny service, or you are not praying for the person?
-
kimberly
One or both based on conscience. I wouldn't pray for a murderer and certainly wouldn't sell a gun to one.
-
Sheila
Kim - Sorry, I'm still not seeing the message of "deny service" within 1 John 5:16.
But, I can understand not selling a gun to a murderer. I just don't see 1 John 5:16 saying that.
-
-
-
-
-
JR
There is a fundamental difference between (1) refusing to sell the cake and (2) offering to sell the cake but refusing to decorate it in a specific manner (i.e., create art that is offensive). The mixing the two issues into one merely expands our societies challenges. I continue to wonder why someone wouldn't simply take their business to a location that welcomed their business - while the solution isn't always that simple, at least in the circumstances of the subject of these lawsuits, it is.
-
Sheila
JR - you ask, "I continue to wonder why someone wouldn’t simply take their business to a location that welcomed their business" If it were me, it'd be because I'm looking for the best deal for the quality of cake I'm happy with. And, I wouldn't want to be forced to go somewhere else not as good as what I wanted.
Segregated drinking fountains etc. were really sucky about inequality in quality comparison.
Discrimination doesn't belong in the public sector.
Though I did respect a barber who refused to cut hair for women. I put myself in his shoes to realize there's something he most definitely doesn't like about that; and so why would I want to do that to him?
But, I don't like to be barred from getting to buy what I want.
-
-
Warren Maas
Wow... Before some of you get upset and crazy over my comments, please rwmember that they are just my comments and opinion.
I have been a minister with the ULC for Some time and have preformed many weddings. Gay, straight, interracial and on and on.. My one big question that I ask is if they love each other. This is the most important thing in any situation in life. LOVE. Without it you are just entering a contract between each other.
The real issue here, in my opinion, is did rhe couple really want the cack because they couldwnt gwt married without it, or did they just look to a way to get their 15 mind of fame? Was the couple truly spiritually in love? Or were they looking to make a profit on someone else's beliefs?
It would seem that id the couple were truly spiritual and felt love for others th a t they would have moved along to another baker and gave their business to someone else and let it go. Instead of filling their hearts with hate for the baker, why not extend a,Thank you any way and move on.
The most important thing, at least to me, would be that me and my solemate were getting married to each other and the cake is just a cake that would,be eaten by the guests.
It just seems that with all the members of the ULC posting, some seem to forget that, like the ULC, we should be all inclusive of each other's beliefs and love without conditions. Their is enough hate to go around without adding to it.
May you all have love, light and faith.. No matter what God or religion you follow.
-
Patrick
Right on Warren
-
-
Tagh
Does the bakery also ask if their products are going to be used by adulterers? Or at a meeting of the pedophile organization North American Man-Boy Love Association? Or by witches? All those things are, I believe, explicitly listed in the Bible as sins, and any "good Christian" should condemn them. If they're claiming the right to not serve gays because their religion is against homosexuality, then why aren't they being equally vociferous about not serving pedophiles, adulterers, or witches? I'll bet you anything that when a man comes in to their store and asks for a cake that shows a picture of a man holding hands with a child, they don't ask what it's for, or whether the picture is supposed to represent a man and his son or a man about to have sexual relations with a child -- they take the money and make the cake.
-
Sheila
If you offer a christian meat, the christian isn't supposed to ask if it was sacrificed to an idol. The christian is to eat the meat unless it's not their custom/conscience to eat meat.
If the christian is informed that the meat was sacrificed to an idol, the christian is NOT to eat the meat for the sake of the consciences of everyone involved (included the person/people who sacrificed it to an idol).
Based on that, "don't ask" might be wise for the baker. And, "don't tell" might be wise for the buyer. You know, for the sake of respecting consciences.
But, if the baker knows it's a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding, the baker, in my opinion, would be of good conscience to tell the homosexuals his beliefs against homosexuality (free speech) and make the cake. That way the baker can feel of good conscience knowing he evangelized or otherwise corrected his fellow christians (all depends on whether the homosexuals are christian or not). The cake would be a reminder of what all the baker told the homosexuals.
-
-
Richard Lowell
If the baker claims it's religious beliefs prevented it from selling the cake to the gay couple, what would it say if I was poor and asked for a free cake? Or homelessand asked to sleep on it's porch? We cannot in good conscience pick and choose the parts of a system of beliefs that we want to follow. Hipocrisy is the Achilles heel of most people who wrap themselves in the mantle of "religion".
-
Janis Sommers
the baker was not on trial for how he treats homeless or poor people, or for how he practices his Catholic Faith. His Bigotry was singled out for one reason. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I would wonder if he will bake for a Trans couple where one or both has been male or female and now present as heterosexual.
-
kimberly
Would you rather they bake the cake and use rat poison in It? Jesse Jackson used to spit in white folks food when he prepared it. He would have been more right to have refused to make the food
-
Margaret Mcdonald
Just been reading all these comments some of u call urself Christian's really just cos u go to church/chapel & pay tithes doesn't make u Christian I believe the bible says that jesus said 'wot u do to others u do to me ' treating another HUMAN being gay/straight/bi with disrespect u r disrespecting jesus & his teachings. This is the 21st century folks things have changed in 2000 yrs treat all with respect & love no matter wot religion or sexual orientation they r remember there is only 1 race 'THE HUMAN RACE'
-
-
-
Rebecca Hood
Here's an idea. Just don't do wedding cakes for anyone, period. That's probably not where they make the most money anyway.
-
steven nagle
"But opponents point out such a standard is nonsense because it could be applied arbitrarily to justify discrimination against other groups, too. According to this logic, they insist, a bartender could theoretically refuse to mix up a cocktail for someone of Hispanic descent, and a nail salon could refuse service to a Jewish woman. After all, how does one define what is, or is not, art?"
- Absolute truck. I have never heard such stupidity in my life. The reality is that there is no religious principle against offering a cocktail to Hispanics, and no religious principle of refusing nail services to Jews. Furthermore, this is obviously an agenda being pushed to incite hatred and is demonstrating that in a society of equal rights, "gays" are afforded 'more equality' than Christians. It's utterly pathetic.
-
Carl Elfstrom
Two figurines of men in tuxedos on top of a cake doesn't necessarily mean a gay wedding. It could mean two men entering into a business partnership, or some other totally unrelated event. I bet that couple didn't tell the baker to bake a cake for their gay wedding, so how would they know what it was for. I've never had to explain to a baker what I was going to do with a cake. No questions were ever asked.
-
kimberly
they targeted the bakery because of its known "Christian" owners and they requested the owners participate in the wedding. The owners refused. It wasn't just about baking a cake.
-
Rick
Selling a cake is not participation in the wedding. It's food that's served to the guests after the ceremony.
-
-
Janis Sommers
Carl, that's a stretch. To use two men in tuxedos as a cake topper IS a definite indication it's a wedding cake. And these guys were regular customers of the bakers. I'm more convinced the law suits were frivolous and came from self-rightous posturing or shocked disappointment that their bakers wouldn't make their cakes.
-
Keith Eash
Oh please. The meaning of the symbol is very clear. It doesn't mean two men entering a business deal. Don't be so naive .
-
-
Alicia
How can the baker be called out for discrimination when the couple who first sued him for not baking a wedding cake were long-time customers who were provided many cakes by this baker? The baker did not discriminate because they are gay. He is simply a good Christian who sticks to his faith even if it means not making that sale.
At this point, all those suing this guy are just harassing him. They know his beliefs, yet they constantly go to him to ask for cakes for things he cannot, in good conscience, support. He doesn't care that they are gay. He has served them before. He just could not make a same sex wedding cake.
-
Janis Sommers
hey, the Gay guys lost.
-
-
Carrie
Public is public....When you open your doors to the "public" that tends to mean everyone. I would suppose you shouldn't open to the public but instead put up a big sign that states in bold letters who you won't serve! Oh, but wait, you can't do that, it will drive humans away! Too bad, so sad....if you aren't prepared to serve whomever is willing to pay, you ARE in it for the money, aren't you? If that is the case, shut your doors, shut your mouth and open a private business!
-
kimberly
the point is that gaybos purposely targeted the bakery. These pervs knew before stepping in the door the owners wouldn't approve what they asked. disgusting. It was a deliberate attack on people minding their own business.
-
Lori
Kimberly, you're the worst Christian I've ever encountered. Just a bit off.
-
kimberly
I'm not a Christian. I don't see the Bible ever saying Jesus was God.
-
Janis Sommers
they are Gay but pervs is a word allocated to all sexual preferences. To be on this site and use that word to describe Gay men is a sad and sorry state of affairs for you. I believe soul searching would be your next step.
-
Keith Eash
Apparently you have a veil before your eyes. Jesus makes it very clear he is God. Read the Gospels again. Especially John. Do so with a truly opened mind.
-
kimberly
No veil.....John is most adamant that Jesus was NOT some kind of pagan derived half breed between God and humanity.
-
kimberly
I don't accept the doctrine of the immortal soul as biblical
-
Sheila
Kimberly, what is it that God wants humanity to be doing?
Also, were christians in the Bible doing what He wanted them to be doing? Was that all the right thing for them to being for that time and place?
I think this previous question I asked you probably derails into discourse that isn't meaningful: "Can you think of any group in the Bible, besides Abraham, that didn’t have organizational agenda that includes claiming a calling to usurp a religious work with the perpetuation of such work based on the premise that the power involved depends on money while claiming some form of abstract spirituality?"
-
-
Lori
As I said, "Just a bit off". It's hard to tell what you're trying to prove.
-
Lori
So Kim, if you're not a Christian what path do you lay claim to? I'd love to hear what you have to say. I'm sure it involves you being very full of yourself.
-
kimberly
Lori. I'm an religious atheist who acknowledges the existence of an absolutely singular God and the validity of the Bible record. My convictions are absolute based on objectively vigorous study and introspection in conjunction with being a degreed scientist.
-
Sheila
Kimberly - you say, "I’m an religious atheist..." Finally. Nice to know what denomination you are. I don't know why that was so hard for you to answer.
BTW, "absolute based on objectively" is incapable of attaining the whole picture. Only intuition is capable of that.
-
Amy Varela
Kim, if this is true: "I’m an religious atheist who acknowledges the existence of an absolutely singular God and the validity of the Bible record" then you are not an atheist. Generally speaking, atheists either do not believe in a supernatural being or they are not convinced one exists. If you acknowledge the existence of a singular God, you are a theist. The bible is a collection of myths. Either that, your your singular god is a mass murderer.
-
Sheila
Kimberly - "absolute based on objectively vigorous study and introspection in conjunction with being a degreed scientist" is also incapable of attaining the whole picture. Only intuition is capable of that.
But, I'd agree that your process and capabilities are valuable.
-
kimberly
Amy...most athiests rejection religion. Not God. They simply think the two are equivalent and falsely so
-
Sheila
Kimberly - what's your definition of an atheist?
-
kimberly
Somebody smart enough to see religion is false but too stupid to understand it has nothing to do with the existence of God.
-
Sheila
Kimberly – what’s your definition of religion?
-
kimberly
Any who take the specificity of the scriptures and apply it generically to an organizational agenda that includes claiming a calling to usurp a religious work with the perpetuation of such work based on the premise that the power involved depends on money while claiming some form of abstract spirituality.
-
Sheila
Kimberly- thank you for sharing your definition of religion.
BTW, can you think of any group in the Bible, besides Abraham, that didn't have organizational agenda that includes claiming a calling to usurp a religious work with the perpetuation of such work based on the premise that the power involved depends on money while claiming some form of abstract spirituality.
Jesus did that, and He did depend on money. (Not that He needed to)
I removed Abraham from the mix because he flatly refused compensation on a regular basis.
Also BTW, I agree with Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions, particularly # 3 &4 3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
-
kimberly
Sheila.....As for what mankind should be doing...preparing the world for the coming of God. Naturally we aren't so Jesus must return to do it and with power. 1 Cor 15:28
As for religious organizations...There have been many and innumerable gods.
-
Lori
Wow Kim, you really don't know what an atheist is. It's the rejection of the beliefs supporting religion and the existence of any supernatural being/beings. Thank you for answering me, though. It's obvious that there is nothing anyone here can say that will fix what you have going on. Bright blessing to you.
-
Sheila
Kimberly - What would mankind be doing if it were preparing the world for the coming of God?
-
-
-
Rick
Every time that story gets told, it's been embellished with additional dramatic details.
At first it was a simple story that had the gay couple being turned away by the baker, and walked out without a cake.
Next time, the engaged couple had the nerve to complain about it, instead of just meekly leaving the store. Why couldn't they accept being humiliated, and how dare they demand equal treatment?!
The next version has another bakery right across the street they could've patronized, but deliberately targeted the Christians out of sheer hate. Destroying their business was a part of that evil Gay Agenda we keep hearing about.
When the story gets told again, the store across the street has a banner in the window that says, "Gay weddings a specialty here!" But they gays persisted in their evil plan to force the poor, innocent Christian baker to go to court, and answer for having broken civil laws about equal treatment.
But what doesn't get told is what we all know. These bakers with their "sincere, closely held beliefs" are disingenuous liars. Still smarting from having lost the culture wars, they thought they'd found a clever way to raise their middle finger at the gays, and get away with it. And everybody knows it.
-
Sheila
Rick - far more likely that the bakers are fervently praying that the gays turn heterosexual. A whole lot of christians are that way.
I would hope that instead of refusing the gays, that the baker tell the gays their personal beliefs about homosexuality (free speech) and then make the cake.
There ought not be a problem in making the cake as long as the baker isn't being forced to use the baker's individualized artistic ability to put racial slurs on the cake, or pornography, or gays kissing. But putting 2 same sex people on top of the cake does not involve the heart and soul artistic ability of the baker.
-
-
Howard
Kimberly, I believe you are a Christian. Be careful dealing with Lionheart or Amy, I think they are both trolls. There's little doubt that Lionheart is and it appears that Amy is too. The're only on here to see if they can get a raise out of you. Be comforted in which you know that is true and let them troll somebody else.
-
kimberly
Lion and Amy are beautiful people. I'm the old hag. But thanks for caring.
-
Lionheart
Howard, life is all about how we love. I wish you well.
?❤️
-
kimberly
There is but one kind of life and that is eternal life. Which is life that has ever existed and ever will exist. The life we have equates to the fruit of the womb, the unborn fetus. It is a potential for life. Not life.
-
-
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Kimberly, of course, gay people targeted a homophobic baker, just as black people targeted white racist business owners in the South (and in the North, too!) to make them treat all people fairly and equally---and they were absolutely right in doing so!!! If you were being discriminated against by someone who wouldn't serve homophobic bigots or Trumpelstiltskin idiotic supporters, such as yourself, you and other such idiots as yourself would protest against that and target that business, too, wouldn't you?!! Well, then, maybe you can see why gay and other people with far more legitimate complaints against a business than their being against bigots like you would also target that business in order to force them to do what is right for the public or maybe you can't!! Whether you can or not, it is still right for them to target a bigoted business because that is the only way that their bigotry ever gets exposed and put out of business!!! The business owners weren't just "minding their own business and being inoffensive", but were being unjust and discriminatory and refusing to equally serve the public and so needed to be targeted by gay people!!!
-
Lori
Excellent, Rev. Partin. I think your words were awesome.
-
kimberly
Nonsense. Perverts are not a race of people. They are perverts. Blacks looting businesses is a poor analogy and nonsensical justification for aggressively forcing perversions upon people of conscience.
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Lori. thank you very much for your kind words about my post. I do try my very best to fight against conservatism and homophobia. I think that your posts are very excellent and awesome, too!! Keep up the good work!!
-
-
-
-
Rev Jumama
These bakers are NOT refusing to bake birthday cakes, pies, cookies, etc. for gay people, therefore not discriminatory against gay people . It is their belief (right or wrong) that marriage is only between a man & woman & only refuse for ONE occasion. A bartender that refused to serve a Mexican would be discriminatory. Refusing to serve that same Mexican only under a SPECIFIC circumstance when they believed it to be wrong (right or wrong) would not be.
-
Janis Sommers
good point. I wouldn't bake a Nazi cake
-
Patrick
Well Said Janis, I don't dig the discrimination against same sex marriage however, the business owner should have the right to their belief. A bar that notifies the public that smoking is allowed in the bar should be allowed to do so. I would not go to the bar however they should have the right to advertise and sell to a certain clientele. In our society, businesses are swayed by money.
What happens if people do not patronize the bakers. they close their doors.
of course if the bakers attract a following of gay marriage haters, and the bakery across town attract only gay marriage supporters....We end up with division where no positive dialog can happen.
-
-
-
-
Carl Elfstrom
The world keeps changing, and overall younger generations are more tolerant and accepting of others. I bet in another generation such businesses won't exist.
-
kimberly
This isn't a matter of religion or equal rights. It's a matter of whether a business can be run in a conscientious manner without interference by the government.
-
Sheila
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Do what you're supposed to do, and you get to do what you want.
If you don't want government in your life, then don't be doing things that create an unequal opportunity.
People cut their own throats when they are unethical and/or mean to each other - so then government creates laws to equally protect people. Hence the term "Universal Design" when it comes to handicapped people. What works for handicapped people also usually benefits others without the handicap as well (example: Netflix was sued is why closed captioning is on it - I'm not hear impaired, but I LOVE closed captioning).
You say, "It’s a matter of whether a business can be run in a conscientious manner without interference by the government." You bet! If it's being run in a conscientious manner, there's no need for government interference. Do all the things you're supposed to without realizing there's any laws involved with any of it - and you're golden!
However, government also imposes crap that makes no sense. A necessary evil because it's run by people, and people are sinful.
BTW, "whether a business can be run in a conscientious manner without interference by the government" IS a matter of equal rights. It's unfortunate if you still don't get that.
-
-
Rod Gesner
Imposing Art on Demand on any Artist is a Slippery slope... While I Feel Strongly about Equal Rights. In a Free Market that means the Right to Ask and The Right To Refuse.. If It's the Only Baker in Town or the Best Cake Buy it as a Generic; and ADD Your personal Touches Later.... That's What Icing in a Can or Mix and Squeeze tube is For.. . I find it a Bit disturbing that Any Couple would Want their Wedding Cake; Etc... Done by One Who Differs Strongly with their right to Marry?.! Why Support the BIGOT?? Like Wise if The Wishes and Political Religious Beliefs and Feelings of the Artist Are To Be Ignored; And Their Work To Be Commanding and Directed By Any Person. Then it is No Longer That Artists Expression; But Propaganda on Command... If Then Any Artist Can Be Commanded to Produce Art Against Their own Beliefs.. And Representing Issues That They Do not Support?? We Have a Police State mentality That Confuses the Whole Meaning of Art and Expression... Personally I Find that Doing Custom Art in My Multi media Sculpture Format is Frustrating; as I work with The Shapes and Forms and Critters; Hidden the Wood Grain, Antlers and Stone; If Someone Tries to Tell me to Stylize What is Not there? I CAN'T/ WON'T DO IT.. Like Wise as a Knife and Magical/Practical Tool Maker ? If Someone Comes To ME With Evil intent (Religious or Murderous;) Or Shows They Lack the Competence and Training to Use What I Make.. I Won't Make it/Sell It To Them; And I have Talked more People out of Buying Knives for Self Defense; Than I have Sold.. So While I Believe that Any Public Biz That Serves Food Should not be Allowed to Refuse Service Etc for Bigoted reasons... Asking someone To Create What to them is a Work of Art; Directly Linked to Their beliefs on the Sanctity and Sacredness of Marriage; In a Direct Violation of Their Beliefs.. .Is An Affront to The Very Nature of Freedom of Expression AND Religions That Should Protect ANY Artist..
You Can Try To Educate Bigots.. But You Shouldn't Force them To Take Your Money for Something They Do Not Wish To DO... IE.. You Can Lead a Person To Freedom of Thought; But You Can't MAKE THEM THINK/ACT LIKE YOU DO...
Maybe ULC should Support/Organize A Rainbow Bakers Cooperative To Certify ALL Inclusive Bakeries; So People Know Where Their Wishes Will Be Respected; No Matter Who They Wish To Marry?
-
Keith Eash
Being against homosexuality is not a bigotry. Respect the teachings and beliefs of other religions. Beg to differ fine but name calling gets you nowhere fast But then in our Catholic faith we know where You're heading.
-
Cyril
Being against homosexuality is indeed bigotry. Look up the definition and realize you are incorrect. I do not have to respect the beliefs and teachings of other religions, because they do not respect mine. What I will do is respect the people in those religions and their right to worship as they choose, so long as it harms no one.
It's funny, "catholic" means "united" but you use it to exclude people. Ironic?
-
Sheila
Cyril - "Bigot" defined: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
You are a bigot. You are intolerant toward those who believe homosexuality is wrong. Even if they are not harming anyone by their belief.
I think the definition is overly broad. There's people who think it's TOTALLY ok to steal from a bank. I'm intolerant to that opinion. Fortunately, so is the law.
But, I do think the definition of "bigot" does generally fit for people intolerant of other people's religious beliefs. I'm a total bigot about the idea of cutting someone's hand off for stealing, that "light" wife-beating is ok, etc.
Anyway, you're a bigot. I'm not saying it to bring about conflict, but to bring about awareness.
-
-
-
Sheila
I really like your take on things. This is very well put: "Imposing Art on Demand on any Artist is a Slippery slope…"
And I think bakers definitely should make cakes allowing for the person/people getting to do what they want to with it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it opens the door to supporting racism if religious beliefs are held supreme in the public sector - or otherwise being discriminatory in whatever manner.
One way for a christian to stick to their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong (not all christians believe this, but lots do - and support the belief that it's wrong with what the Bible says) - one way to stick to their beliefs is to let the customer know that they are selling to what their personal religious beliefs are. It's an opportunity to evangelize, or otherwise try to guide a fellow christian if the homosexuals are also christians. The christians who are bakers who believe homosexuality is wrong, can use their freedom of speech to tell homosexuals this.
But, to demand that icing be done to portray a gay couple kissing - that's where imposing art on demand gets into the area of being "wrong to demand that of the artist." But, 2 same sex people on top of the cake - that's not something of pulling at the artist's heart and soul and forcing what ought not to be forced.
That's my take on it anyway. I wish more christian bakers would use the opportunity of free speech rather than lose their business. The person buying from them is also exercising their freedom of religion. There ought to be a way to protect both freedoms of religion. I think free speech accomplishes that.
Oh - I also like your example about selling knives. There's ethics in business to take care not to sell things another person will misuse. Pretty impossible task - but some sales are pretty obvious to think about "what's this going to get used for?"
-
-
Lionheart
“Let them eat cake”
?❤️
-
Lori
I guess what needs to be determined is what the word "Public" means. If you are opening your business to the public, just who is the public? Is it everyone that WANTS to purchase your product, or is it just a chosen few that YOU FEEL DESERVE to purchase your product? I would think that the PUBLIC is everyone, without discrimination. A "Love your neighbor" no matter what, kind of thing. I think that's what Christianity is suppose to be teaching people.......... isn't it?
-
Maiane santo santos
Great comment, I never thought of the “public” angle, picking and choosing isn’t really public, damn gurl fine point.
-
Lori
Thanks Maiane,
-
Don
Far as I know the only public part of any privately owned business is the first 6 feet of the sidewalk. After that, its up to the owners to service or decline service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.
-
-
Rev. Tom Brown
Greetings,
What we do in private is sacrosanct - short of raping the kids.
When we open a church sponsored hospital it operates in commerce under a limited entry permit issued by a state hospital board. The permit is required so as to limit the number of commercial hospitals in business in a certain geographical area order to insure possible financial viability. The permitting process assures a regulatory mechanism for ongoing inspection and regulation of medical services.
When we limit our medical care based on some theological precept we hold as a church, we condemn all the folks in that area to less care then medical science can provide for - because of our personal theological precept.
So in this way Catholic hospitals that refuse to provide birth control and abortions - they are screwing the folks in that area solely because of their own personal theological precepts. This is in contradiction to the standard that Government operates under - which is all theological precepts are viable in the marketplace. That is as long as they do not screw someone out of standard medical care just because some pedophile priest wants to screw some woman who needs birth control pills or an abortion.
So, we need to limit the number of hospitals for financial reasons, and in order to regulate the standard of medical care they provide. That said - No persons theology should dictate to any other person who does not share their theology.
And if you want to be state sponsored and give out tax deductions for contributions to the church, SHAME ON YOU says Jesus, you Temple Maria you.
Check me out at Rev. Tom Brown, Holy Anointing oil for U-tube video
One Love revtombrown
-
Lori
Why would I want to do that? I'm Pagan.
-
kimberly
If you're pagan you shouldn't have any problem raping children.
-
Carrie
What kind of sick, twisted, demented little animal are you? Pagans, Wiccans and Witches all understand the importance of children in our society....more christians, evangelicals and Catholics in particular, have been found guilty more time than any other of pedophilia and child pornography. You are proving yourself to be an ignorant bigot! If you are so important, find another hole, slug.
-
kimberly
http://www.red-alerts.com/blacklist/popular-pagan-website-allows-pedophiles-to-groom-children/
-
Lori
Really? What is wrong with you? As Carrie said, "Find another hole". Once again I say, YOU ARE THE WORST CHRISTIAN I have ever encountered. The Baptists next door treat me with so much respect, even though they know I'm a Pagan. And I respect them. BUT YOU..... I don't think you understand anything Jesus way trying to say.
-
Jay
Troll.
-
kimberly
Trolls eat children dear
-
Amy Varela
Kim, as always, you have no idea what you are talking about. There are moments like this when I hope there is a god, so he will cast you into the lake of fire and brimstone. Alas, we are stuck with your hateful, obnoxious, idiotic comments.
-
-
-
Keith Eash
You're full of crap. Pure and simple. Abortion is murder. You're killing someone made in God's image. As for gay marriage. Anti- religon. Marriage means pro-creation. Gay marriage can't procreate. It goes against what God created. One more reason why God doesn't make people gay. They choose it. He's not going to create something sinful thst goes against what he says. There is only one religion and that is Judeo- Christianity. Salvation from the Jews through Jesus Christ. Pure and simple.
-
Jay
Wrong Keith.
-
kimberly
Mankind was created in it's own unique image...in the image of God's plural. Not in the image of God who is absolutely singular in every way....Not some kind of personality disorder unity.
-
-
Lionheart
To the Christian there is only one religion and that is Christianity.
To the Muslim there is only one religion and that is Islam.
To the Jew there is only one religion and that is Judaism.
To the Hindu there is only one religion and that is Hinduism.
I’m not sure where you were going to with this Keith. It seems you religionists all have the right religion.
?❤️
-
Sheila
I'm a C.S. Lewis christian. If you can fathom how Emeth was saved in "The Last Battle," you can understand ONE religion regardless which ONE, and how that can be utterly INCLUSIVE of all peoples. There is just ONE Way, and Emeth WAS seeking it and WAS on it.
So yeah, if I'm right like I think I am, EVERYONE has the chance of being included - even if they thought they were serving Satan.
ACIM includes the atheist - "He has entered an agreement with God, even if he does not yet believe in Him." Context of text: "A teacher of God is anyone who chooses to be one. His qualifications consist solely in this: Somehow, somewhere he made a deliberate choice in which he did not see his interests as apart from someone else’s. Once he has done that his road is established and his direction is sure. One decision has ensured the direction he will take from then on. A light has entered the darkness. It may be a single light, but it is enough. He has entered an agreement with God, even if he does not yet believe in Him."
Good luck with that!
-
kimberly
religion says the individual is "saved" by some form of traditionalist rhetoric and/or action on their part in which they "accept Jesus". Then, that "being saved" is an evolutionary process toward perfection by being "possessed" by some entity.
The Bible says nobody is "saved" except Jesus, firstborn from the grave. And the Bible says salvation is one singular event at the day of judgement which means being saved from the "second death". And the Bible states that salvation is offered to humanity (not the individual with "many salvations") with one caveat....that there be something worth saving. If not, the salvation event becomes meaningless. So humanity itself is assured of being "saved". But individuals with nothing worth saving don't burn forever in some eternal afterlife. They simply burn up, never to be resurrected while humanity continues into eternity.
big diff.
-
Sheila
Kim, So by your definition, Hinduism is not a religion? Wicca is not a religion? Etc.?
Or, what would be your all encompassing definition of religion?
-
Sheila
Kimberly (sorry you maybe don't like Kim for short) - So by your definition, Hinduism is not a religion? Wicca is not a religion? Etc.?
Or, what would be your all encompassing definition of religion?
-
-
Rev. Tom Brown
You Know Keith, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it. Your theological precept is that abortion is murder. You want to use the power of the state to persecute doctors and women who would practice abortion. So that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but we as a people decided long ago that we enjoy a right of privacy and government cannot be used to invade that privacy. That means that abortion is a medical procedure that is legal and everyone in every county should have access to doctors who will perform all medical procedures they are qualified for. Many of our problems today come from fanatics who want to use government to beat up their neighbors just because they don't like the flowers we grow, or the person we want to have sex with, etc., etc., etc. So Keith, I suggest you move to North Korea, they forbid abortion too.
-
Lionheart
Keith, Keith, your god killed children all the time, so he's obviously okay with it. In fact, not only that, he's also into killing almost the entire world population of not only people, but land born animals as well. He's okay with death, he's okay with stoning people to death, he's okay with drowning them, and we were made in his image....right? I'm sure there were many pregnant women your god killed in the flood, so get over it. Your god is okay with it. He sets the perfect example.....right?
?♥️
-
Lori
Keith and Kim, ultimately, we all decide what direction we go in. It's not up to any of us to judge another person, if they aren't harming others or themselves. Only those with inflated egos resort to the arrogance of tearing down others just because they don't conform to the ego's perception of what they THINK is right. A closed mind keeps a person in constant anger and hatred of things they don't understand and fear.
What do you think will happen to you if you open your heart and mind? What do you think will happen to you if you leave behind a hardened point of view and change it to a loving point of view? Gratitude and love are the things that change us for the better. Choosing to condemn others takes us in the opposite direction. Gay or not makes no difference. It's how you treat others that counts. -
Cyril
When a child is born and it takes its first breath, the soul enters the body. Before that it's just tissue attached to the woman, no soul, not a person. This is my religious belief.
Until you can scientifically prove this belief wrong, and you can't, claiming that an unborn fetus is a person is nothing more than on unfounded opinion. Forcing me to abide by that under law or custom is forcing me to participate in your religion. This is not allowed under the 1st Amendment.
I am willing to agree that it is your right to teach the followers of your religion that abortion is wrong. The followers of your church shouldn't have abortions. If they do, feel free to call them a murderer kick them out of your church. What you don't have is a right to tell people not of your religion that they can't have an abortion. Interfering with that medical procedure is a violation of 1st Amendment rights and should be followed by legal action.
People don't understand marriage. What it isn't is holy matrimony. Marriage is a legal contract giving the partners mutual property rights. In Rome the first marriages were between homosexuals. Women were almost considered property back then. Or they were considered property. So there was no need for a wife to be married to you. But homosexual men who wanted to ensure their property was passed to their mate had to have a legal construct that allowed this to happen. So, marriage.
It has been scientifically proven that homosexuals are born that way. People do not "decide" to become gay.God made them as a gay and you need to accept the scientific proof of that fact (not an opinion, scientific fact). Ignoring the science is nothing other than willful ignorance, which is disrespectful to God. He made them that way so I accept them the way God made them. He happened to make me straight and I am happy with that, because it's his plan. You are the one who is going to answer to him for your hate, good luck with that.
-
Sheila
Cyril - Some people actually do choose to be gay. That is unnatural to be heterosexual, but choose to be gay. Yet, some heterosexual people do it.
But also definitely I think gays who find themselves being successfully heterosexual, that it's fair to argue that is unnatural. But, from my personal beliefs, if they are happy that way, I wouldn't discourage it.
I don't see any links to your "scientific fact" showing that homosexuals are born that way. However, I think it is obvious that most people in a homosexual relationship, or urges to be homosexual, that it IS genetic.
There's also scientific proof that environment also influences whether a person feels homosexual attraction (probably visa versa, too - but I don't know). There's been heterosexual men that when exposed to homosexual men pornography, find themselves feeling homosexual attraction. So people concerned about children being explicitly taught about homosexuality is a legitimate concern. My opinion in that area is murky - but definitely seems legitimate to go with parental instincts on that one for what to expose their kids, too. Which I sure hope isn't some warped teaching that gays are "bad" people. If only it were as simple as "it's genetic." But, it is not that simple. Environment (nurture) HAS been scientifically been scientifically proven to be involved, too.
So there is a "war" of nature vs. nurture involved with whether someone is homosexual or not. But, definitely I think nature (the genetics) wins out most of the time.
The only scientific proof I've seen thus far for homosexuality being genetic is that baby boys get more estrogen (I think it was estrogen - some female hormone) from their mothers with each successive pregnancy of a boy. So, the more boys that were born before a boy, the more likely that boy will be gay. So, that's not quite "genetic" but it is hormones messing around with the genetics of a boy.
-
Sheila
Cyril - I thought of an interesting question for you as to when a person is first alive.
If a person remembers things from when they were in their mother's womb, even months before birth, was that person alive at the time they were thinking? You know, "I think, therefore I am."
I ask because I've met at least one person who remembers things from when she was in her mother's womb. I believed her, because I myself remember back to when I was 2. And even when I was 2, I couldn't remember further back than age 2. I think no anesthesia during a surgery when I was a baby probably caused me to lose memory - because back then it was believed that babies don't feel pain (despite all the crying - go figure). And gross trauma even today causes me localized amnesia.
Sorry diverged. I was just explaining why remembering being in the womb was no shocker to me. Anyway, if it is true that "tissue" within the womb is actually thinking, is that "tissue" alive?
-
Michael Grace
Scientifically proven means nothing as it changes all the time, at one time these were scientifically proven.
- The earth was flat.
- Nothing could go faster than the speed of sound.
And many others.
-
kimberly
there is no soul outside the body and no soul is immortal. Consequently, a "soul" cannot "enter" at birth. The soul begins when life begins. Conception is not the beginning of life however. It is the beginning of the potential for life. The Bible calls the fetus "fruit" and a pregnant woman "with child". Those who destroy the fruit of their labors destroy themselves. Is an early abortion murder? Only God knows. But, the closer to fruit that ripens, the closer to murder it becomes.
-
Rev. Tom Brown
Greetings,
Science has documented and proved the existence of the Soul, existing outside the body for 2.5 hours of surgery, making a memory in the soul body of that 2.5 hours events and then transferring that 2.5 hours of memory into the dead meat upon returning to the body. See "The Day I Died" a BBC documentary on U-Tube for free or at your local public library in the DVD section. You are interested in the musician lady who had unprecedented brain surgery and whose memories - while being 44 degrees F for 2.5 hours - are confirmed by the video,audio, and documentary evidence of her surgery. This is science not theology.
-
-
Adrain
Which god? Oh yeah, your god because it always is. Because I'm wondering which salvation your referring to Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13 or maybe you use Matt 7:21 or maybe Acts 2:39. You and your religious ilk don't seem to understand simple facts and simply pick and choose the current flavor of religious bigotry of the day that suits yourself.
-
Sheila
Adrain - wow - you're such a bigot to be so intolerant of other religions opinions, even when it's just words and no harm is done.
And yeah, of course my God is the real one. It doesn't mean I'm right. It does mean I think I'm right. Apparently your a bigot of that, too (you can't tolerate that harmless opinion)
BTW, you are practicing your religion to have opinions of other religions. By name-calling you are showing your intolerance and bigotry.
-
-
Amy Varela
Where is the bible is abortion mentioned? While we're at it, how do you know the bible a factual document and not a collection of mythical stories? Do you actually worship a god who murders children, all the while saying that abortion is murder? Really? How hypocritical can you be?
-
Sheila
Amy who are you talking to by asking, "Where is the bible is abortion mentioned?" etc.?
-
kimberly
Infanticide is evil in the sight of God. Passing babies through the fire to Molech was a custom that equates with abortion. It allowed unwanted babies to be easily disposed of.
2 Chronicles 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.
-
Lionheart
Yes, infanticide is evil in the sight of god...but oh...wait, that’s exactly what he’s good at...right?
?❤️
-
Carrie
It is most definitely hypocritical when they fight to ban abortion but don't seem to care if the child lives or does once born. Also they are over enthusiastic about executions. Oh well... I guess it takes all kinds.
-
kimberly
Lion....is anyone NOT in the grave from even 150 years ago? Do you blame God for millions of aborted children too? And there is not one person who has yet actually died. True death is the second death from which there is no resurrection. Jesus is the only person to no longer face that possibility. Whether in the grave or not the rest of us have yet to know if we live or die.
-
Lionheart
I of course don’t blame god for anything because I don’t believe he/she/it exists.
I already know of your belief structure implying there is going to be a resurrection. You are welcome to your beliefs. You write it as though you know it’s true, but in reality you don’t. All you’ve done is convince yourself that it’s true with no supporting evidence other than a badly written book of errors.
?❤️
-
-
Rev. John D. Partin
Keith Eash, God definitely makes some people gay because nobody would choose to be gay in this homophobic society and world, where gay people are routinely insulted, disrespected, ostracized, beaten up, and even killed! That would be like somebody's choosing to be Jewish in Nazi Germany! Nobody would do that! God, evidently, doesn't have any problem with gay people because he keeps making more of them, which he wouldn't do if he had a problem with them! It is only the homophobic Bible writers, who put their words into God's mouth, and homophobic "Christians" since then, who had or have a problem with gay people and they don't speak for God!! If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then you're telling straight married couples who can't have their own children that they "aren't married or can't get married", either. The purpose of marriage is uniting two people who love each other (two men or two women or a man and woman) and children are just an added benefit of that, but not necessary to it. Besides, gay couples can adopt children, the same as straight couples can, and that problem is solved! As for "only one way to God", that is ridiculous because God isn't limited to one religion, but is bigger than all of them! Jesus' saying "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man comes unto the Father, but by me" wasn't said about the physical person of Jesus because nobody in two thousand years of Christianity has ever walked through the physical body of Jesus to go anywhere, much less to God. It was said about the spirit of truth, which isn't limited to Jesus or Christianity (and, in fact, is very seldom found in Christianity anymore or through history!), but is found in many other religions and throughout the world, as was shown by Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Krishna, Lao-Tse, and many others. As for "pro-life", that is, most often, just pro-birth, and then to Hell with people after birth, as is evidenced by snobbishness, racism, discrimination, condescension, capital punishment, game playing, violence, bigotry, homophobia, and other anti-life actions and attitudes against people all the rest of the way through life down to the grave, even in the churches, whereas true pro-life is from cradle to grave.
-
-
Howard
Sir. There is no way that you can say that anyone can be required to perform abortions, which is just a nice way of saying Infanticide, Which is the intentional killing of infants.You disappoint me greatly if you really are a Rev.
-
Sheila
I absolutely agree. NO ONE ought to be required to perform abortions. If a doctor finds herself/himself ending a baby's life (not born yet) to save the mother - that on the conscience of the doctor of what to do save his patient. Because of that, a whole lot of people would not consider that to be an abortion.
I think it'd be so awesome to figure out how to remove the baby (prior actual birth), and implant in someone else. Particularly cool would be to put it in the dad if he wants to save the baby's life. Baby's have been born successfully who were attached to women's livers. With the right hormones a male ought to be able to do it.
But, more viable by far likely is that if the dad hired a female to carry the baby to term that the conception mom does not want.
Most of the time females and males have the choice not to put themselves in the situation of the possibility of a pregnancy occurring (abstinence). But, if you are homosexual, that works too for not getting pregnant (as long as you really are engaging with the same sex).
-
Amy Varela
Who is forcing anyone to perform an abortion? It isn't infanticide, by the way, because a fetus is not an infant. The one who killed infants was the god of the bible. He disappoints me greatly.
-
Lionheart
Right on Amy, and the god of the Bible more than likely not only killed infants but also killed many pregnant mothers during the flood. He’s such a nasty piece of work that has anger management issues, and amazingly people worship him.
?❤️
-
Sheila
Amy - You ask, "Who is forcing anyone to perform an abortion?" Here's an answer for you: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/forcing-doctors-perform-abortion/
-
Howard
Amy, please be careful you're dealing with the troll that shouldn't even be on this site.
-
Sheila
LOL
-
-
-
Shawn D Grothe
Reverend the county I live in only has two hospitals one is a secular hospital the other is a religious-based hospital religious-based hospital does not do abortions and it does not do birth control and yet they are more popular in my county than the secular hospital.
-
kimberly
Tom brown.....eventually raping kids will be put forth as a good thing the way things are going
-
-
-
Janis Sommers
public does not mean everyone. It just means outside of ones private domain, in my book. I'd like to think I have control over who I do business with. The suit is frivolous and why the need to sue ever entered these men's minds is purely a Gay thing. It's your wedding. Why bring a suit against someone who doesn't want to celebrate with you? What if the baker poisoned them? This is not how Love shows itself on either side of the equation. Now, being a Lesbian, myself, I know there are lots of Gay businesses that only cater to Gays. They find little ways to discriminate against straight people and women. I will boldly and assumingly brag, the majority of Lesbians in the world, on the other hand, go out of our way to help, please, and accommodate anyone because we know the Goddess supports this Love. We do, however, relish a space that is totally women, but not a business where our goal is to make money.
-
Michele
Exactly! I totally agree with you.
-
Chaplain J. Jacob
Excellent point, Lori. To me it just seems to take on the spirit of how "White Americans" treated anyone-who-wasn't a "White American"... same racism, different packaging...
-
Rosa
Lori.... I agree with you 1000%. I couldn't have said it better....
-
To see evil and not call It evil is evil.
So. Comrade Kim. by your own statement here, my and other people's seeing your evil and not calling it evil would itself be evil. Well, it's good that you're finally coming around to seeing and admitting that you deserve to be called evil! We are certainly making excellent progress with you!!