Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 121 of 1484 (802248)
03-14-2017 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rrhain
03-13-2017 6:11 PM


Re: related issues
Rrhain writes:
So the bus strike, the lunch counter sit-ins, Rosa Parks, all of that was counter-productive? If you're just nice and wait for the bigots to do the right thing, they'll do so?
Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.
The real bigots won't change, you need the hearts and minds of the average guy to change to actually make the difference. You only way to do that is to become the norm - nice, ordinary and everyday. Nothing to see here.
You really think gay people have "won"?
Yes. Well at least here in the UK - can't really speak for the USA but it seems to me that they have what they wanted now enshrined in law. While there are still battles to be won, it seems a better tactic to me to fight those specific battles not bugger about with cakes and bakers.
What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?
See above.
It's been 150 years since the end of the Civil War. Surely racism has ended because all the bigots died off, right?
The battle against racism is being won but it takes time and perseverance to change the majority mind. It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 6:11 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:15 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2017 7:52 PM Tangle has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 122 of 1484 (802249)
03-14-2017 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
03-13-2017 8:16 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
My understanding is that DOMA was enacted when it looked like Hawaii might allow gay marriage.
Yep, because Congress *never* passes redundant legislation.
quote:
I would argue that it would fare better now.
Given that there is precedent for marriages not really being as portable as we might think, that there is case law that allows one state to deny the marriage license of another state, I wouldn't be that confident. A law that is common in many states is that if the marriage being entered into would not be legal in the home state of the participants, then it is invalid. This was a problem when Massachusetts established marriage equality: The law in Massachusetts says that if your home state wouldn't let you get married, you can't get married in MA. Despite the fact that MA allows same-sex couples to get married, the law of another state affects whether or not it's valid. They are pro-actively denying your marriage in order to prevent people coming to MA just to get married and leave.
quote:
But isn't your example about a Canadian marriage?
Yes, but there is a similar concept regarding recognition of marriages from other countries in the law.
quote:
And isn't the case one that never made it to the Supreme Court, or in fact any federal court?
Yes, but because everybody understood there was no point.
Again, my point is that there is legal precedent that allows states to deny marriages from other states...to the point that they pro-actively stop you from getting married if it will be illegal when you get home.
Remember, we're dealing with justices who have no problem ignoring their own rulings. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided, Scalia directly stated that that decision necessarily required the recognition of same-sex marriage. So when Obergefell came before him, did he follow his own decision? Of course not.
This is the problem regarding the Texas attempt to undo Obergefell by saying that yeah, you can get married as a same-sex couple, but that doesn't mean we have to provide any rights to you. That's why the various states trying to pass "religious freedom" laws, as well as Congress trying to do so, are problematic: Yeah, you can get married, but you don't have any recourse if you are discriminated against for it. South Dakota just passed a law with the governor signed which allows gay people to be discriminated against based on "religious freedom."
Now, that exact line of reasoning was used against the end of segregation: To require businesses to treat black customers the same was a violation of "religious freedom." It wasn't accepted then, but we've already seen that the courts are happy to treat gay people as if the 14th Amendment doesn't apply (which Scalia said it doesn't.) Loving v. Virginia was a unanimous decision...Obergefell, despite being exactly the same case, was 5-4.
There is no guarantee that the court system would look to FFC with regard to marriage equality.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 8:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 5:25 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 123 of 1484 (802250)
03-14-2017 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
03-14-2017 4:23 AM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
As if marriage equality were "the main battle."
That's precious. You really believe that, don't you?
You do realize that in more than half the US, the right to get married means the right to get fired, lose your housing, be denied education, etc., yes? Most of the country provides no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So if you get married, your boss is perfectly free to then fire you since you just came out.
quote:
The real bigots won't change, you need the hearts and minds of the average guy to change to actually make the difference.
And they will never change until they are confronted. The most effective thing we have found regarding getting people to become supportive of the "other" is to actually know someone. And that means demanding that they treat you with the respect and dignity they treat others. If you allow yourself to be a doormat, they won't have any reason to stop treating you like one.
quote:
You only way to do that is to become the norm - nice, ordinary and everyday. Nothing to see here.
Completely wrong.
"Nothing to see" means you're not seen. And when you're not seen, nobody cares when you are trampled upon.
quote:
Yes. Well at least here in the UK - can't really speak for the USA but it seems to me that they have what they wanted now enshrined in law.
Oh? There's still no marriage equality in Northern Ireland. And we have touched the overseas territories (the Caribbean territories, for example, are very far behind.) And many of the reforms in the UK have only come after fights going to the European Union.
quote:
While there are still battles to be won, it seems a better tactic to me to fight those specific battles not bugger about with cakes and bakers.
And how is "cakes and bakers" not precisely those battles? As we call it here in the US: Equal treatment under the law. That means when the anti-discrimination statutes cover sexual orientation, then the "cakes and bakers" don't get to discriminate against you. For every time you allow an exception, you invite a claim for another exception.
quote:
quote:
What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?
See above.
You haven't actually mentioned anything other than marriage.
You didn't really think that was "the main battle," did you?
quote:
The battle against racism is being won but it takes time and perseverance to change the majority mind.
But slavery is over. We "won the main battle" so now we "calm down," right? I mean, there are laws preventing discrimination so we can "calm down," right? Why should anybody who is rejected from a hotel for being black put up a fight since the "main battle" of getting the anti-discrimination laws were won? Blacks should "become the norm - nice, ordinary, and everyday," making sure there's "nothing to see here" by daring to demand that those laws be enforced.
quote:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
I'll just leave this here:
If only the gay people could be *nicer,* the bigots wouldn't be so nasty to them!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 4:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 7:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 1484 (802251)
03-14-2017 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 4:25 AM


Re: related issues
Yes, but there is a similar concept regarding recognition of marriages from other countries in the law.
Similar, perhaps. But quite clearly FFC would not apply in such a case, and that's the principle under discussion.
Again, my point is that there is legal precedent that allows states to deny marriages from other states...to the point that they pro-actively stop you from getting married if it will be illegal when you get home.
Yes, but under current law and under current understanding of the constitution, things like laws against interracial marriage and laws against gay marriage would get no respect, and thus would not constitute a valid legal exception.
emember, we're dealing with justices who have no problem ignoring their own rulings. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided, Scalia directly stated that that decision necessarily required the recognition of same-sex marriage. So when Obergefell came before him, did he follow his own decision? Of course not.
Obviously, all bets are off if we include this into the discussion. The Courts makeup is in flux right now, and there is some chance that more positions may open up for Trump to appoint.
When Lawrence v. Texas was decided, Scalia directly stated that that decision necessarily required the recognition of same-sex marriage. So when Obergefell came before him, did he follow his own decision?
Scalia did dissent in Lawrence. I think that leaves him free to dissent in Obergefell without being considered a hypocrite.
NoNukes writes:
And isn't the case one that never made it to the Supreme Court, or in fact any federal court?
Rrhain writes:
Yes, but because everybody understood there was no point.
There are lots of reasons why cases are not appealed to the Supreme Court. Unlike the case when appealing to federal appeals court, there is an extremely low likelihood of the SC even taking the case.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 4:25 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 1484 (802252)
03-14-2017 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
03-13-2017 9:46 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Faith writes:
quote:
But gay marriage violates the meaning of marriage itself and this situation doesn't so it might not become a problem in the baker's mind.
But interracial marriage violates the meaning of marriage itself.
Does the baker get to have a religious exemption to the law?
quote:
But it's possible that a baker's conscience might also be engaged about a remarriage, I suppose it depends on the individual.
Anti-discrimination laws also protect on the basis of marital status. Does that mean the Catholic baker gets to deny divorcees?
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 9:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(5)
Message 126 of 1484 (802253)
03-14-2017 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
03-13-2017 10:12 PM


Fifth time, Faith
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I'm not interested in the intricacies of the law.
Let me see if I understand: You are whining about anti-discrimination law and your ethical duty to follow the llaw and you now claim you aren't interested in the law?
Well, no wonder you're having such trouble.
And no wonder why you're avoiding my direct question. I'm pretty sure this is at least the fifth time I've asked:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
quote:
All that matters in this discussion is whether a Christian can legally refuse to serve a gay marriage in any way that violates his/her conscience, and I've understood that legally they cannot -- anywhere in the country.
But you just said you weren't interested in the law. And now you say you are. Which is it?
Back in the Civil Rights Era when segregation laws were overturned, Christians claimed that their religious freedom was violated, they claimed that they should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people in any way that violates their conscience.
They were slapped down.
Was that wrong? Should Christians be allowed to deny blacks service based upon their conscience?
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
If you think you don't get to deny blacks, what makes you think you get to deny gays?
quote:
quote:
They said the exact same thing in the Civil Rights Era when segregation was abolished, Faith.
SO WHAT? That is utterly irrelevant.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Faith, it's precisely the same argument. The very same arguments being used against gays now are the ones that were used against blacks then.
If it wasn't OK to allow Christians to deny blacks service based upon the conscience, why is it suddenly legitimate to allow them to deny gays?
quote:
They were wrong because as I said already the Bible teaches that we are all descended from the same parents.
Says who? According to other Christians, it also says that blacks have the sin of Ham and thus are to be slaves.
Have you forgotten that you are not the only Christian in the world? Are you about to invoke "No True Christian"?
The fact remains that Christians claimed that to serve blacks equally as whites was a violation of their religious conscience. They were slapped down.
Was that wrong?
If it's wrong for Christians to claim a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws with regard to blacks, why does it suddenly become legitimate with regard to race?
How lovely that you, personally, don't think that Christians get to claim a religious exemption when it comes to race (though we both know that you don't really believe that.)
The question is: If your religious conscience gets to be ignored due to race, why does it get to reign over sexual orientation?
quote:
If they wanted to claim their conscience was wounded, however, that's up to them, but obviously they'd have to take the punishment exactly as i'm describing in this situation.
So since the situation with gays now is identical to the situation with blacks then, why do you demand disparate treatment?
If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
quote:
Were they right to do so?
NO! NOT ON THE BASIS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE!
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? According to other Christians, it also says that blacks have the sin of Ham and thus are to be slaves.
Have you forgotten that you are not the only Christian in the world? Are you about to invoke "No True Christian"?
The fact remains that Christians claimed that to serve blacks equally as whites was a violation of their religious conscience. They were slapped down.
Was that wrong?
If it's wrong for Christians to claim a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws with regard to blacks, why does it suddenly become legitimate with regard to race?
quote:
I've said that at least twice now in this discussion.
And so long as you try to invoke "No True Christian," you'll keep failing.
Yes, Faith, it's lovely that you, personally, don't think that Christians get to claim a religious exemption when it comes to race (though we both know that you don't really believe that.)
The question is: If your religious conscience gets to be ignored due to race, why does it get to reign over sexual orientation?
It's the exact same scenario. The very same Christians who were claiming that they had the right to deny blacks due to their religious freedom are saying they have the right to deny gays due to their religious freedom.
If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Remember, Faith, you're complaining that somehow your religion is being denied. Well, don't we as people who have a different religion get to do that to you? Doesn't our religious freedom mean anything? Why do you think we should allow you to do something that you won't allow us to do? Rights are only for you? The "freedom" of "religious freedom" means the freedom to capitulate to you?
quote:
quote:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
DIDN'T I JUST WRITE THE WORDS "This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment."
What does that mean, Faith? After all, you're whining about it. You're complaining about having to accept the consequences of your actions.
Do the Christians who claim that serving blacks was a violation of their religious freedom have the ethical high ground? Or does religious freedom not include the right to racism in the public square?
And if it doesn't include the right to racism, why does it include the right to homophobia?
quote:
yet you ask if I think Christians have an exemption after I said that????
Yep. Because you haven't answered the essence of the question:
Is it right that Christians have to be "subject to punishment"? We have a conflict of interests here. We want there to be religious freedom, but we also want there to be equal protection. So when those two interests are in conflict, what do we do? When your claim of religious freedom violates another's claim to equal protection, how do we resolve it?
Well, we've got an example from the past: Blacks' right to equal protection was declared to be more important than Christians' claim to religious freedom and thus, despite the fact that Christians claimed that god declared the races to be different and needed to be kept separate (remember Loving v. Virginia?) they could not use that claim of religious freedom to deny service to blacks.
Equal protection was more important.
So now we have the exact same situation regarding sexual orientation. The identical arguments are being used. "God says."
So if "god says" is insufficient to deny equal protection with regard to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate with regard to sexual orientation?
Remember, Faith, YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT THIS. You're complaining about having to face the consequence of your actions with regard to sexual orientation.
So I want to know: Are you just as much of a whinger when it comes to race? Should a Christian who claims that "god says the races are to be separate" get to be surprised or claim any sort of ethical high ground for denying service to blacks? And if not, why do they suddenly get to do so regarding sexual orientation?
quote:
I think we SHOUJLD have an exemption, of course, and I think there should be no such law in the first place too, of course
Bingo! There you go! You think you SHOULD be allowed to deny service to black people based upon a religious exemption!
And you wonder why you get called out as a racist?
If you "SHOULD" be allowed to deny service to gays based upon your religious conscience, why "SHOULD YOU NOT" be allowed to deny service to blacks based upon your religious conscience? If you're going to allow "religious conscience" to override equal protection, why is the line at sexual orientation? What's to stop anybody from claiming "religious conscience" regarding any law?
What's the point of having laws if anybody can ignore them based upon their "religious conscience"?
We're back to the deep question, Faith: When religious freedom and equal protection are in conflict, what do we do?
quote:
BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANS HAVE NO EXEMPTION TO THIS LAW NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT!
This discussion is you claiming that somehow you are being oppressed and you doing everything you can to deny your racism. That's why presented with the identical situation with regard to race, you try to deny, deny, deny.
The exact same arguments being used against gays now were used against blacks then.
Word for word.
So if it was bogus to allow religious freedom to override equal protection with regard to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
How have you managed to miss so much of this discussion?
Because you keep avoiding the question.
If it's bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Or is it not bogus when applied to race? You *do* have the right to claim "religious freedom" and deny service to blacks?
quote:
This discussion is not about the law, it's about how one law affects Christians.
You realize that the second half of your sentence contradicts the former, yes? You cannot examine "how it affects Christians" without examining what the law is.
The exact same argument you are trying to use against gays was used against blacks.
If it was a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Or is it not bogus when applied to race? You *do* have the right to claim "religious freedom" and deny service to blacks?
quote:
Just follow the argument for pete's sake.
We've been begging you to do that since day one, Faith.
If Christians don't get to claim "religious freedom" when denying services to blacks, if they don't get to claim any sort of ethical high ground, then what lets them claim "religious freedom" when denying services to gays?
Or *do* they have the ethical high ground? Religious freedom trumps equal treatment? What's the point of having any laws of any kind if people can simply claim their religion grants them an exemption?
Are you saying anti-discrimination laws are unethical?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 6:57 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 127 of 1484 (802254)
03-14-2017 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-14-2017 1:14 AM


Re: Just more made up accusations to distract from the simple point
Faith responds to PaulK:
quote:
asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding
What are these "special services" you keep claiming? Baking a cake, arranging flowers, taking pictures, etc. are not "special services." Nothing about a wedding changes the service.
What on earth are you talking about? The only people who have a claim are the people getting married and the person performing the ceremony. Clearly, the people involved are there because they want to be and as you know, the officiant can refuse if the ceremony is religious in nature.
No priest/rabbi/imam/minister/cleric/whatever has ever been forced to perform a wedding ceremony if they don't want to. That's why Catholic priests don't have to marry divorcees. It's why Orthodox Jewish rabbis don't have to marry Gentiles. It's why Orthodox Christian priests don't have to marry Protestants.
But the person making the cake isn't involved in the wedding. They aren't performing any sort of ceremony. The wedding will happen with or without a cake. It will happen with or without flowers. It will happen with or without pictures.
It won't happen without the people getting married or the one performing the ceremony.
quote:
or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate
So anti-discrimination laws are a violation of your religious freedom?
So when Christians back in the Civil Rights Era claimed that they shouldn't be "put in the position of treating interracial marriage as legitimate," they should have been coddled? It was wrong for the law to say that no, equal protection trumps religious freedom?
Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided?
And if not, why are you complaining? If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Christians have to refuse
Did you just invoke "No True Christian"?
You spend a lot of time, just as politically correct Fascists do, conjuring up anything you can to accuse liberals of. Everything in your post is a pathetic attempt to avoid the point of this topic.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 1484 (802255)
03-14-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 6:30 AM


Re: Fifth time, Faith
ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS ABOUT THE ONE LAW I'M TALKING ABOUT, NOT ABOUT ALL THE LAWS YOU BROUGHT UP. ALL THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
The exact same argument you are trying to use against gays was used against blacks.
AGAIN, SO WHAT?
If it was a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation
YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE SOME KIND OF MENTAL DISORDER, OR
FAILURE OF LOGIC. Or it's just the usual Leftist delight in twisting anything a conservative says. Probably all of the above.
IT IS EASY TO SHOW THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS FORBIDDEN BY GOD and that's all I'm talking about. Your comparison is just the usual evil Leftist smear tactic.
AND AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" WHICH MISSES THE POINT WHICH IS THAT IT'S GAY MARRIAGE THAT IS THE POINT.
Idiot.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:30 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 8:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 129 of 1484 (802257)
03-14-2017 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 5:15 AM


Re: related issues
R writes:
You do realize that in more than half the US, the right to get married means the right to get fired, lose your housing, be denied education, etc., yes? Most of the country provides no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So if you get married, your boss is perfectly free to then fire you since you just came out.
I do realise that US employment law is totally fucked. I remember being shocked that my colleagues in MCI didn't even have contracts and could be fired at any time without reason. This isn't a gay issue, it's almost a human rights issue. Everyone should be on the streets for that.
And they will never change until they are confronted.
Wrong. Bigots remain bigots. Society changes around them and it takes generations. See Faith.
Completely wrong.
"Nothing to see" means you're not seen. And when you're not seen, nobody cares when you are trampled upon.
Completly wrong. I guess we differ.
When things become the norm it's a good thing. When everybody has the same rights and obligations and are seen as just another citizen, the problem has been solved.
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
Oh? There's still no marriage equality in Northern Ireland.
No but there is now for the rest of the UK thanks to long campaigning and a liberalising force across Northern Europe generally - now comes the backlash of course. NI is backward in many areas having suffered for generations a religious war - the poor women of NI have to come to England for they abortions. Rediculous.
But slavery is over. We "won the main battle" so now we "calm down," right? I mean, there are laws preventing discrimination so we can "calm down," right? Why should anybody who is rejected from a hotel for being black put up a fight since the "main battle" of getting the anti-discrimination laws were won? Blacks should "become the norm - nice, ordinary, and everyday," making sure there's "nothing to see here" by daring to demand that those laws be enforced.
Now you're just being rediculous. At least here in the UK it's now impossible to ban anybody from a hotel based on their colour. And of course if a hotel attempted to do that they'd find themselves in a lot of trouble and they'd suffer very publicly for it. It has become the norm not to discriminate in this way. This is a good thing.
I'm not saying stop fighting for equality, I'm saying pick the battles and make sure they matter. Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 8:42 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 1484 (802258)
03-14-2017 7:21 AM


Summary of Topic
This thread is about one issue, a very simple issua, although the Leftists here not only twist things but lie about me. There is no civility from Leftists at all. And lies do make their mark because people believe them.
I'll restate the issue:
The law legalizing gay marriage contradicts God's ordinance of marriage. So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage the Christian must refuse to obey the law. Since it is a law, that means the Christian will be punished in some way.
That's it. That's the issue. Everything else is distraction, distortion, guilt by invented association, slimy insinuations and accusations. SO typically Leftist.
Everything else on this thread will be lies and character assassination because I'm leaving it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 7:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 8:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 03-14-2017 11:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 144 by Diomedes, posted 03-14-2017 1:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 1484 (802259)
03-14-2017 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-14-2017 1:14 AM


Counterpoint to Faith's summary of the topic
Faithy writes:
UNDER THIS LAW THAT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS TO BE TREATED AS LEGITIMATE, if asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate, Christians have to refuse, and whatever the law is we are punishable under it for that refusal. Everything else is irrelevant nitpicking.
No, Christians do not have to refuse and that is the point even if you shout.
Even if they believe gay marriage is a sin there is no reason to refuse. Even the Bible says that there is no reason to refuse and the passages from the Bible have been presented to you in this very thread several times.
Only ignorant Christians need suffer because gay marriage is a fact and they suffer by choice, because they want to suffer not because it is what God wants or commands.
That is what is relevant.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Edited by jar, : finish sentence

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 132 of 1484 (802260)
03-14-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
03-14-2017 7:21 AM


Re: Summary of Topic
quote:
This thread is about one issue, a very simple issua, although the Leftists here not only twist things but lie about me. There is no civility from Leftists at all. And lies do make their mark because people believe them.
By which you mean that you got caught misrepresenting the facts - and even admitted not caring about relevant facts. And this comes from someone who regularly spews nastiness about people who dare to refute her arguments.
quote:
The law legalizing gay marriage contradicts God's ordinance of marriage
And you are perfectly free not to enter into a gay marriage. Your church is perfectly free to refuse to hold marriage services for gay couples.
quote:
So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage the Christian must refuse to obey the law
And the laws state that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against gays. That is the "conflict" that you are complaining about.
Whether there are any good reasons for a Christian to object is another matter. And one that would seem rather important. Especially as you don't have a problem with other laws that impose similar burdens on Christians or "Christians"
quote:
That's it. That's the issue. Everything else is distraction, distortion, guilt by invented association, slimy insinuations and accusations. SO typically Leftist.
Because the fact that you are objecting to the wrong law and don't even care to get it right doesn't matter ?
Typical Faith - since your argument has been demolished - hardly surprising when you don't care about the facts because they get in your way - you resort to your usual hypocritical nastiness, doing everything you accuse your opponents of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 7:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 133 of 1484 (802261)
03-14-2017 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
03-14-2017 6:57 AM


Re: Fifth time, Faith
Faith responds to me:
quote:
ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS ABOUT THE ONE LAW I'M TALKING ABOUT, NOT ABOUT ALL THE LAWS YOU BROUGHT UP. ALL THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
They're the same law. Anti-discrimination law includes both race and sexual orientation.
So if the law is OK with regard to race, why is it unacceptable with regard to sexual orientation?
Or should the law not exist at all?
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a racist?
quote:
quote:
The exact same argument you are trying to use against gays was used against blacks.
AGAIN, SO WHAT?
So if the argument is bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
IT IS EASY TO SHOW THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS FORBIDDEN BY GOD
Says who? There's nothing in the Bible that says two people of the same sex can't get married.
After all, the same Christians who are complaining about same-sex marriage today were making the exact same complaint about interracial marriage yesterday.
If that was bogus when they were trying to claim a religious exemption to anti-discrimination law when it was race, why do they get to be coddled when it's sexual orientation?
It's the exact same law, Faith. So why does your religious freedom need to yield to equal protection when it's race but not when it's sexual orientation?
quote:
AND AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" WHICH MISSES THE POINT WHICH IS THAT IT'S GAY MARRIAGE THAT IS THE POINT.
The exact same arguments used to deny gay people the right to marry were used to deny interracial couples the right to marry. Have you forgotten Loving v. Virginia? The court directly stated that it was god's law that the races were to be kept separate.
Word for word.
So if the law didn't care about what some Christians thought god said about race, why should it care about what some Christians think god says about sexual orientation?
If Christians don't have any claim to the ethical high ground regarding race, what makes you think you have the ethical high ground regarding sexual orientation?
The law you're complaining about that protects gays from being discriminated against also protects you, Faith, because it also includes religion as a characteristic which cannot be used as a basis for disparate treatment. That same baker isn't allowed to deny you your cake or flowers or pictures just because your religion denies the One True God (you didn't think your god was the One True God, did you?)
So does the baker have the right to deny you services based off your religion, Faith? Is "religious freedom" only for you? Does it mean the freedom to convert to your religion?
Your political correctness is showing, Faith. You're PC enough to despise being thought of as racist...
...and even more PC to relish being thought of as homophobic.
And foolish enough to not understand what that means.
Should there be a law that prevents discrimination on the basis of race?
Should that law allow a religious exemption?
If there should be anti-discrimination law and if there should not be a religious exemption for it, what's the deal regarding sexual orientation?
Hint: When someone says, "gay marriage," they are referring to the sexual orientation of the married couple. After all, "marriage" doesn't have any sexual orientation.
I asked you nicely to please stop playing dumb.
Still waiting on the answer, Faith:
If it's a bogus argument to claim a "religious exemption" to anti-discrimination law on the basis of race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
If it's a bogus argument to deny interracial couples the right to marriage based upon religious dogma, why does it suddenly become legitimate to deny gay couples the right to marriage based upon religious dogma?
After all, the same Christians who demanded the former and were slapped down. So why the whining now? It's the exact same situation: Your religious dogma doesn't get to override another person's right to equal protection under the law.
Or are you saying it does? Do you think you have a religious exemption to the Constitution? You get to deny other people their rights simply because you think god told you to?
What's to prevent them from doing the same to you, Faith?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 6:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 134 of 1484 (802262)
03-14-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tangle
03-14-2017 7:10 AM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And they will never change until they are confronted.
Wrong. Bigots remain bigots.
Then why do you care what anybody else does? If a bigot is never going to change, then it doesn't matter.
quote:
Society changes around them and it takes generations.
Yep. And the only way those generations will ever learn that the previous way of life was wrong is if people fight for the change, refusing to accept anything less.
quote:
See Faith.
But she's a bigot and bigots gonna bigot. And if she's never gonna change, what do you care? What does it matter?
quote:
quote:
"Nothing to see" means you're not seen. And when you're not seen, nobody cares when you are trampled upon.
Completly wrong. I guess we differ.
You never did answer my question. Let's try again:
Slavery was over in the 1950s. They "won the main battle," right? So why couldn't Rosa Parks just "calm down" and accept riding in the back of the bus? Why couldn't all those uppity blacks just "calm down" and accept that Woolworth's wasn't going to serve them? Why couldn't them uppity Negroes just "calm down" and follow the Negro Motorist Green Book? Why did they have to be so confrontational and make people uncomfortable and "turn off those who might support them"?
Because appeasement never works. We had to fight a damned war just to get white people to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, black people were human beings and not chattel.
quote:
When things become the norm it's a good thing.
That you think racial equality or sexual liberation is "the norm" is telling.
quote:
When everybody has the same rights and obligations and are seen as just another citizen, the problem has been solved.
What makes you think the problem has been solved? After all, not everybody has the same rights and obligations. not everybody is seen as "just another citizen."
quote:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
And there we have it:
You think you're the arbiter of what is "petty."
I mean really, Ms. Parks. The back of the bus gets to the bus stop just as fast as the front. Aren't you being "petty" with your demand to sit in the front?
And the food at the diner that serves blacks is just as good as the food that only serves whites. Aren't you being "petty" with your demand to be served there?
And if you think the lunch counter sit ins weren't "petty," exactly how is that any different from gay people wishing to receive equal treatment at bakers and florists and photographers?
quote:
No but there is now for the rest of the UK thanks to long campaigning and a liberalising force across Northern Europe generally
That same fight that you are now calling "petty."
So, which is it?
quote:
now comes the backlash of course.
But I thought that now that they had "won the main battle" and thus could "calm down." If there's a backlash, shouldn't they keep fighting? Or would that be petty?
quote:
Now you're just being rediculous.
Strange...that's my argument to you. You seem to think you're the one who gets to determine what "petty" is, what "the main battle" is, when it has been "won," and when anybody else should just stop being so annoying in insisting on being treated equally.
quote:
At least here in the UK it's now impossible to ban anybody from a hotel based on their colour.
Right...because there's no racism in the UK....
Do you really need me to direct you to the cases of racial discrimination happening in the UK?
quote:
And of course if a hotel attempted to do that they'd find themselves in a lot of trouble and they'd suffer very publicly for it.
So a hotel being sued for discrimination is just hunky dory but a baker being sued for discrimination is "petty."
Got it.
quote:
It has become the norm not to discriminate in this way. This is a good thing.
And yet, it still happens. This is not a good thing.
But how lucky we are to have YOU tell us which fights are legitimate and which ones are "petty."
quote:
I'm not saying stop fighting for equality,
Oh, yes, you are. The moment you called it "petty," you said that people should stop. The moment you said, "calm down," you said that people should stop.
quote:
I'm saying pick the battles
...stop fighting.
quote:
and make sure they matter.
Because it isn't worth it. So stop fighting.
A hotel owner refusing to rent to a black man. That's worth it.
A baker refusing to sell to a gay couple. That's "petty."
quote:
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
I see...so the baker refusing to sell to the gay couple was what...a hallucination? They didn't really want to buy a cake? The wedding's fake? Exactly what is it that is "artificial"?
Oh, that's right...it's "trivial." A hotel refusing to rent to a black man is deserving of the law coming down on them hard.
But a baker? That's "petty." That's "trivial." That "doesn't help the cause."
As nicely as I can put this:
Fuck you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 7:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 9:38 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 135 of 1484 (802263)
03-14-2017 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
03-14-2017 7:21 AM


Re: Summary of Topic
Faith writes:
quote:
The law legalizing gay marriage contradicts God's ordinance of marriage. So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage the Christian must refuse to obey the law. Since it is a law, that means the Christian will be punished in some way.
The law legalizing interracial marriage contradicts god's ordinance of marriage. So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage, the Christian must refuse to obey the law.
Yeah, sounds racist, doesn't it? That's because it is. And when Christians tried to use that argument about interracial marriage, they were slapped down.
So since it's bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Once again, you display your political correctness: You're PC enough to despise being thought of as racist...
...and even more PC enough to relish being thought a homophobe.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 7:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024