|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: And Rrhain the lying liar lies again. What a surprise.
quote: Hoping that other people will miss the context ? You have never quoted me denying my own words.
quote: Zero is not "many" by any sane standard. Let us remember how this has gone. I posted a brief critique of Faith's argument. You wrongly assumed - despite the context - that one sentence of it was a more general statement. I corrected you. You refused to accept that correction and continue to refuse to accept it. I was prepared to accept that the first time was an honest mistake, and the first refusal and even the second. But we are well past that by now. So what is the point ? Is it really worth compounding your initial error with all this silliness ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The only viable alternative is to stop talking and have you accuse me of running away.
quote: Outright lying is hardly productive. I suggest you stop it.
quote: Except of course that you did not provide the context in that case. And when you do quote me it never supports your claims. I wonder why that is.
quote: Pointing out that you missed the context and misinterpreted my words is not denying them. So it seems that even when you produce the quotes in context you will still brazenly lie even when it is obvious for anyone to see. It is like arguing against a Christian Fundamentalist. Except that they can't be bothered with quotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So it is all about discriminating against gays. Seriously in what sense does it "require" you to treat gay marriage as "legitimate" when the Bible says you can't ? I mean the Bible doesn't say anything about gays being able to put their partners on their health insurance (even if it seems to upset some "Christians")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The SCOTUS decision doesn't say any such thing. Now are you going to answer my question and tell me exactly which of the secular rights conferred by marriage gays should be denied and what is the Biblical justification for denying them ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
He's doubly an idiot. I haven't said anything against suing at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I am not part of that conversation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And out comes the bigotry.
quote: But it is not a lie and it hasn't been adequately answered. If you allow "Christians" to ignore anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of "conscience" then you set a precedent. You can't simply insist that the law has to follow your interpretation of the Bible or only endorse discrimination that you approve of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Seems to me that you're skating over the big difference between "I don't sell that" and "I don't sell that to your kind"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But that is still not a straightforward equivalence. The Jewish butcher does not stock pork to sell. If the bakers advertise that they ice the customer's choice if message then they are taking a risk if they refuse to ice a message for discriminatory reasons. Refusing to provide an advertised service is quite obviously distinct from refusing to stock particular items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The distinction is much clearer than that.
The Jewish butcher objects to a product and does not stock it. He cannot sell what he does not have. The baker who refuses to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding is refusing to provide a completely ordinary service largely because they object to the customers - who are in a protected class, in the cases considered. The baker who refuses to ice a particular message comes between the two - but closer to the second. The court gets to decide whether their refusal crosses the legal boundary or not. In places where gays are protected from discrimination, refusing to ice an otherwise harmless message in favour of gay marriage is quite obviously risky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words you claim that "Christians" own the concept of marriage and won't allow anybody else to have any different ideas. Too bad, you live in a secular state and you don't get to dictate the law. I guess that explains why you keep trying to blame the anti-discrimination cases on the SCOTUS decision, despite knowing that it isn't true. They are just a weapon in your fight against justice and freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Nobody is interfering in your marriages or your weddings. You HAVE your idea. You just want to enforce it against other people even where the law says you can't.
quote: Of course you can object. You just can't do so by denying services to gays in States where gays are a protected class. The rest is just whining that the forces of good are winning.
quote: But there is no such law. The laws that keep "Christian" businesses from denying services to gays are quite separate from the SCOTUS decision. You know that. It is perfectly obvious that your "point" is a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'm not worried, I'm just countering your spin.
quote: The law in some States says that you can't, but that wasn't my point. My point is that you have your idea of marriage - you're only prevented from withholding services to others, and then only in some places. You don't have to worry about people withholding services from you - and even if you did the same laws might well protect you.
quote: Proof that "Christians" aren't doing it is that some are being punished for doing it ?And the fact that you are complaining bitterly about that punishment hardly reassures me that it isn't something you want to be allowed. And what about the States where gays aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws ? quote: Obviously it IS discrimination against persons - and in support of further discrimination.
quote: No, I think I'm fighting against Faith, the pathetic Satanist.
quote: You see. Pointing out that your claim is false is "obscuring the truth". It's silly lies like that that earned you the title of Faith, the pathetic Satanist.
quote: Yes, you don't care about the truth of the matter. But you certainly care about blaming the SCOTUS decision for it. You just don't care whether what you are saying is true or not.
quote: And that isn't true. You can't object in certain ways, and the ways vary from State to State. But the only one you complain about is the right for businesses to refuse services that they would offer to straight couples. You don't consider other ways, like for instance posting here to object, as you keep doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The point is that you want to stop gays from receiving the secular benefits of marriage and you don't care if your arguments to that end are untrue.
The prosecutions are just weapons to you. You don't care about the actual cases, or trying to find a better way to solve the issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your "better way" isn't.
For a start you aren't asking to be allowed to discriminate against a theological position, you are asking to be allowed to discriminate against people. So really all you are suggesting is that discrimination on religious grounds should be allowed. But then we get back to the segregationists. You cannot argue for a better way without understanding the situation in the real cases. And up till now you've repeatedly been attacking a law that has very little to do with them - and justifying that by saying that you DON'T care about the real situation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024