Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 541 of 1484 (802902)
03-21-2017 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
03-21-2017 12:02 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
If there is no actual discrimination against persons but only a specific request I don't see how you can justify making it a bigger thing than that.
Well yes. But its the actual discrimination against person that we're talking about. Offering only partial services is still discrimination.
Unlike a funeral denying a specific cake doesn't preclude the customer's having anything else in the bakery.
Well what if the funeral director will help arrange flowers and other associated services but refuses to provide coffins. But only when it's Christian patrons that request?
Thanks for conceding that it IS a violation of freedom of religion.
What you said about needing to establish primacy is what led me to assume you weren't interested in thinking about how to find a solution that would protect both parties. So I guess I got that wrong.
Well do you concede that rights do come into conflict and some kind or prioritisation is required for legal reasons. Thus the right to life supercedes the right to practice one's freedom if the two come into conflict where one's religion demands the taking of a life such as with human sacrifice?
As long as the law says businesses can't refuse to serve a gay wedding there isn't much point in looking for a way to protect both.
I disagree. If we can find a way to protect both that we are both happy with, we can join forces to ask our legislatures to craft a new law.
First something would have to be established along the lines of Tatchell's observations that discriminating against a particular request is not discriminating against persons.
It isn't necessarily discriminating against persons based on their membership of a particular group but it can be. For instance, refusing to sell guns to black people because you believe they are all thugs while also selling them hats, coats, fishing rods and so on - is discriminatory right? On the other hand, refusing to sell anybody an Uzi with the words 'death to white people' engraved on it should be acceptable.
Refusing a request of a same-sex couple can be fine - but the reason should be 'we are too busy take on new orders' or 'we lack the skills for your particular request' or something. But blanket refusing all same-sex couples a particular service or good is just as discriminatory as doing it against Christians, Jews, women or black people.
All I think of is making sure everybody knows where everybody else stands. Some kind of information campaign. "Christians can't serve a gay wedding but you can have anything else you want."
I don't think that'd work. It might save the embarrassment of being refused - but it'd still serve to undermine their equal access and diminishes their equality and freedom to participate in publicly available trade. If ALL businesses were to do this - it would of course be a big problem. And there are cases where in order to obtain certain services people have had to travel for long distances because of localised universal refusals. This does not seem like a decent society to live in and it is the kind of thing that could in theory be turned back on Christians which I'm sure you'd agree wouldn't be acceptable. It'd be annoying and unjust if you had to travel 200 miles once a month to pick a prescription just because you are a Christian, to give an extreme example, right? As a more likely one - imagine being unable to acquire a loan from a bank (that is happy to provide other services to you) because it's a Christian bank and they believe one should not practice usury against one's brother (Exodus 22:24, Leviticus 25:36) - but they'd give loans to atheists and Muslims without problem. Imagine if all your local banks felt this way - imagine if that pushed you to get loans from people you don't trust or you yourself have religious problems with. What then?
But again, I think first the law would have to change to take the Christian point of view into account.
The problem, of course, is that there are many 'Christian' points of view, and the government cannot adjudicate that one of them is the right one. One Christian might argue that serving black people certain goods is unChristian, a Jew might argue serving a Muslim certain things is unJewish, a Muslim might argue serving a woman certain things is unIslamic.
Obviously taking into account every single religious viewpoint in who is allowed equal access to services is unworkable. A particularly despised social/ethnic group might find themselves driven out of an area or even unable to find service anywhere if it was thought to be religiously or philosophically unethical to serve them as a public business.
So I think this angle ultimately can't work.
If a Muslim believed selling clothes to women was unIslamic, but was happy to sell women's clothes to men (under the belief they were being bought for wives, sisters etc) would you be defending this? What if all clothes shops for 100 miles were Muslim? Would you think it fair that you had to move to a completely new area just because it upset the local Muslim sensibility?
Laws have to be universal and secular, they can't just take your personal religious beliefs into account, the last thing you want is to give the government the power to determine whose religious beliefs should have power and weight in law. They might choose wrong, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 12:02 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2017 2:52 PM Modulous has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 542 of 1484 (802903)
03-21-2017 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Modulous
03-21-2017 2:35 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:
Christians can't serve a gay wedding but you can have anything else you want."
I don't think we can spot Faith her territory here. Some Christians react in this way, but not all. For example, some pastors perform gay weddings, some churches have gay pastors. There is nothing inherently Christian about the position Faith takes here, just as there is nothing inherently German in holocaust denial.

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 541 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 2:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 3:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 543 of 1484 (802905)
03-21-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Faith
03-21-2017 12:15 PM


Re: Tim Allen, the latest victim of totalitarian PC
Faith writes:
The issue of writing has not been part of this discussion on this thread,...
Sure it has, you introduced it yourself in your Message 469, bolding and underlining this quote from The Guardian article I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why:
quote:
His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for.
Then in your Message 486 you brought it up again:
Faith in Message 486 writes:
Please consider the thinking of the writer of the Guardian piece (Or Message 469). He started out defending the gays against the bakery and ended up defending the bakery's right to their religious view of gay marriage. In that case it was writing on a cake, in the American cases it's the cake itself as a symbol of a wedding we cannot accept as legitimate.
So you introduced the issue of writing on this thread yourself. If you'd like to drop it then that's fine, mums the word for me, no more mention of writing on cakes unless you bring it up again.
I'm sure that if the customer wanted a message on the cake celebrating Hitler Week...
There you go mentioning writing out of the blue again. Is this an issue for you or not? Make up your mind.
In the main cases under discussion that happens to be a custom-made wedding cake, but it may not be the only case that is problematic because of legitimizing gay marriage in the baker's mind.
That's the whole problem, that you're making it a function of what's in someone's mind. You think that if someone has good reasons in their own mind for discriminating then it is okay, but it's not. A baker doesn't have to have gays in his church, but if he tries to keep gays out of his bakery or refuse them service that he'd provide to anyone else then that's discrimination in the eyes of the law. If you'd like to believe the baker is right in the eyes of God I'd refer you to Jesus, who had no problem with harlots and sinners of all sorts. "Let he who is without sin refuse service to gays," Jesus would probably say.
This is not about any kind of sin, homosexual sin or heterosexual sin or anything else. It's about the ordinance of marriage and absolutely nothing else. The point of homosexual acts being sin is that it is one of the things that disqualify homosexuals from MARRIAGE.
Being gay is inextricably entwined with gay marriage. The word "gay" is right there in "gay marriage," which is in the thread title. You can't talk about gay marriage without talking about being gay.
So, again, it isn't about writing,...
I hope that's a final decision this time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 12:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 544 of 1484 (802907)
03-21-2017 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Tangle
03-21-2017 5:17 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Don't you think that the LGBT community also has a duty to avoid demanding services from those they know can't in all conscience supply them?
No. Several points of clarification
1) Nobody is demanding services from people that can't in all conscience supply them. They are, at most, demanding that if you are going to provide services you should do so equally. You can't decline sandwiches to black people, or cars to women. Even if you also serve coffee to black people or sell car seats to women.
2) You've already conceded that there isn't any known case or better yet, any particular tendency for the LGBT community to have known that the business can't in good conscience provide it.
I am saying that if you can't provide the service equally, don't provide the service at all.
Of course accidental contact can't be avoided and at that point there are choices to be made - see the No Nukes response - but there's a transitional period here. The Christians with their bonkers beliefs have been trading since before the legislation
The law in Oregon that protected Rachel and Laurel was passed in March 2007 and a transitional period of about 9 months was given. They were discriminated against 5 years after the transitional period. It's been ten years now. We're way beyond that time. Sweet Cakes by Melissa opened in May of 2007 according to my research
The Christians with their bonkers beliefs have been trading since before the legislation, the discrimination is low level and indirect - the evidence is that it's about the cake not the person
That's not what the findings by the Bureau of Labor and Industries found after examining the evidence. It's not what I found after examining the evidence. You haven't supported the position that it is 'about the cake'. I don't think even the Kleins would agree it was merely about the cake. It was never about the cake. What evidence are you talking about?
Why not just shrug and go next door?
I have already explained in some detail why not just shrug it off. Short answer: humans are humans. Go look up my longer form answers if you need further clarification. They tried to shrug it off as best they could, although the Klein's did go to the media and publish their personal details which made it all the more difficult to do so given the familial problems this caused. And I have already said that they did go next door, so to speak. They didn't demand Sweet Cakes provide their wedding cake.
Why not show the tolerance that you wish to be shown
I don't see what is intolerant about reporting a violation of trading regulations. Again I've already gone over this, why are you still asking these questions without including any apparent indication you are taking the answers already given into consideration?
Take the high ground and wait for this generation of 'nice' bigots to decline naturally.
I think reporting problems to an independent board is taking the high ground. Continuing practices of that behaviour, which the Kleins loudly and proudly proclaimed they would, could result in further harm being done down later down the line.
Is it really necessary to prosecute every and all slights against the cause?
This isn't about 'the cause' as I've said. This isn't about a slight, as I've said. I'm not arguing it is necessary to 'prosecute' every case (where prosecute means, report trading violations to the applicable board). There have been 400,000 same-sex marriages in the US approximately. There have been a handful of these cases that I am aware of. I expect there has been a lot more violations out of those 400,000. Just because they have become the subject of international media discussions doesn't mean they are common, only interesting. Don't fall for the same selection bias that makes people think that terrorism is something to fear where swimming pools and asthma are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2017 5:17 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2017 4:15 PM Modulous has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 545 of 1484 (802908)
03-21-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Faith
03-21-2017 12:13 AM


Faith: After Jesus and James died, "no requirement any more to obey any of the laws"
quote:
I can't read your long post and don't see any reason to make the effort. The last line is enough to tell me there's no point: there is no such thing as "ceremonial" fornication if you mean that by being ceremonial it is not a sin. That's ridiculous.
But you were the one that said the Acts 15 rules expired!
You were the one that brought up the temple prostitution issue in 1st Corinthians 10 to explain Chapter 6. (I am still not so sure about the way you come about it, but you refused to back up your claims, so its seems you just made it up. I was and am willing to entertain the very real possibility of some sort of connection, but not in the way you just selectively asserted what you did absent any proof or exegesis whatsoever)
Here is your post 342 and you referenced 1 Corinthians 10.
quote:
Good grief, it isn't "just about meat!!" What Paul said about all things being lawful to him simply happens to refer back to that one passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Because that's where he said those very same words. But in the context of 1 Cor 6 he must be using it to refer to some view held by someone in the Corinthian Church. Since he mentions being joined to a harlot it is frequently guessed that he was dealing with the opinion that visiting prostitutes was lawful for a Christian. Not meat, visiting prostitutes. As I argued, there is so much in the Bible that makes it clear that sin cannot ever be "lawful" let alone Paul's remark in this very context that it would mean joining Christ to a harlot, which is a clear statement that it isn't lawful, there is no way to justify the lawfulness of sin from this passage, and if it doesn't suffice for you, read the reast of the Bible which should leave no doubt.
Here is 1 Corinthians 10 (it is based on an extra-Biblical expansion of the Balaam issue in Numbers)
quote:
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
....
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Here is 1 Corinthians 6
quote:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Here is Acts 15
quote:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Here is Revelation 2:14
quote:
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
1 Corinthians 10 again
quote:
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Here is what you said about the fornication and food issue that was a commandment in Acts 15 for gentiles.
quote:
So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.
You said that once Jesus, James, Peter, etc. died then you don't have to obey any laws anymore.
That explains a lot.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 12:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 546 of 1484 (802910)
03-21-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Faith
03-20-2017 8:56 AM


Business As Usual
Faith writes:
Shouldn't the topic be confined to what IS stocked but available under some circumstances and not others?
Good point. Let us ask ourselves if we can even imagine Jesus working at a job selling things.
Remember this scripture?
Matt 22:18-21 writes:
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21 "Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
  • When we work at our jobs, who are we working for? Caesar or God?
  • If we are serving the public, is it our duty to only serve certain members of the public? How do we determine those whom we are to serve?
    Phil 1:15-18 writes:
    15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
    When I am at work, is it better to only serve some of my customers---as if I myself am responsible for legislating morality? Or...is it better to treat everyone the same and in so doing become a servant---setting an example of humility.
    Just a thought.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 464 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 8:56 AM Faith has not replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 547 of 1484 (802911)
    03-21-2017 3:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 542 by NoNukes
    03-21-2017 2:52 PM


    Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
    I don't think we can spot Faith her territory here. Some Christians react in this way, but not all.
    Well that depends on what you call a Christian. We know Faith has some pretty tight rules about what qualifies, and Catholics may not qualify under those terms. I'm not interested in that debate and it's not really pertinent.
    There is some group of people who have certain religious beliefs that they believe prohibit them from providing certain services. Faith calls them 'Christians', you think that's too broad. We can call them 'Bigots' or 'Chriso-Fascists' or 'Crapians' or 'First Adventist Baptists of the original Protestant Church according to the Mind of Faith and the law of God and Holy Word of Jesus'. It doesn't matter. The group exists and the question at hand is how to deal with the conflict their religious rights and the rights of equal access of gays presents - whatever label we choose to give them.
    This is reflected in what I said:
    quote:
    The problem, of course, is that there are many 'Christian' points of view, and the government cannot adjudicate that one of them is the right one. One Christian might argue that serving black people certain goods is unChristian, a Jew might argue serving a Muslim certain things is unJewish, a Muslim might argue serving a woman certain things is unIslamic.
    Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 542 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2017 2:52 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 558 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-22-2017 10:52 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

      
    LamarkNewAge
    Member (Idle past 738 days)
    Posts: 2236
    Joined: 12-22-2015


    Message 548 of 1484 (802913)
    03-21-2017 3:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 321 by Faith
    03-18-2017 11:49 AM


    Re: What about Paul and the lawfulness of sin Faith?
    Are you ever going to quote specific verses and show us your logic? You have made all sorts of leaps and I want to know how you make them. Connect the verses from the 2 chapters and show the connection. Then apply it in an honest way that isn't full of useless assertions.
    Here are some of your past posts.
    quote:
    [319]
    To say it as clearly as I can: There is no way sin is ever lawful, it is the definition of lawlessness. It is what gets us sent to Hell. There is no way that could be what Paul meant. He was writing in a specific context to the unruly Corinthians, and it may be hard to understand because we don't have the complete context of the statement, but there is no way he is saying sin is lawful.
    ...
    [321]
    Accepting that the text is unaltered, my guess is that he didn't include enough of the context for us at such a remove from the experiences of the Corinthians to understand his meaning.
    In such a case we are to apply the principle that we aren't to base our theology on unclear passages like this one, especially since there are plenty of others which make it quite clear that the whole point of Christian salvation is to be saved from SIN, and there is no doubt what sin is either, the Bible from beginning to end makes it quite clear.
    Here is 1 Corinthians 6
    quote:
    12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
    13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
    14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
    15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
    16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
    Here is the text in 1 Cor 10.
    quote:
    1 Corinthians 10King James Version (KJV)
    10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
    2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
    3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
    4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
    5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
    6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
    7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
    8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
    9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
    10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
    11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
    12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
    13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
    15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
    16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
    17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
    18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
    19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
    20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
    21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
    22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
    23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
    24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 321 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 11:49 AM Faith has not replied

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


    (1)
    Message 549 of 1484 (802914)
    03-21-2017 4:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 544 by Modulous
    03-21-2017 3:17 PM


    Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
    Modulous writes:
    1) Nobody is demanding services from people that can't in all conscience supply them. They are, at most, demanding that if you are going to provide services you should do so equally. You can't decline sandwiches to black people, or cars to women. Even if you also serve coffee to black people or sell car seats to women.
    You have avoided my point. The case against the Christian bakers is lost. They will lose every case they attempt to defend. They are in the wrong as far as the law is concerned. I'm not, and never have been, making legal points. I asked you whether you feel that gays may have a duty - in this case moral - to not put otherwise decent people in this predicament if it can be avoided?
    2) You've already conceded that there isn't any known case or better yet, any particular tendency for the LGBT community to have known that the business can't in good conscience provide it.
    This is disingenuous. The radical gay community have used many tactics to get their message across - do I need to churn out Kirk & Madsen? And again it's not the point. I've no reason to believe that the couple of cases I've seen were anything but genuine. The question is whether the correct moral choice was made by suing? A right to sue is not an obligation to sue.
    I am saying that if you can't provide the service equally, don't provide the service at all.
    And I'm questioning whether that kind of blanket statement is an example of unnecessary intolerance to a minority which in all other ways may be harmless.
    You haven't supported the position that it is 'about the cake'. I don't think even the Kleins would agree it was merely about the cake. It was never about the cake. What evidence are you talking about?
    The evidence is that they would also not sell the cake to me, a straight guy, knowing that it had a gay message or was going to be used at a gay wedding. They can not therefore be discriminating against gay people by not selling me a cake - except in very indurect route. They would also serve LGBT people with ordinary cakes. It's therefore the cake - or rather what the cake represents - not me or LGBT people themselves that they object to.
    And not being a protected minority, I couldn't bring the case. (Unless there's some proxy clause somewhere I could exploit.)
    I have already explained in some detail why not just shrug it off. Short answer: humans are humans. Go look up my longer form answers if you need further clarification. They tried to shrug it off as best they could, although the Klein's did go to the media and publish their personal details which made it all the more difficult to do so given the familial problems this caused. And I have already said that they did go next door, so to speak. They didn't demand Sweet Cakes provide their wedding cake.
    I know you're desperate to stick to specific cases, but I'm trying to move from the particular to the general. Discussing ideas not just cases.
    I don't see what is intolerant about reporting a violation of trading regulations.
    Yes, I can see that you can't see it.
    I think reporting problems to an independent board is taking the high ground.
    Sounds like breaking a butterfly on the wheel to me. Or at least it could be. For out-and-out, in-your-face bigots it's probably not.
    I'm asking for discretion and some consideration for the other side's feeling too - is all.
    Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

    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 544 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 3:17 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 550 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 5:39 PM Tangle has replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 550 of 1484 (802915)
    03-21-2017 5:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 549 by Tangle
    03-21-2017 4:15 PM


    on the hatred of nice Christian bigots
    You have avoided my point. The case against the Christian bakers is lost. They will lose every case they attempt to defend. They are in the wrong as far as the law is concerned. I'm not, and never have been, making legal points. I asked you whether you feel that gays may have a duty - in this case moral - to not put otherwise decent people in this predicament if it can be avoided?
    I wasn't talking law, I was talking morality.
    It is immoral to discriminate against gays, blacks, women etc. Blacks do not have a duty to ensure service providers are not racist and then simply avoid that. Asking them to would not be the moral response. Suggesting they have a duty to do so, even less so.
    This is disingenuous. The radical gay community have used many tactics to get their message across
    I've not denied this. You were asking a question that included a state of knowledge. I made two points, one directly at the question, one at the state of knowledge. There is no evidence that gay people have asked someone bake a cake or whatever with foreknowledge of refusal. I don't think it would be a particular problem if they did, to answer the question you seem to be hinting at.
    The question is whether the correct moral choice was made by suing? A right to sue is not an obligation to sue.
    And I've already answered this question in my previous responses. Sometimes it might be, sometimes it might not be. Case by case basis. If you want to cite an actual case, or even discuss a particular hypothetical one, I'm all ears. There is no one answer to a question such as this, some legal cases can be overly litigious, exhibit some kind of animus in their motivation and so on, some don't. I've not seen any examples that raise to this kind of level to date with regards to bakers and wedding cakes and therefore I certainly don't see this as a general pattern
    There is no evidence that gays always sue in these situations, and evidence that in fact they don't.
    In general and in every case I know of in particular the answer is 'yes' it is moral, and 'no' that does not suggest any universal obligation to sue.
    And I'm questioning whether that kind of blanket statement is an example of unnecessary intolerance to a minority which in all other ways may be harmless.
    And I'm saying 'no'. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free to.
    The evidence is that they would also not sell the cake to me, a straight guy, knowing that it had a gay message or was going to be used at a gay wedding.
    It's not the person paying for it being refused that is the intrinsic problem. After all, if I refused to sell something to someone because I had good reason to expect it was a gift for a black person, that'd still be an issue.
    hey can not therefore be discriminating against gay people by not selling me a cake - except in very indurect route
    It's not very indirect. A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. Just because you are not the gay people they are discriminating against it doesn't mean it isn't discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality.
    The effect is a suppression of services that are to the benefit of a protected class because of the membership of the benefactors in said protected class. To go back in history, this is just as bad as refusing to provide goods to 'nigger lovers' who are buying things for black people.
    I know you're desperate to stick to specific cases, but I'm trying to move from the particular to the general. Discussing ideas not just cases
    A specific case is useful to highlight issues because humans aren't easily generalisable and there are few cases to generalise from, we may as well examine the specific cases. But if you insist on talking generally then I have to ask - do you have any evidence that in general the queer community doesn't just shrug it off? Without resorting to "in some particular cases some gays haven't" it seems there is no way you can know this, so the question is moot. The point being you never hear about the gays that do shrug off this kind of thing. That's one reason I warned against the perils of selection bias.
    I don't see what is intolerant about reporting a violation of trading regulations.
    Yes, I can see that you can't see it.
    Yes and I see by your brevity that you don't want to discuss your position in more detail. I've already given the details of my counterargument so that's the end of that line of discussion.
    I'm asking for discretion and some consideration for the other side's feeling too - is all.
    Show evidence that discretion isn't employed and consideration of the other side's feeling isn't being given. In general.
    Take a look at my responses to Faith in this thread as an example of what me taking her feelings seriously looks like specifically. On the other hand here the consideration you have been paying:
    quote:
    deluded so-called Christians
    quote:
    right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off
    quote:
    closed-minded bigots
    quote:
    primitive prejudice
    quote:
    religious idiot
    quote:
    You either didn't read, or read and ignored - in classic Faith fashion
    quote:
    silly people
    quote:
    The Christians with their bonkers beliefs
    quote:
    you're talking to people who are on your side. People who hate these bigots at least as much as you do.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 549 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2017 4:15 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 551 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2017 5:47 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 551 of 1484 (802916)
    03-21-2017 5:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 550 by Modulous
    03-21-2017 5:39 PM


    Re: on the hatred of nice Christian bigots
    Modulous writes:
    And I'm saying 'no'.
    I think that covers it. Thanks.

    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 550 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 5:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 552 of 1484 (802917)
    03-21-2017 6:22 PM


    The Main Points
    No matter how clear I try to make it many still say the issue is discrimination against people, gay people in this case, some unthinkingly, others concertedly, when it is not, it is strictly about refusing to treat gay marriage as legitimate. It's also wrong to treat all products and services as equal as some do, implying a whimsical refusal of some but not the others, when it's not about the product or service as such, but its meaning to the seller's conscience.
    I just read through a dozen posts and find the same problems over and over and over. I'm not up to answering the individual posts right now, but I believe they have been amply answered already anyway.
    I'm surprised to be in agreement with Tangle at all about anything at all, but he's doing a very good job of making the case that good and decent people who are not discriminating against anybody are being persecuted for obeying their religion about the meaning of marriage and nothing else.
    The gay activist who wrote the piece in The Guardian brought out the important point, that it is not discrimination against people. I think that ought to become the understanding of these cases.
    Just for reference here's that article again.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 553 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2017 6:56 PM Faith has replied
     Message 555 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2017 1:57 AM Faith has not replied
     Message 556 by Percy, posted 03-22-2017 7:24 AM Faith has replied

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


    (2)
    Message 553 of 1484 (802921)
    03-21-2017 6:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 552 by Faith
    03-21-2017 6:22 PM


    Re: The Main Points
    Faith writes:
    I'm surprised to be in agreement with Tangle at all about anything at all, but he's doing a very good job of making the case that good and decent people who are not discriminating against anybody are being persecuted for obeying their religion about the meaning of marriage and nothing else.
    Just for the record, I obviously disagree that the people that refuse these services are right to do so. They are wrong both according to the law, according to an objective view of how people should treat and think of other people and also, rather sadly, contrary to Christian teachings of loving your neighbour and do as you would be done by. Jesus would not discriminate in this way. Your views are not Christian Faith.
    I defend the rights of LGBT people to fight for their right to be treated fairly and to take all legitimate actions to do.
    But I'm saddened that having won those hard earned rights very little consideration seems to being given to those that now find themselves wth beliefs that are at odds with the new reality.
    The cases so far raised that have been found wrong in law are very finely balanced, the harm - if any - is slight, and the discrimination indirect to the point of insignificant. From memory, the UK case finished with a 500 fine - equivalent to a minor traffic offence.
    My personal view is that the cause would benefit from displaying tolerance to minor infractions rather than pursuing them through the courts.
    But I've said this many times now so I'll give it a rest for a while.

    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 552 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 6:22 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 554 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 7:25 PM Tangle has not replied

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


    Message 554 of 1484 (802922)
    03-21-2017 7:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 553 by Tangle
    03-21-2017 6:56 PM


    Re: The Main Points
    Oh yes I know your opinion of Christian belief, but at least you had the grace to recognize the innocence of the people's motivations.
    So I'll say it yet again to those who think they know better what Jesus would do than Christians know: It is not Christian to justify sin which is what so many keep trying to do. You can't treat sin as not sin. Paul listed all the sins that will take people to Hell if they don't repent. It is not Christian to be nice about sin, it kills people. Jesus affirmed God's marriage ordinance, He did not disobey it nor counsel disobeying it, if anything He showed that it is stricter than Moses taught, more binding. He made it clear that what God said in Genesis 2:24 still stands.
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 553 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2017 6:56 PM Tangle has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 555 of 1484 (802932)
    03-22-2017 1:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 552 by Faith
    03-21-2017 6:22 PM


    Re: The Main Points
    quote:
    The gay activist who wrote the piece in The Guardian brought out the important point, that it is not discrimination against people. I think that ought to become the understanding of these cases.
    It is worth mentioning that the only reason for his judgement was that the plaintiffs asked for the message 'support gay marriage" to be iced.
    If they had been simply asking for a wedding cake for their own wedding celebrations the situation would be materially different.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 552 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 6:22 PM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 560 by kjsimons, posted 03-22-2017 12:35 PM PaulK 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