Summations Only

Sorry, but this logical fallacy of 'appeal to the consequences' just doesn't do anything for me. This is particularly true since the bully boy picture of Jesus you are painting does not match the character of Jesus as painted in the Gospels. Well, maybe the overturning tables and chasing people around with whips.

Similarly, your free speech rights are not abridged when they shout you down at a town meeting (see Obamacare Death Panels) or contain your protest a mile away from the presidential venue (see Bush)......but their free speech rights are shattered when a conservative says something boneheaded about rape, and everybody thinks he's a dick and won't vote for him or watch his show.Conservatives consider their rights powers to be exercised without fear of consequence; yours are negotiable.It's a dangerous notion.

The right to refuse service for any reason, however, IS a right, one that you apparently don't support.

Call it "discrimination" -- such as a person's conscience against gay marriage -- and you can vilify anyone or anything these days.

You are in fact expressing a really weird bigotry of your own that never existed in America or on this planet until recent decades.

Nobody is allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake or take wedding photos for a gay wedding ceremony.

Got it. That's been thoroughly established on this thread. So now whenever somebody does refuse service on such grounds you can run them out of business, reduce them to begging on the streets, or whatever your little heart thinks such "discrimination" deserves.

How about forcing them to watch the most obscene gay parade imaginable? You know, consciousness-raising, or re-education as the communists used to call it.

It was probably legal to do so in AZ before this attempt to enshrine discrimination into law occurred, and I'm not so sure it isn't legal despite the veto.

Of course they can refuse, they will obviously be fully booked on the day that the service is required.

There is no way you are going to get me to treat homosexuality as the equivalent of race.

Thought it might be apropos to put up a link to this classic, Christianity and Liberalism which is Presbyterian theologian and Princeton Professor J. Gresham Machen's response to the inroads of liberalism that were underway in the first part of the 20th century.

If you believe in evolution you do not believe all the Bible, DA, and I thought you said you believe in evolution.

There is a right to act according to conscience, which in this case comes down to a right to refuse service where it would violate one's conscience.

I've so repeatedly said that race is not what I'm talking about . . .

But OK, although I don't think there can be such a thing as conscientious racism,

Racism is not justified in the Bible,

You are arguing with ME, remember? You cannot impose what YOU think "discrimination" is about on MY argument.

I am NOT talking about racism.

Again, I do NOT accept the idea of conscientious racism,

But I was explaining the basis for MY point of view. and racism, which you all keep trying to hang on me,

I'm talking about the Biblical view of marriage and of homosexuality.

First, since my Christian identity has been under assault from many angles in this discussion, it seems relevant to post information that vindicates my claim to it.Second, it may surprise you to learn that the limitation of nonChristian rights was precisely the case in the early days of America, most especially the very early days of the colonies but also the days following the Constitution and the establishment of the federal government. Court cases of that period condemned blasphemy of the Christian God and declarations of atheism among other things. We're talking a pro-Christian attitude that prevailed for some three hundred or so years before it was usurped by modernism and the anti-Christian sentiment we now see at EvC for instance. Christianity ruled in the culture and it ruled in the government. This in spite of the fact that the major Constitutional founders were anti-Christian themselves and traitors to the original Christian vision of earlier generations. They did, however, have a strong positive regard for Christian morality despite their rejection of the gospel.

There IS a strong case to be made for that very view you find so odious in other words, though I know you aren't going to accept it now. My point is merely that your sentiment on the subject isn't as open and shut as you think. American freedoms were conceived and defended in the early years in the context of a strong pro-Christian understanding.

Now it's all going under. You can rejoice.

Not exactly to be nitpicking but were not the earlier generations of Americans actually "indians" or natives?

And if they had laws about selling cake to gay people, I've yet to hear of it.