Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

As Reagan appointee and notorious Conservative Christian Justice Antonin Scalia said, in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic - 506 U.S. 263 (1993):

quote:

---

Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews

---

Wearing yarmulkes is a behaviour. Discriminating against people that wear yarmulkes is discriminating against jews.Homosexual marriage is an activity that is an irrational object of disfavor... engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people. Because of legal theory such as described by Scalia, and reiterated in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), there is no legal difference between status and conduct. In fact, in the legal opinion of the Colorado baker's case they described your thinking as 'drawing a distinction without a difference':

quote:

---

....because it was due to
their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus
toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to aheterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a
difference.
The salient feature distinguishing same sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same- sex weddings.
Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not because of their sexual orientation.

---

Emphasis mine.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sigh. I'm for protecting people who can't help what they are, and that includes homosexuals. I was trying to distinguish between a natural condition and a behavior, but really that misses the point too, because the ONLY thing at issue here is being asked to do something that violates God's law.And the only thing that fits that situation is being asked to make a cake or take pictures for a gay wedding. Perhaps you can come up with a situation I'm not thinking of where I'd be put in the same position but so far this is the only one that fits that condition. This is the ONLY thing I've been talking about, the ONLY thing that the Christians are accused of "discriminating" about. This is not about serving homosexuals or anybody else under any other circumstances, just this one, as I've said over and over and over again.I detoured to consider what makes the situation different from racism because this is stupidly and irrelevantly hurled at the Christians for refusing to support gay marriage, as if all you all want to do is pin something on us, anything. And I think that is what some of you do want to do, you really aren't interested in the context at all. Homosexuality IS sin, but we are NOT discriminating against sinners either, the whole accusation is trumped up.Again, the ONLY situation here is being asked to do something that validates gay marriage which is asking us to dishonor God's law.I could not care less what the courts say about any of this if it forces a Christian to do anything that dishonors God's law.

Well, suppose your employer asked you to pick up sticks on a Saturday. Suppose you were a waitress required to serve someone shrimp. Suppose you worked in a garment factory and were asked to make clothes from a cotton-nylon mix. Suppose you worked in a bank and were made complicit with lending money at interest. Or suppose you worked in a cake shop, and two people who had been married in your church, but divorced from their respective partners in civil courts, now wanted to marry each other, which is of course adultery in God's eyes. And suppose they ordered a cake.But you don't give a damn about any of that stuff, the only thing you care about is being mean to gay people, and "God's law" can take a hike.

It was not a fine of 'hundreds of thousands' was it?'Fess up. You jumped on the Fox News hyperbole magical mystery tour.

I'll take that as a concession that your argument was indefensible. But nobody is being asked to do something that violates God's law. Even if we assume that selling a cake to be used in a same-sex marriage is violating God's law, nobody is being asked to do that. It is certainly something you are free to do - but you are not obligated to. In fact there are hundreds of millions of Americans that have never and will never bake and sell a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. A few Christians. Not close to the majority. It is about refusing to serve people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You think only Christians are targeted, but Muslims and Jews alike have holy books that condemn homosexuality. We choose racism to compare it to because we're confident its actually something we can agree on from which to attempt to help explain and to draw explanations from you.You are supporting homophobia.This is like supporting
misogyny
xenophobia
disability discrimination,
racism.Since your religion still has a lot of people that are misogynistic and xenophobic in it, we tend to avoid that comparison in case it leads to pointless sub-debates.Racism - specifically the act of it, notably in the refusal to provide equal service context, you agree is wrong. Even if you justify it with religious opinion or textual interpretation. It's still wrong.So homophobia (the act, refusal to serve) why is this not wrong? Is it because it is YOUR personal religious opinion? Why is your view more important than another Christian who interprets Arabs as Philistines and refuses them service? I'm not interested in the context? I've just read pages upon pages of legal discussion as well as various State's acts. What additional context do I need? You are proposing we should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, and that forbidding this is tyrannical like the Nazis did in the 1930s.Do you think that refusing to serve customers wearing a yarmulke, because they are wearing a yarmulke, is cool too? But you don't have to do it! If you don't care what the courts say, why you are you bothering to discuss a law and the legal consequences to Christians?You know that there is no law in America that forces you to dishonour your version of God's law? Not a single one.You know how abortion is legal in the USA? Does this mean that you are forced to dishonour God by being forced to abort innocent babies? Well no, you just don't work in abortion clinics.Muslims have to tolerate immodest women, they have to serve practicing Bah' apostates. Is America forcing Muslims to work in a bar and serve alcohol? All of this is can be construed as being against their God's law (YMMV^*.)^* Your Muslim May Vary.

Jesus fulfilled all those laws so that Christians are not under them. I don't know why you all keep harping on them, they are irrelevant. Jesus fulfilled ALL the laws, so that our salvation is a free gift and His obedience covers all who believe in Him.And those laws have nothing to do with the Moral Law anyway, which is where the conflict enters. Those are all what are called "ceremonial" laws, all types, meant only for the Jews, and rescinded in the New Testament. Jesus IS our Sabbath, we no longer have the law against picking up sticks. Shrimp was a food meant to separate the Jews from the Gentiles. God rescinded that law in the NT.However, I could be put in a position where I had to refuse to honor a second marriage, because I believe Jesus disallows that, so you hit on one instance that is comparable to the gay marriage instance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? You really said this? Wow!! I am continually stunned by your continuing and total lack of any self awareness.

Apart from when it comes to making cakes for gay people, where you'd better be justified by works just to be on the safe side.

So - Just to be clear - Christian cake makers should refuse to make cakes for both second marriages and same-sex marriages. Because both violate "God's law". Is that correct?

"And despite the false propaganda it was Christians who opposed it from the beginning in this country. Pseudochristian Democrat southerners wanted it to become the law of the land, so we had a Civil War to decide the issue and they, fortunately, lost."What makes the pro slavery southerners pseudo Christians? In the thread on the Christian woman who was recently sentenced to death in Sudan, you admitted that you don't actually consider that woman a Christian. Yet, because she's being persecuted for considering herself a Christian and because others consider her a Christian, you're counting her as a Christian, even though you don't actually believe her to be one. Meanwhile, your attitude towards Christians who commit wrongs is the exact opposite. In cases where Catholics persecuted others, you've said that you don't count that as examples of Christians persecuting people because you don't consider Catholics Christians, even if they themselves do. This is a double standard. Every professed Christian who is persecuted for their beliefs is counted as a Christian by you, while almost every professed Christian who persecutes for their beliefs is not counted as a Christian by you. Based on this double standard, you reach the conclusion that Christians are greatly persecuted but have rarely persecuted others. Now you're saying that anti slavery Christians in pre Civil War America were Christian and pro slavery Christians were not Christians. On what basis do you draw this distinction?Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.

Well, first point, let's not overstate the case - no one is being required to conduct a wedding ceremony with which they don't agree, or marry someone of the same sex. They're being required not to refuse to provide services in connection with a gay wedding, where they provide those services to other people.I would not argue that forcing someone to conduct a gay wedding or to marry someone of the same sex is not a violation of God's law. Telling someone not to withhold services in connection with a gay wedding ? Much less so. The question is more nuanced than you suggest by saying it violates God's law.But the second point is at the heart of the issue. Your biblical, faith-based objection, whilst patently relevant, is clearly not the ONLY thing at issue (your capitals). At issue also is discrimination against a group of people. And when issues conflict, we have to decide which one should take precedence. You don't get to trump everyone else's rights by simply saying "my particular faith is more important than anything else". (If you could, then all sorts of rubbish would be allowed - certain Christians could discriminate against black people; certain Muslims could cut off a thief's hand, etc etc and escape any punishment).So we have to balance. We've chosen to balance by saying "ok, we won't force a church or mosque to conduct a gay wedding, but we will prohibit people who provide services to the public from discriminating by refusing to provide them to gay people. It's a balancing act, very well described in the judge's decision referenced above.Now you can debate where the balance lies (though 100% in your favour is wrong for the reasons I've described above), but persecution it patently is not.

Funny then that these bakers, and a photographer and a florist WERE asked to do something that violates God's law and when they refused they were subjected to a lawsuit and the courts sided with their accusers. Your point is evasive and irrelevant to the context. I don't count those who reject God's law.I consider this discussion to be about a principle, numbers at this stage are irrelevant. The principle is that a Christian CAN be sued for standing on Christian beliefs. I consider this to be an evil unjust legal situation, and I see no reason why it would stop at this first step. The culture has decided that Christians must act against our belief concerning gay marriage when put in the position of having to choose, and if we refuse we are subject to sanctions. This is unprecedented in American history, and it's just the toe in the door. And in the context under discussion when I don't I get sued and fined. Why do you keep pretending this isn't the context? You presented the views of Scalia as if I should take them as a reason to give up my views. I don't. Why do you keep twisting the context? If a business can be sued and fined for refusing to do a service that in their view dishonors God's law then there is definitely a law that forces this on us.

I did not. Go back and quote what I actually said.ABE: Hint: I refused to judge, and in fact I can't judge in individual cases. Even if the "church" is apostate, individuals may be Christians.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Remarriage after divorce. Some second marriages are because the first spouse died.Yes.I personally would be put in this position with regard to remarriage, but I'm not representative. I believe that all Christians should have this same view of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see that you've said anything I haven't already answered a hundred times in this thread.Go ahead and decide what the "balance" is in your opinion. If it requires me to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I'll choose whatever punishment you decree.That's the bottom line and has been throughout this thread.