Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,106 Year: 5,363/9,624 Month: 388/323 Week: 28/204 Day: 4/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 1484 (802193)
03-13-2017 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
03-13-2017 4:24 AM


God's marriage ordinance
I still don't get your thinking on this. Seems to me the first and main way it was abused was probably by polygamy, which was common in OT times. The next violation was probably frequent divorce. Both are violations of the ordinance of marriage.
Perhaps you can show how polygamy is a violation. Unlike divorce Jesus is not noted for speaking against it, and it is widely accepted in the OT.
It's implied in the passages that speak of two as one flesh, and a strong union not to be "put asunder" by man; and prohibiting remarriage unless the spouse has died
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:5-6 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mark 10:12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
1Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Have to stop here for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 4:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 5:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 112 by 14174dm, posted 03-13-2017 6:49 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 92 of 1484 (802194)
03-13-2017 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
03-13-2017 5:04 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Genesis 2:24 is consistent with polygamy.
Matthew 19 is speaking against divorce and says nothing relevant
Mark 10 is the only possibly relevant passage. However, it seems to simply assume monogamy as the norm - without addressing polygamy. A polygamist, by definition, does not need to divorce a wife to take another. It would be interesting to find out where this assumption came from - and obviously relevant.
I will note that Corinthians 7 takes a negative view of marriage, seeing it only as an unfortunately necessary outlet for physical desire. Even then neither of the verses speak against polygamy. 7:27 says that the married should not divorce and the unmarried should not marry. 7:39 speaks only of the duties of the wife, but Biblical polygamy is one man with more than one wife so it does not apply.
I would add that 1 Timothy 3:2, in requiring that Bishops have only one wife, suggests an acceptance of polygamy even in NT times, even if it was seen as questionable.
The references to divorce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 1484 (802196)
03-13-2017 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
03-13-2017 5:34 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
I would add that 1 Timothy 3:2, in requiring that Bishops have only one wife, suggests an acceptance of polygamy even in NT times, even if it was seen as questionable.
It's normally understood to prohibit divorce, and there is no other NT mention of anything even remotely suggestive of accepted polygamy.
I believe all the passages I quoted clearly prohibit polygamy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 5:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 6:04 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 94 of 1484 (802197)
03-13-2017 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
03-13-2017 5:54 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
quote:
It's normally understood to prohibit divorce, and there is no other NT mention of anything even remotely suggestive of accepted polygamy
It's a pretty odd phrasing for that.
quote:
I believe all the passages I quoted clearly prohibit polygamy.
Then I am sorry to inform you that you need to learn to read for comprehension.
Forbidding divorce is not a prohibition on polygamy. Saying that a woman may only have one husband (at a time) is not saying that a man cannot have more than one wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 12:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34126
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 95 of 1484 (802198)
03-13-2017 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
03-13-2017 3:32 AM


Re: related issues
Faith writes:
It would be the legal system targeting them, as I said, including the original Supreme Court legalization of gay marriage.
Once again Faith, reality shows you are wrong. It was not the Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage but rather many different legislatures. The Supreme Court simply upheld lower court decisions and affirmed that such laws were Constitutional.
AbE: Before the Supreme Court affirmed that same-sex marriage was Constitutional thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia has passed laws allowing same-sex marriages.
source
The Supreme Court did not make any law but only affirmed that the laws passed by the States were Constitutional.
What that affirmation did do is affirm that the so called "Defense of Marriage Acts" passed in some States were NOT Constitutional.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:32 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 1:22 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 1484 (802209)
03-13-2017 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
03-13-2017 6:04 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists.
It's a pretty odd phrasing for that.
Well, there isn't a shred of a hint of polygamy among the Jews in Jesus' or Paul's time. Even Herod only had one wife, and you'd expect the rulers and the rich to be the polygamists if it was tolerated.
Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans? But there is a reference to Pilate's wife -- singular -- so you'd probably have to look at secular histories to find that out. I don't even think the Caesars had more than one wife, though of course the craziest of them lived wildly promiscuous lives.
Certainly, when Christianity spread to other parts of the world it might have been read as prohibiting polygamy in places where it existed but then that wouldn't account for the odd phrasing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 6:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 03-13-2017 1:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 1:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 97 of 1484 (802210)
03-13-2017 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
03-13-2017 12:53 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Faith writes:
Well, there isn't a shred of a hint of polygamy among the Jews in Jesus' or Paul's time.
I found a shred of a hint:
quote:
"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform." Wikipedia
Faith writes:
Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans?
See above.
Would it kill you to be right about something just once?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 1:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 1484 (802211)
03-13-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
03-13-2017 1:03 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
That's interesting, thanks.
I'm right a lot, it just doesn't get acknowledged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 03-13-2017 1:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 03-13-2017 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 99 of 1484 (802212)
03-13-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
03-13-2017 1:10 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Faith writes:
I'm right a lot, it just doesn't get acknowledged.
I've cheered you every time you were right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 1:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 100 of 1484 (802213)
03-13-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
03-13-2017 12:53 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
quote:
Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists.
The Bible - and Jesus - seem to disagree. (E.g. Matthew 19:7-8)
quote:
Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans?
It's more likely that the Jews adopted monogamy due to Greek and Roman influences.
quote:
Certainly, when Christianity spread to other parts of the world it might have been read as prohibiting polygamy in places where it existed but then that wouldn't account for the odd phrasing.
Or it is a recognition of the fact that polygamy was still practiced in some countries and is not forbidden in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 1484 (802214)
03-13-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
03-13-2017 7:07 AM


Re: related issues
What that affirmation did do is affirm that the so called "Defense of Marriage Acts" passed in some States were NOT Constitutional.
The Defense of Marriage Act was a federal law that prevented states from having to recognize marriage in other states. Given that the constitution expressly requires states to recognize contracts made in other states, it was fairly obvious that the DOMA was never constitutional, to begin with.
Bigots have actually gone out of their way to be offended by gay marriage. Many of them (and Faith may not fit into this category) talk about redefining of marriage as if they were personally affected by what spouse somebody else chose to marry. I'm not sure any personal right could be less intrusive to other folks. At least with respect to the first amendment, we get offensive speech. What effect does gay marriage have on anybody not involved? Pretty much none.
As someone else expressed, some Christians martyr themselves in the kittens' den these days.
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 95 by jar, posted 03-13-2017 7:07 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 6:59 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 1484 (802216)
03-13-2017 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
03-13-2017 12:53 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists.
Well, if there is no such thing as divorce, booting a wife out of the house even if the house was polygamous would seem to leave the dispatched wife with little to no prospects for the future. So, yeah it would be a problem.
Instead of spending time wondering why you did not check before expounding, I looked to see what Jewish sources said about the practice of polygamy. As best as I can find, polygamy was eliminated from most of Jewish culture around 1000 years ago. That date would also be about 1000 years after the NT was written. It appears that the practice was discouraged but not prohibited. For example, one reference I encountered says that the Talmud discussed how to divide an estate between multiple wives.
Just a moment...
quote:
Approximately one thousand years ago, the noted German scholar Rabbi Gershom the Light of the Diaspora banned polygamy.1 This ban was accepted as law by all Ashkenazic Jews, but was not recognized by Sephardic and Yemenite communities.
https://www.reddit.com/...why_did_hebrewsisraelitesjews_stop
quote:
The first outright ban on polygamy was around 1000, from the assembly of Rabbeinu Gershom, which banned it for Ashkenazi Jews (roughly European Jews, but they were much more geographically compact a the time). But it seems polygamy was already uncommon--the purpose of the ban was to make religious prohibitions on things that had been undesireable for centuries. That effectively ended polygamy for European Jews, though some, like Rabbi Jacob Emden, thought that the ban shouldn't've been made in theory, but didn't actually practice polygamy.
Forbidden - Stack Exchange
quote:
Around the year 1000, the rabbinic leadership of Jewry living in France and Germany (or "Ashkenazic" Jews, many of whom would later migrate to Eastern Europe) declared a ban on polygamy, which still stands today. Hence in the English-speaking world today it's virtually unheard of.

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 96 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 103 of 1484 (802217)
03-13-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
03-13-2017 1:12 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Ringo answered it from Wikipedia quoting Josephus. There is nothing in the NT -- except that one verse you brought up -- to suggest polygamy was still practiced among the Jews, but Josephus says it was, so that verse probably does imply that it was, as you thought.
But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 3:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 106 by Astrophile, posted 03-13-2017 5:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 104 of 1484 (802219)
03-13-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
03-13-2017 3:03 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
quote:
But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.
If it was forbidden there would be no need to specifically deny it to bishops.
Not to mention the fact that polygamy is permitted by the Mosaic Law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(6)
Message 105 of 1484 (802223)
03-13-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:23 AM


Eighth time, Faith
Faith writes:
quote:
A wedding cake is usually a custom affair made especially for the occasion
Not any more than any other cake.
Remember, Faith: I used to be a cake decorator. There is nothing special about creating a wedding cake other than the person who is buying it from you has told you, "It's my wedding cake." There is no special ingredient you use to make a wedding cake that isn't used for any other cake you might make. There is no wedding fondant, no special way you make wedding roses out of icing, no wedding eggs to use in the batter, no wedding sugar that will immediately burn if you dare to use it for a birthday.
quote:
according to specifications given by the customer
Just like every other cake. "I need a cake for my kid's birthday, sports themed. She's really into the Pittsburgh Steelers, so can you do black icing? I'd like a football helmet...."
There's nothing unique about a wedding cake. The only reason you even know it's a "wedding" cake is if the person tells you.
quote:
it's not a generic cake you can buy from the display case.
Actually, it is. Oh, the baker may want you to think that you're getting some sort of magical process (remember...the "wedding tax"? The wedding industry is filled with unscrupulous people who will overcharge you for their services the moment you use the "w" word) But, a cake is a cake. If they could make the thing beforehand and have a significant enough turnover so that it wouldn't go stale by the time it was bought, that's precisely how wedding cakes would be sold.
Other than the timing, that's precisely what is done: You will notice that most wedding cakes look an awful lot alike: Either round or square sheets, covered with some sort of fondant (these days...I remember when icing was still used), and then decorated with various frills. The only reason it isn't made beforehand is because it isn't actually going to be delivered until months from now. It's not like the baker has to individually create each cake pan mold for each cake.
quote:
It's also not like a birthday cake since Christians have no reason to object to gays or anybody else celebrating a birthday.
And yet, some do. Some Christians do have plenty of reasons to object to gay people celebrating a birthday. That's what these "religious freedom" laws specifically allow: Any business owner can refuse to provide services to gay people due to their "religious freedom."
So when the Civil Rights Act passed and segregation ended and various businesses insisted that their religious freedoms were being violated by having to serve black people, were they justified in doing so, Faith? Does "religious freedom" include being able to deny black people service?
Because that actually happened, Faith. Remember Loving v. Virginia? The lower courts ruled against them specifically stating that god didn't want the races to mix:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
That's what the county court judge, Leon M. Bazile, wrote, Faith.
Once again, we see your political correctness: You're PC enough to despise being thought of as a racist...
...and even more PC enough to relish being thought of as a homophobe.
quote:
What they can't have from a Christian baker is a special order for a gay wedding because that puts the baker in the position of treating the wedding as legitimate
Still waiting on your detailed description about how anybody else can "validate" someone else's marriage. After all, you're not the one getting married nor are you the officiant performing the ceremony. You're just a salesman being asked to do your job just as you would for any other customer. If you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up. If you want to pick and choose your clients, then you need to establish your business as a private contractor, not as a public accommodation.
Back to the race, question, Faith: Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race? If an interracial couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says the races shouldn't mix and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?
If that's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Or what about religion? Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of religion? If a Jewish couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says Jews killed Jesus and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?
If that's a bogus argument when applied to religion, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
God has decreed what marriage is
Funny...I'm looking at the marriage contract for various states and I don't see anything about god in there. God didn't write the law. It seems that humans did.
So when people claimed that god made the races separate and didn't want them mixing, were we wrong to ignore that?
Do you honestly think you get to claim that god allows you to break the law when you don't like it?
quote:
that makes gay marriage a slap in God's face, which we will not participate in.
And how fortunate you are that nobody's asking you to participate. You're just being asked to do the job you consciously, deliberately, and purposefully said you would do for anybody who walked through the door.
Do you truly not understand what "open to the public" means in regard to a business, Faith? It specifically means you don't get to say no to the customer. If you want to pick and choose who your clients are, then you must run your business as a private contractor. Even then, you still have certain legal regulations you must comply with, but you will have much more freedom to say no.
Question: Do you think anti-discrimination laws are valid? Should a business have the right to deny service based upon a person's race? Sex? Religion?
If not, why would they be allowed to do so based upon a person's sexual orientation?
quote:
The same is true for a florist asked to design arrangements for a gay wedding.
Precisely. There is nothing special about a wedding that changes the way the flowers are managed. You opened your business to the public, so you don't get to complain when the public shows up. Just as you would be in violation of the law if you denied a black couple or a Jewish couple, you are in violation of the law if you denied a gay couple.
Unless you're saying that you should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and Jews.
Are you, Faith? Do business owners have the right to deny service on the basis of race or religion?
quote:
quote:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because you keep avoiding the question. It's a simple yes-or-no, but you have yet to answer it.
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
quote:
Are you unaware that we were a Christian society up until very recently, which would never have dreamed of legalizing something as antichristian as "gay marriage?"
Are you unaware that we were never a Christian society?
Have you forgotten that we as a society up until very recently would never have dreamed of legalizing something as anti-Christian as "interracial marriage"?
Remember, Faith: That was the judgement of the court in Loving v. Virginia:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Have you forgotten that we as a society up until very recently would never have dreamed of legalizing something as anti-Christian as equal treatment under the law? It's why we had segregation laws, Faith. And when they were struck down, people claimed "religious persecution" as if they had a religious exemption to the law.
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
If it was a bogus argument when people tried to do so regarding race, what makes you think you're going to be able to get away with it with regard to sexual orientation?
Is it "paganism" to allow blacks to marry? Was there any "religious freedom" lost when the law slapped down those people who invoked god as their exemption to anti-discrimination laws?
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
There are still country clubs in this country that are whites-only, Faith. And they are perfectly legal because the club is set up as a private institution that isn't open to the public.
But the public golf course doesn't get to keep the blacks out. Why? Precisely because it is a "public" golf course. It is "open to the public." Do you not understand what that means? When you open your business to the public, you gain the advantage of having anybody be a potential client. You are able to accept anybody who walks through the door. Rather than having to do all the work of finding your clients yourself, you can advertise your business to the public at large.
And the responsibility you have for that freedom is that you don't get to say no to the people who show up. When you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up.
If you want to pick and choose your clients, if you want to tell people no, if you want to be able to sit in judgement of the people who would seek to contract your services, you must remain a private contractor. You'll give up the freedom to have anybody as your client. You'll have to seek out your customer base on your own.
But, you'll be able to tell someone who seeks to contract your services, "No. I don't wish to do business with you."
quote:
Capiche?
Well, since you still haven't answered the question, no.
How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?
Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "no"
Edited by Rrhain, : "County," not "country"
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a not, fixed a comma splice, typo
Edited by Rrhain, : "You're," not "Your"

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 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:23 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 781 by mike the wiz, posted 04-01-2017 7:22 AM Rrhain 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