Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 721 of 1484 (803271)
03-28-2017 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 6:35 AM


Re: No case at al
quote:
That. That right there. That's you running away.
You just can't stop lying.
quote:
Are you saying you didn't write what you were quoted as having written?
If I was doing that I wouldn't be defending it from your misrepresention.
quote:
But we know she's never going to address it because...wait for it...SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU
And how does that make her argument any better ?
quote:
Do you honestly not see the irony in you claiming I'm misinterpreting your claims about Faith's misinterpretation of her own faith?
I am not claimimg that Faith misrepresents her own beliefs, I do claim that Christianity is much wider than Faith's personal beliefs.
quote:
Except it does: It is irrelevant whether or not Faith's interpretation of the Bible is based in a "good grounding of Christian doctrine." It's *her* faith, she's entitled to it, and the law still doesn't care what it is.
Which doesn't deal with the point. Faith's personal beliefs are not the issue. Christianity is.
quote:
Because it's *HER* faith
Christianity is not just Faith's version of it, so why does she get to define Christian doctrine ? What makes her better equipped to do so than the Archbishop of Canterbury or an Orthodox Patriarch ?
quote:
But mine was about Faith's right to her faith, which you seem to be of the opinion she doesn't have a right to.
She doesn't have the right to insist that Christianity is limited to her faith, and that is all that matters for my argument.
quote:
And yet, she still doesn't believe you
So ? It would hardly be the first demolition of her arguments she refused to accept.
quote:
That you don't understand how Faith's beliefs aren't tied to how we manage anti-discrimination policy in a thread devoted to anti-discrimination policy shows just how disconnected you are.
I wonder how you can possibly evaluate my understanding of an issue that I am not even attempting to discuss.
quote:
Question: What is the end goal of convincing Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says?
That isn't something I was even attempting to do in the post we are discussing.
When will you cease this misrepresentation ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 6:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 722 of 1484 (803275)
03-28-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 720 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 7:04 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
And thus, you show you're a bigot.
You don't get to decide what is "minor" to another person. You don't get to tell others to "shrug it off."
You know what's coming, Tangle:
Fuck you.
You don't have the luxury of living their lives for them.
And thus you prove yet again, your own bigotry. You can't abide a difference of opinion. An opinion not about the discrimination itself, but on possible responses to it.
Like I say, by exhibiting your intolerance of diference as violently and as crudely as you do, you risk alienating those that are on your side of the main argument.
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 720 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 7:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:36 PM Tangle has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 723 of 1484 (803278)
03-28-2017 8:16 AM


Moderator On Duty
I'll be moderating this thread going forward. I'll start with a simple suggestion to work at finding some common ground and then to work outward from there. I'll also suggest that accusatory approaches are counterproductive.
This is just a Coffee House thread, so naturally there aren't going to be any suspensions (well, I shouldn't rule it out, but someone would have to try awfully hard to get suspended). After years of serving as moderator there's one overriding lesson I've learned: while moderation skills are helpful, the success of moderation is far more dependent upon the desire of the participants to reach a resolution. Absent that desire, moderation will be unsuccessful.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 724 of 1484 (803291)
03-28-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by PaulK
03-28-2017 7:17 AM


Re: No case at al
PaulK runs away:
quote:
You just can't stop lying.
That. That right there. That's you running away.
You just can't stop running away, can you?
quote:
If I was doing that I wouldn't be defending it from your misrepresention.
That's just it: You haven't been defending anything until now. And even now, all you're doing is whining, "Nuh-uh!" as if that were an argument.
quote:
quote:
But we know she's never going to address it because...wait for it...SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU
And how does that make her argument any better ?
Because she is the arbiter of what she believes and you are trying to say that she is unjustified in what she believes. As I've pointed out a couple times and as you've avoided each time (see...running away), the Bible makes no mention of same-sex marriage and all examples of marriage given are of mixed-sex groupings. So for you to claim that she doesn't understand the implications of what that means is arrogance.
Again, if I recall correctly, Faith has claimed she's talked directly to god. So how is it you think you can provide any sort of argument that can contradict the word of god?
quote:
I am not claimimg that Faith misrepresents her own beliefs, I do claim that Christianity is much wider than Faith's personal beliefs.
Indeed.
What's that got to do with anything, Franklin? This is about Faith and her beliefs and her actions that are made in light of those beliefs. What other people do is irrelevant to her. That there are people who claim to be Christian and perform the devil's work doesn't mean she should consider joining them.
quote:
Which doesn't deal with the point. Faith's personal beliefs are not the issue. Christianity is.
Which avoids the point: There is no such thing as "Christianity" outside of the personal beliefs of those who claim to be Christian. Again, the Bible is a self-contradictory mess. There isn't any position listed that isn't countered somewhere else. For crying out loud, it can't even get the story of creation straight. Even marriage isn't safe. So to try and claim that "Christianity says" is a fool's errand in the end. You have to be specific about which sect you are talking about.
Otherwise, you're arguing "No True Christian."
quote:
Christianity is not just Faith's version of it
For her, it is. And as described above for the third time, that's true for all of them. Christianity doesn't exist outside of the personal beliefs of those who claim to be Christian. That's why there are so many sects. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant...which of those is the real version we should be looking at to determine what the Bible has to say about marriage? Catholics, after all, say you aren't allowed to get divorced but Protestants don't seem to mind so much. Both have religious justifications for their position.
Do you truly think you get to argue a Protestant doctrine with a Catholic and expect to be taken seriously?
quote:
so why does she get to define Christian doctrine ? What makes her better equipped to do so than the Archbishop of Canterbury or an Orthodox Patriarch ?
Because it's her faith. For crying out loud, that's precisely why there is such a thing as an Archbishop of Canterbury to begin with: Martin Luther decided that he knew better than the Pope and Henry VIII latched onto it (sorta) which was then solidified by Elizabeth I. My god, the Catholics split from the Orthodox over literally a single word and its interpretation. And here you are saying that Faith doesn't get to have a similar insistence? Why do you respect those differences of opinion but not hers? Is it the flashy robes and funny hats? She is the ultimate arbiter of what she believes. For you to try and tell her otherwise is to argue "No True Christian."
quote:
She doesn't have the right to insist that Christianity is limited to her faith, and that is all that matters for my argument.
She most certainly does, and thus your own argument falls by your own admission. There is no such thing as Christianity outside of the personal beliefs of those who claim to be Christian. So when someone tells you what they believe, believe them.
quote:
So ? It would hardly be the first demolition of her arguments she refused to accept.
So where does that leave us? Suppose she were to respond to you and say, "You know, you're right. The Bible does say that. But god spoke to me directly and I follow his word." Now what?
quote:
I wonder how you can possibly evaluate my understanding of an issue that I am not even attempting to discuss.
And that's why you fail. Your position has implications. You may not like those implications, but we're back to the question I asked of you which you didn't answer. See, there's that running away again:
What's the point of trying to tell Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says with regard to marriage?
quote:
That isn't something I was even attempting to do in the post we are discussing.
And that's why you keep failing. I know you weren't attempting to address that issue, but just because you didn't mean to throw the ball through the window while playing catch doesn't mean it didn't happen. So it's time for you to consider the ramifications of what you're doing. Suppose Faith were to say, "You know, you're right. The Bible doesn't say that." What then? What do you expect out of her at that point?
quote:
When will you cease this misrepresentation ?
As soon as you stop running away and provide any sort of argument to justify your claim that you've been misinterpreted. 'Nuh-uh!" is not an argument.
You really don't see the irony in you complaining about being misinterpreted in a thread where you're claiming Faith is misinterpreting the Bible, do you?

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 721 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 7:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 3:40 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 725 of 1484 (803299)
03-28-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by Tangle
03-28-2017 7:50 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
You can't abide a difference of opinion.
(*chuckle*)
"I'm your friend!"
"Friends don't treat friends that way."
"You can't abide my difference of opinion on how friends treat each other!"
As if you get to tell another person that you're their friend. They are the final arbiter of who their friends are. When they tell you that you're not their friend, you don't get to contradict them.
quote:
Like I say, by exhibiting your intolerance of diference as violently and as crudely as you do
(*chuckle*)
"Violently"? Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you have no idea what that word means.
And it's cute that you think telling someone that their fight for dignity and respect is "petty" and "artificial" isn't "crude."
quote:
you risk alienating those that are on your side of the main argument.
That's just it, Tangle:
You're not on my side. You value lives based upon the monetary return of a lawsuit. You hear that someone is discriminated against and you call them "petty" for doing something about it, ranting about how it's "artificial." You can't actually provide any example of this sort of thing, but you know its out there because you were told it happens...and even worse actions that you can't actually describe, either.
So I don't care about alienating you.
You were never an ally.
And on the flip side: I am hardly the Grand High Pooh-Bah of anti-discrimination policy. If you get alienated because of little old me, then you weren't really an ally to begin with. All I've done is responded to your claim of, "I'm an ally!" with, "Eh...not so much." Are your pwecious fee-fees are so fragile that they cannot withstand a single person merely looking askance? Exactly how does that make you an ally if you can't even bear some nobody disagreeing with you?
Hey! Wasn't that what you just said? "You can't abide a difference of opinion"? Yeah, you did! You did say that just now.
Wow...who'da thunk you would get hoisted on your own petard?

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 722 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 7:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 5:00 PM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 726 of 1484 (803302)
03-28-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 3:02 PM


Re: No case at al
First, as we have seen you complain that I won't run away.
Second I have already produced an argument that you are misinterpreting my argument and it has clearly been ignored.
Third doubling down on the bad behaviour when the moderator has called for an attempt to find common ground deserves sanction.
And fourth the next time you wish to attempt to respond to one of my points please don't waste everyone's time. Whether you are simply incapable or just trolling I don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 4:14 PM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 727 of 1484 (803309)
03-28-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by PaulK
03-28-2017 3:40 PM


Re: No case at al
PaulK runs away:
quote:
First, as we have seen you complain that I won't run away.
No, we've seen me point out that all you're doing is running away.
quote:
Second I have already produced an argument that you are misinterpreting my argument and it has clearly been ignored.
Except you haven't. All you've done is say, "Nuh-uh!" and "I wasn't talking about that!" as if that were a response. Despite being shown precisely what it is that you did say, you then claim that I am somehow lying about what you said. Despite multiple opportunities to engage and clarify what it is you meant so that you aren't misinterpreted, you've avoided doing so at all costs.
quote:
Third doubling down on the bad behaviour when the moderator has called for an attempt to find common ground deserves sanction.
BWAHAHAHA!
The irony is strong in you, isn't it? Are you voluntarily submitting yourself to sanction? After all, can you find anything in your post that is an example of "an attempt to find common ground"?
To that end: Where's the common ground? If you're saying 2 + 2 = 5 and I'm insisting it's 4, it does nobody any good to insist upon "common ground" by saying is 4.5.
You say one thing. I say another. We could call the whole thing off or you could keep at it. This is entirely in your hands, PaulK. If there is no common ground to be found, why do you keep at it? Fifth time, PaulK: You could simply stop responding.
quote:
And fourth the next time you wish to attempt to respond to one of my points please don't waste everyone's time. Whether you are simply incapable or just trolling I don't care.
That. That right there. That's you running away.
Does Faith get to be the final arbiter on what she believes or not?
Even if you were to convince Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says, if you were merely able to get her to consider the possibility and agree that there are other people who are just as Christian as she is who disagree with her, what then? What happens next? Both in terms of her faith and in terms of her position on discrimination against gays?

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 726 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 3:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 4:43 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 728 of 1484 (803311)
03-28-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 4:14 PM


Re: No case at al
If you aren't interested in discussing my actual points where is the common ground ?
So let me offer a compromise. YOU stop responding.
Why won't you do that ?
It's pretty obvious to me that you just want to "win". Either I talk about your topic or I really run away. Either way you "win".
That is not acceptable to me. You do not get to dictate to me. And especially not by the tactics that you have used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 4:14 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 729 of 1484 (803314)
03-28-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 3:36 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
That's just it, Tangle:
You're not on my side.
So much is obvious - I'm on the side of tolerance, you're a manic zealot.
Luckily I don't judge your cause by the individuals that it circumscribes, I judge it on it's rightness. And the LGBT community doesn't deserve to be discrimated against no matter how intolerant some within their community are.

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 725 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:36 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2017 3:33 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 730 of 1484 (803323)
03-28-2017 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 4:26 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Let me jump in with my 2 cents. To begin, I have not thoroughly read these cases...so I am uninformed as to motivation...
Were their lawsuits "misplaced"? Were they "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"?
The lawsuits were necessary, but in my opinion overly aggressive. Wiping out someone's livelihood and putting their family on the street is a lot more serious than being butthurt because you were unable to have the wedding of your dreams.
It appears that the battle is necessary to secure equal rights, however.
Were I the offended party I would withdraw my lawsuit apart from a reasonable sum for emotional distress---a sum of perhaps $2,000.00 plus additionally occurred expenses caused by the refusal.
The point of the lawsuit would be to show that the offense was serious. Insisting upon huge monetary awards only hurts other people.

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 697 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 4:26 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:50 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 801 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2017 3:55 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 731 of 1484 (803331)
03-28-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Phat
03-28-2017 5:44 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
The lawsuits were necessary, but in my opinion overly aggressive. Wiping out someone's livelihood and putting their family on the street is a lot more serious than being butthurt because you were unable to have the wedding of your dreams.
I think you are misinformed.
No livelihood was wiped out. The only significant fine was to the Klein's. They decided to stop their public accommodation.
The family was not put on the street.
The Bowman-Cryers were not 'butthurt' {and in this context it should be noted this is probably an inappropriate turn of phrase for a number of reasons} about not having their perfect wedding. They had their perfect wedding. Two of them, one before the SCOTUS ruling, and a legally binding one afterwards.
However, their names and addresses were published on the internet by the Kleins which lead to a torrent of....unpleasant correspondence, fear of violent retribution etc. It lead to members of their family disowning them, and telling them they couldn't come onto family owned property or they would be shot - resulting in them not being able to visit their mother or grandmother. It resulted in an extended period of legitimate fear they would lose custody of their foster children. It resulted in enflaming long conditioned feelings of religious conflicts within the affected parties and a sense of unworthiness and humiliation. It lead to actual tangible damages to their lives, fear of the safety and welfare of their children and a torrent of hateful correspondence.
All other cases I know of, the service providers had, at worst, to pay a day's or a week's worth of takings - and were simply told to comply with the law going forward.
Were I the offended party I would withdraw my lawsuit apart from a reasonable sum for emotional distress---a sum of perhaps $2,000.00 plus additionally occurred expenses caused by the refusal.
Wouldn't it depend on the actual damages? In the Masterpiece Bakery case there was no financial sum requested or given as far as I am aware. The court simply ordered them to comply with the law.
But then, the Klein's solicited media attention and kept the pressure on and named and addressed the people complaining against them putting them in genuine fear for their safety and their children's safety and tore their family into pieces irreparably. They didn't sue, they complained to a labour and industry bureau - who agreed that a low six-figure reparation, given the particular circumstances (exacerbated by the Klein's continued insistence they would continue to break the rules of business), was justified.
The other cases I know of were decided at between $1,000 - $6000, where any sum was awarded at all.
The point of the lawsuit would be to show that the offense was serious. Insisting upon huge monetary awards only hurts other people.
I hope now you realize this is not the general way these things proceed and that only malicious actions and a demonstrated intent to do them again will likely result in such consequences.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Phat, posted 03-28-2017 5:44 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 1:04 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 802 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2017 4:01 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 732 of 1484 (803340)
03-29-2017 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 731 by Modulous
03-28-2017 6:50 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
No livelihood was wiped out. The only significant fine was to the Klein's. They decided to stop their public accommodation.
The family was not put on the street.
No, but they did have to close the source of their livelihood and Aaron Klein had to get a job driving a truck. However, fund raisers came through for them and financially they are OK as I understand it, but they can't go back to their chosen livelihood.
And just because other businesses didn't get such huge fines, the law is still in place and they are still vulnerable to anybody who wants to do it to them again. Legal gay marriage is going to hang over the heads of Christians indefinitely. And of course you are happy with that.
I don't find my sympathy growing for your cause because of all this.
ABE: Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of sympathy for gays in general because they didn't ask for it and they have had to endure many kinds of persecution. Nevertheless I object to gay marriage and to forcing people to accept it whose belief opposes it..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by jar, posted 03-29-2017 6:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 735 by Modulous, posted 03-29-2017 1:42 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 733 of 1484 (803343)
03-29-2017 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
03-29-2017 1:04 AM


reality strikes again
Faith writes:
Nevertheless I object to gay marriage and to forcing people to accept it whose belief opposes it.
Yet so far you have never shown even a single case where someone has been forced to accept gay marriage whose beliefs oppose it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 1:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 734 of 1484 (803346)
03-29-2017 8:02 AM


Moderator Request
I'd like to see more effort finding common ground and less effort chasing people from the field. I don't think anyone should be trying to answer the question, "Can I be a big enough asshole that people will just stop responding?"

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 735 of 1484 (803372)
03-29-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
03-29-2017 1:04 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
No, but they did have to close the source of their livelihood and Aaron Klein had to get a job driving a truck. However, fund raisers came through for them and financially they are OK as I understand it, but they can't go back to their chosen livelihood.
They can. They can either look to take a different perspective, change the business model slightly, or continue the business but not as a public accommodation.
Legal gay marriage is going to hang over the heads of Christians indefinitely. And of course you are happy with that.
I'm happy gays are allowed to marry.
Apparently y'all were happy with all the financial, health and family problems hanging over the head of gays when gay marriage had no legal standing.
I don't find my sympathy growing for your cause because of all this.
ABE: Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of sympathy for gays in general because they didn't ask for it and they have had to endure many kinds of persecution. Nevertheless I object to gay marriage and to forcing people to accept it whose belief opposes it..
Nobody is being forced to accept it. Businesses are required by many States (I don't think it is all States still, but maybe I'm wrong) to not discriminate against gays. That's all.
Provide goods and services equally to all, or don't provide them. I don't see any forcing going on here. Again - it is more 'totalitarian' to deny people free and equal access than it is to require people to provide free and equal access to publicly available services.
Again - are bathroom laws that force little girls to the little boys room totalitarian by your standards?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 1:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024