How amazing that nonChristians believe they can tell us what it means to be obedient to God or not.
You and other "true Christians" instruct everybody constantly in those things. So we do know all to well what you believe it means to be obedient to God or not.
And it doesn't take a genius to observe how you yourselves fail utterly. That is called "hypocrisy", something which I have observed normals deride "true Christians" for.
Everybody should be judged by the standards of their own religion. You (pl.) have been so completely in our face about your standards that we cannot help but know what they are. And we cannot help but observe how you do not live by your own standards. AKA, hypocrisy.
Do you want to talk about chutzpah, shiksa? How dare you defame Yiddish with your ignorance and bigotry!
I think it's possible that Christian businesses are specifically targeted, yes.
How exactly? Please be very specific.
How exactly were those businesses identified as being exclusively Christian? After all, for anyone to specifically target a specifically Christian business, that business would have had to have specifically and explicitly identified itself as such.
So did any of these businesses you speak of make such an explicit and specific public statement? Any of them?
Or did they offer their services to the general public? Without any explicit restrictions.
Not even necessarily by the gay couple, more by legal entities who step in to make an issue of it, like the ACLU.
The injured parties, eg that gay couple, had to seek legal representation. Such as the ACLU.
Here's a question, since I encountered it just a few days ago. Following Google links which proved to be old, I contacted a windshield repair company that used to be local, but no longer is. On the telephone, I asked if they could recommend someone who could do the repair for me. They did and I'm going in to have the work done first thing in the morning.
So, that gay couple rejected by a secretly Christian company who had been falsely advertising as serving the general public. Were they ever given any reference to another baker who would be able to serve them? Or did they just get a typical "true Christian" glare of hatred (sorry, of "Christian Love") communicating "just get the fuck out of our face, you perverts!"
So if you want to claim that those business were specifically targeted, then do please present the facts to support that claim.
One thing that is almost always lost in these issues is the story of what actually happened and how it impacted the lives of those involved. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
As all of you have already heard far too many times, I am retired military so that is where I draw this bit of wisdom. But even in management issues in the civilian world, the Golden Rule is to resolve all problems at the lowest level possible. Failure to do so just results in far more trouble and turmoil for everybody as well as resulting in consequences that nobody can be happy with. But when one party adamantly refuses to allow any kind of resolution or to even agree to any kind of discussion (which could itself be a form of resolution), then that leaves the other party (most commonly the aggrieved party) to other recourse but to push it up the chain -- though as described that was not the intent of the aggrieved here. The thing is that once an official complaint is filed, then there is a legal obligation to resolve it and it's then out of the hands of the original parties.
Around 1991, I was personally involved in such a situation with Boy Scouts of America. There are 9 points to the Scout Law, but Boy Scouts of America, Inc, added three more including "reverent". And on the basis of that (and other spurious ideas), they have been actively engaged in religious discrimination for decades, in almost all cases completely against the principles of Scouting. And including on-line spying against members resulting in their termination.
Please accept this disclaimer that all my information is from the 1990's. Despite requests for information about any official changes since then, I have received none.
For example, there are the Randall twins. They just wanted to be involved in Cub Scouting, like any other kid. But unlike most, they thought about what they were swearing oaths to. Outside of a confused phone message from a pack leader (volunteer), the first indication of any problem the parents received was the official notification of expulsion from the local Boy Scouts of America, Inc, council. All attempts to talk with them ended with a "so sue us". Which the father did and won. So pending the appeal to the state Supreme Court the Randall twins were allowed to continue to participate in the program. As their Eagle Courts loomed large, Republican politicians (eg, the state attorney general) pushed the case into the state Supreme Court who ruled that BSA did indeed discriminate on religious grounds, but as a private organization it was no subject to the law (ie, the Unruh Act).
Two boys who just wanted to be Scouts. Ironically, the Scoutmaster who worked with them the most described them as the best examples of Scouts that he had ever worked with. Please note that some boys who did make Eagle had committed vile acts of property vandalism such that the other boys in the troop (my own elder son included) were completely turned off to Scouting because of their selection to that position.
When my own sons became involved, I researched all the officially published rules and regulations and bylaws and advancement guidelines that BSA made available (which were very greatly restricted during the Randall trial -- BSA didn't want you to know what their rules actually were, did they?) I found that even as an atheist I met the requirements of BSA membership. But then the Randall issue hit the news and I was left not knowing what was going on. So I went to the scouting forum on CompuServe. Well, it turned out that BSA had a spy there who collected all messages posted by everybody, including by who was only trying to find out what was going on.
Similarly, there was one Scouter, Jewish, who had posted a message cheering the Randall twins on for "sticking to their guns." Two BSA professionals in uniform (which says to me in "brown shirts") entered this Jewish individual's place of employment and started questioning him about his own personal religious beliefs, to which he replied that that was none of their damned business, whereupon they slapped him with his notice of expulsion. Sorry, but there's just something about that visual of two BSA brown-shirts assaulting a Jew in public.
In my own case, I was just trying to provide the Scouting program as BSA was expelling me. The officially recognized authority for whether I did my "duty to God" was my own minister. Twice in writing he certified that I do indeed do my "duty to God" in accordance with our religion (Unitarian-Universalism). Both times BSA chose to ignore him, as they ignored him each and every time I included his letters in the packages I submitted to them.
The point is that bigots are bigots. And even when they create rules to make themselves appear to be normal, they will still violate their own rules in order to continue to be bigots.
And normal people just want to live as normal people. And be treated as normal people. And when some bigots want to change that for not reason besides their own bigotry, then everybody should oppose them.
Re: Even Stupid Cases Make it to the Supreme Court
In the late 1980's, Christianity Today had an article about the Christian Reconstructionists, who have since evolved into Dominionists. It included some quotes from their writings, including that human rights were invented by Satan.
One such quote, which I have to quote from memory until I can locate that article, reveals one of their current-day tactics:
quote: We must press for and insist upon our own religious rights in order to deprive everybody else of theirs.
Speaking of children, same-sex couples with children (AKA "families", of which there are many) need the same legal protections and treatment as different-sex families.
About half a decade ago I heard an NPR article about the problem that they face, especially when they had to depend on a patchworks of state laws to be able to travel safely. The situation they cited was where in their home state (if they were lucky), either spouse could authorize medical treatment for their children. But if they travel to or through another state whose laws did not allow that, then not only could they face the situation of there having been an accident and not being allowed to have an injured child received medical treatment. Furthermore, these families were always in danger of the state taking their children from them -- as I recall, the reason given would be abandonment since the children had been left with a "stranger" (ie, the spouse who has been helping to raise the children, but whom that state refuses to recognize).
The event being covered in that was a large group of same-sex families converging on DC and speaking face-to-face with their congressmen in order to make them aware of this problem. And part of the problem was that confusing patchwork of laws which needed to be replaced by federal law, or at the very least a federal law requiring all states to observe the family law of another state.
And this also reinforces your point that having children has nothing to do with heterosexual unions. If sole reason that a same-sex marriage cannot be allowed is because they cannot produce children directly, then that same reason should be applied to disallow the marriage of infertile couples (for whatever reason, including but not limited to regular infertility, being too old (past child-bearing age), injuries or surgeries which make having children impossible (eg, a hysterectomy, tubal ligation, vasectomy), etc).
Since infertile couples are allowed to marry, that reveals how false and misleading that "it's about making babies and caring for them" tripe is. Especially when you are endangering the children of same-sex families. If it were truly about ensuring the safety of children, then the opponents of same-sex marriage should be pushing for same-sex families to receive the same legal protections as heterosexual families. But they do not, which exposes their deception.