Religious Freedom Bill (Az)

[california boy]

Am I the only one who seems to think forcing people to do business with one another is a dumb thing?

I don't know.  Do you think discriminating against anyone is a Christian value.  

[Calm]

It may not be a Christian value to discriminate, but I don't see forcing someone to do business with another is much of a Christian value either.

Being a good example, teaching through love...not only more effective in changing hearts and minds, but also Christian.

[thesometimesaint]

This is not true (for better or worse).

 

Actually it is. Business licenses are administered by the state. It is they, not the business owner, who gets the say. 

[thesometimesaint]

It may not be a Christian value to discriminate, but I don't see forcing someone to do business with another is much of a Christian value either.

Being a good example, teaching through love...not only more effective in changing hearts and minds, but also Christian.

 

It as "good" Christian values that denied blacks a seat at the lunch tables, bus seats, movie theater's, in the American south for generations.

[california boy]

It as "good" Christian values that denied blacks a seat at the lunch tables, bus seats, movie theater's, in the American south for generations.

It is why I have this quote by Gandhi in my tag line

 

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" - Gandhi

 

I find it so offensive when christians usE Christ to justify their bigotry.  And I am just as offended when other christians don't condemn them for such unchristlike behavior.  It is antics like this that turn so many away from all organized religion.  Who wants to be a part of a group that treats others like this??

[Calm]

This thread has been going for awhile. Has anyone attempted to justify denying someone access to their service using Christ?

[thesometimesaint]

This thread has been going for awhile. Has anyone attempted to justify denying someone access to their service using Christ?

 

Participants here on this board? Not so much. We have seen some others attempt to use their Christianity as justification for denying services to homosexuals. IE; the wedding cake maker, and the photographer.

[bluebell]

Participants here on this board? Not so much. We have seen some others attempt to use their Christianity as justification for denying services to homosexuals. IE; the wedding cake maker, and the photographer.

 

To be fair, those people weren't trying to deny those services to homosexuals.  They were trying not to be the person who provided those services.  The services were still very much available even when those people said no.

[thesometimesaint]

To be fair, those people weren't trying to deny those services to homosexuals.  They were trying not to be the person who provided those services.  The services were still very much available even when those people said no.

 

A distinction without a difference. The same was said about blacks and lunch tables.

[bluebell]

It is why I have this quote by Gandhi in my tag line

 

I find it so offensive when christians usE Christ to justify their bigotry.  And I am just as offended when other christians don't condemn them for such unchristlike behavior.  It is antics like this that turn so many away from all organized religion.  Who wants to be a part of a group that treats others like this??

 

Who wants to be a part of a group of people who try not to be involved in things they sincerely believe are not condoned of God or evil??

 

Pick me, Pick me!

 

Sign me up to support groups who have standards and try to stick with me, even if i don't agree with their standards (and as long as they aren't advocating violence or hatred of course).

 

I don't agree with this law, but it's just dumb to attempt to suggest that Christians aren't being Christians if they don't personally want to support everything and anything that someone wants them to support.

 

I reject that premise completely.  

 

And (this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine) I also reject the idea that i should care what Gandhi thought of Christians (he was horrible to his wife and his children--abusive even--so he shouldn't have been casting any stones at ANYONE).

 

We can all learn from that quote to a point, but too often it's just used to try to bully Christians when they won't agree with someone who isn't one.

[bluebell]

A distinction without a difference. The same was said about blacks and lunch tables.

 

No it's not.

 

There is no valid reason to attempt to compare a woman who doesn't want to shoot a homosexual wedding to the civil rights movement.  I can't take anyone seriously who tries to suggest they are the same thing.

[thesometimesaint]

No it's not.

 

There is no valid reason to attempt to compare a woman who doesn't want to shoot a homosexual wedding to the civil rights movement.  I can't take anyone seriously who tries to suggest they are the same thing.

 

Where exactly is the difference, other than the object of discrimination? Can you tell by looking whether a person is homosexual or not? Do you come up to complete strangers and ask them their sexual orientation?

[california boy]

Who wants to be a part of a group of people who try not to be involved in things they sincerely believe are not condoned of God or evil??

 

Pick me, Pick me!

 

Sign me up to support groups who have standards and try to stick with me, even if i don't agree with their standards (and as long as they aren't advocating violence or hatred of course).

 

I don't agree with this law, but it's just dumb to attempt to suggest that Christians aren't being Christians if they don't personally want to support everything and anything that someone wants them to support.

 

I reject that premise completely.  

 

And (this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine) I also reject the idea that i should care what Gandhi thought of Christians (he was horrible to his wife and his children--abusive even--so he shouldn't have been casting any stones at ANYONE).

 

We can all learn from that quote to a point, but too often it's just used to try to bully Christians when they won't agree with someone who isn't one.

 

I guess we all have to decide what kind of follower of Christ we choose to be.  Certainly there were people in Christ's day who thought of themselves as being righteous and thanked God they were not like those "sinners",  They were the church leaders that Christ condemned.  They would even walk on the other side of the street in order to avoid even the appearance of associating with the likes of those kind.  

 

Christ showed us another way.  He had no problem lending service to everyone, even or maybe, especially the sinner.  He gave us an example of reaching out rather than shunning.  Christ never felt like His morality. righteousness or standards was affected by who He served.  Do you think Christ sacrificed His standards when he choose to sit with the sinners?  Can you find examples of Christ refusing any kindness or service because the other person was in sin?  The lesson I get from the life of Christ is that we will be judged by how we treat others and our own morality, not the immorality of others that are around us.  

 

I quoted Gaundi, not because of who he was, but because, like him, I find this kind of attitude nothing like the actions of Christ.  Maybe you do.  If so, could you point me to exactly where in Christ's life He refused to serve someone that was in sin?

[frank_jessop]

Who wants to be a part of a group of people who try not to be involved in things they sincerely believe are not condoned of God or evil??

Pick me, Pick me!

Sign me up to support groups who have standards and try to stick with me, even if i don't agree with their standards (and as long as they aren't advocating violence or hatred of course).

I don't agree with this law, but it's just dumb to attempt to suggest that Christians aren't being Christians if they don't personally want to support everything and anything that someone wants them to support.

I reject that premise completely.

Given that religion and the Christian God were used to justify much of the animus/denial of services/second class services toward blacks, then I say that given that Christians are using God to do the same to homosexuals, the comparison is very hard to deny.

What can not be taken serious is for someone to claim there is a difference between "No coloreds allowed" and "No homosexuals allowed".

[Calm]

Do you come up to complete strangers and ask them their sexual orientation?

Thus it would require them Informing someone for some reason for someone to usually be able to tell.

If someone believes homosexual behaviour is a sin and doesn't want to promote it, that is different than just not wanting to deal with someone because has a certain skin colour. At times discriminating based on behaviour can be good, as in a car mechanic not wanting to modify a car in a certain way for a drug dealer to use for smuggling drugs, at other times most people would agree it is bad, like not wanting to make a cake for an interracial wedding.

However, the decision of which it is will be biased by whether you believe a behaviour is truly sinful. And it seems to me that Christwould support not supporting a sinful behaviour, though one can do it lovingly or one can do it in a way that invalidates any attempt to follow Christ.

[Calm]

Given that religion and the Christian God were used to justify much of the animus/denial of services/second class services toward blacks, then I say that given that Christians are using God to do the same to homosexuals, the comparison is very hard to deny.

What can not be taken serious is for someone to claim there is a difference between "No coloreds allowed" and "No homosexuals allowed".

I doubt that is what bluebell is claiming.

Do you see a difference in a sign that says "no alterations to vehicles for smuggling" as opposed to "no service for anyone that looks like a drug dealer"?

[Avatar4321]

I don't know.  Do you think discriminating against anyone is a Christian value.  

 

Aren't you someone who keeps telling us we should not legislate our moral values and force them onto others?

[strappinglad]

If a doctor takes an oath, part of which states to first do no harm, and considers euthanasia and abortion to be wrong on that count, is the State correct in forcing that doctor to perform those ' treatments' just because he has the proper license and offers medical services for the public? It is not. It most cases there is a duty to connect people with those who have no compunction for any reason to give that ' care'. The same might be required of people unwilling to of services related to gays. They should be able to offer names of businesses that would welcome the trade and they should be willing to suffer any loss of customers because of their stand.

[bluebell]

Where exactly is the difference, other than the object of discrimination? Can you tell by looking whether a person is homosexual or not? Do you come up to complete strangers and ask them their sexual orientation?

 

That doesn't have anything to do with my point, which i illustrated using the example of the woman who did not want to take pictures for the homosexual wedding.

[bluebell]

Given that religion and the Christian God were used to justify much of the animus/denial of services/second class services toward blacks, then I say that given that Christians are using God to do the same to homosexuals, the comparison is very hard to deny.

What can not be taken serious is for someone to claim there is a difference between "No coloreds allowed" and "No homosexuals allowed".

 

I think Cal already adequately addressed your point.

[bluebell]

I guess we all have to decide what kind of follower of Christ we choose to be.  Certainly there were people in Christ's day who thought of themselves as being righteous and thanked God they were not like those "sinners",  They were the church leaders that Christ condemned.  They would even walk on the other side of the street in order to avoid even the appearance of associating with the likes of those kind.  

 

Christ showed us another way.  He had no problem lending service to everyone, even or maybe, especially the sinner.  He gave us an example of reaching out rather than shunning.  Christ never felt like His morality. righteousness or standards was affected by who He served.  Do you think Christ sacrificed His standards when he choose to sit with the sinners?  Can you find examples of Christ refusing any kindness or service because the other person was in sin?  The lesson I get from the life of Christ is that we will be judged by how we treat others and our own morality, not the immorality of others that are around us.  

 

I quoted Gaundi, not because of who he was, but because, like him, I find this kind of attitude nothing like the actions of Christ.  Maybe you do.  If so, could you point me to exactly where in Christ's life He refused to serve someone that was in sin?

 

Are there any examples in the scriptures where Christ was asked to participate in and help to accomplish something that He also taught was sinful?

[frank_jessop]

I think Cal already adequately addressed your point.

No it didn't, it was a piss poor attempt.

Equating homosexuals to drug dealers is simply an expression of her animus towards homosexuals.

Asking a baker to make a cake for a gay couple is not illegal. There is no difference between denying services to an interracial couple - blaming the refusal on God, and denying services a LGBT couple - blaming the refusal on God.

I am interesting in your own words to defend your position that the animus and such towards homosexuals is different from that of animus and such towards blacks during the Civil Rights era in the United States.

[california boy]

Are there any examples in the scriptures where Christ was asked to participate in and help to accomplish something that He also taught was sinful?

Of course there are.  The Jews taught Samaritans were sinful because they married outside of their race.  This was against what they believed was Gods commandments (a belief that was continued by the Mormon church for years as well.)   Christ told us we should help and care for all.  The Pharisees were teaching the same principle that you now advocate.  Christ taught against such a belief and showed us how we should treat others. 

 

 

The baker is not asked to participate in  or help accomplish something that is sinful.  I don't think it is necessary for the baker to engage in any homosexual behavior by baking a cake.  Christ did not participate in any sin by sitting down and eating with the sinners.  If you can't get the message that we should not worry about judging others, and that we should first look at our own sins rather than judging the sins of others from the message of Christ, then just what is the value of reading any of His teachings.  Even you could not find one example where Christ refused to lend service to others.  So instead you though you would try and turn (unsuccessfully) around.  There are many examples where Christ did not worry about the sins of others and gladly gave service.  To teach otherwise is a perversion of His holy message.

[bluebell]

No it didn't, it was a piss poor attempt.

Equating homosexuals to drug dealers is simply an expression of her animus towards homosexuals.

Asking a baker to make a cake for a gay couple is not illegal. There is no difference between denying services to an interracial couple - blaming the refusal on God, and denying services a LGBT couple - blaming the refusal on God.

I am interesting in your own words to defend your position that the animus and such towards homosexuals is different from that of animus and such towards blacks during the Civil Rights era in the United States.

 

Guess what Frank, I don't care what you are interested in. You don't get to tell me how i have to defend my position.    

 

Cal, who has no animus towards homosexuals and who also did not equate homosexual to drug dealers, explained my point perfectly.  

[bluebell]

Of course there are.  The Jews taught Samaritans were sinful because they married outside of their race.  This was against what they believed was Gods commandments (a belief that was continued by the Mormon church for years as well.)   Christ told us we should help and care for all.  The Pharisees were teaching the same principle that you now advocate.  Christ taught against such a belief and showed us how we should treat others.

If this is what you think, then you have no idea what principle i am actually advocating. 

 

I'm not advocating that people should not help or care for all. 

 

And that Christ believed that we should help and care for all does not fulfill what i asked for.  Do we have any examples in the scriptures where Christ supported someone in doing an activity that He taught was sinful or wrong.

 

The baker is not asked to participate in  or help accomplish something that is sinful.  I don't think it is necessary for the baker to engage in any homosexual behavior by baking a cake.  Christ did not participate in any sin by sitting down and eating with the sinners.

 

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with my point CB.   Where have i advocated not associating with people we may think are sinners?   

 

If you can't get the message that we should not worry about judging others, and that we should first look at our own sins rather than judging the sins of others from the message of Christ, then just what is the value of reading any of His teachings.

 

 

Again, no one is advocating this.  

 

What i am saying is that I don't believe the government should be able to force people to participate in events or actions which someone sincerely believes is sinful.

 

Even you could not find one example where Christ refused to lend service to others.  So instead you though you would try and turn (unsuccessfully) around.  There are many examples where Christ did not worry about the sins of others and gladly gave service.  To teach otherwise is a perversion of His holy message.

 

 

This tongue lashing might have had some effect on my evil perverse heart, if only it had a thing to do with my actual beliefs or anything that i have actually said.

 

It's a seriously good use of the guilt trip though.  You should save it to use later on the next poor soul who needs to be saved from their (unsuccessful) perversions.