Religious Freedom Bill (Az)

[frank_jessop]

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.  

Guess what Blue, I didn't tell you how to defend your position. I asked for your own words in defending your position. You, like several others, are unwilling to defend their position with their own words. It is a disturbing trend that people make comments they are unwilling to defend with their own thoughts.

[california boy]

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.  

Samaritans were considered sinners for marrying someone not of their race.  Was Christ encouraging their sins by providing service to  the Samaritan??

 

 

I evidently can't convince you that Christ was a manifestation of charity and love for all and He never qualified His actions based on a persons sins.  I evidently can't convince you that Christ taught that doing something for a sinner is not evil nor is it a sin. I evidently can not convince you that worrying about the sins of another is really not as important as worrying about our own sins.  You have no example where Christ ever withheld His service to others based on their sins.  You have no teachings where Christ taught that helping a sinner encourages that person to sin and is forbiden.  Yet we have plenty of examples where Christ treated sinners exactly the same way as He treated every other person. We also know that he condemned the Pharisees for their attitudes of not wanting to have anything to do with those they considered to be sinners.

 

If the baker wants to withhold his service he provides to a gay couple because he thinks they are sinners for marrying, then that is their choice.  Should the baker never bake a cake for any gay couple?  Should the baker check to see if the person has ever divorced or committed adultery before baking their cakes?  Should the baker be ok with the gay couple living together, just as long as they don't marry??  Should every customer be screened for their worthiness before baking them a cake?  Is this really the message you get from reading the gospels?

 

 

To claim they are following Christ is certainly not supported by the scriptures.  And in my opinion is completely counter to the example set by the Savior and yes, a perversion of His message.

[Calm]

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.

Well that shows whether one is willing to engage in an actual discussion or is just trying to attack other positions.

I don't see how anyone who took the time to try and understand can believe I was equating drug dealing with homosexuality given my previous posts.

I am equally willing to allow someone to refuse to serve me as aLDS as I am for some to refuse to serve a homosexual. And i will happily use refusing to aid a the drug dealer example as a rationale for allowing refusal of LDS in that many see us and our efforts as tools of Satan. Does that mean I have self hatred for Mormons?

[Calm]

Samaritans were considered sinners for marrying someone not of their race. Was Christ encouraging their sins by providing service to the Samaritan??.

But this is what is being debated in the first place...the interpretation of scripture. You may not interpret scripture in that way, I may not...but for someone who does, should they be forced to do something that is against their religious convictions?

While Jews may have taught that Samaritans were sinners, there is no indication in the scriptures that Christ understood them to be participating in any sinful behaviour due to being Samaritans or that his service was in any way connected to a sin.

Can you show any service given by Christ which had the intent to make it easier for someone to sin or celebrated a sin?

There are people who interpret the scriptures to condemn behaviour that differs from themselves, there are those who use the scriptures to condemn interracial marriages, to condemn marrying someone who is not be their definition a Christian, to condemn marrying a Nonmormon, to condemn marrying someone not of their "class", to condemn homosexual marriages.

We may believe all are wrong, there may be some that believe in some cases some are okay to condemn others are not.

The question is should anyone have to engage in specific behaviour that they personally believe is wrong simply because they provide a service that is used to promote or celebrate or memorialise in some fashion events or behaviours in general?

[Calm]

" I evidently can't convince you that Christ taught that doing something for a sinner is "

As far as I can tell no one here Is saying they would think it right to refuse helping a sinner simply because he was a sinner....even if they think legally others should have that right to show they are total jerks.

It is about supporting what they believe is sinful behaviour.

Not everyone believes porn is a sin...let's make it even something milder...an r rated movie. A person rents out their property to movies, including their own home which is a notable historic site....but privately owned. They are approached by a company to use their site for a film, they ask what type of film and find out there is a pretty explicit sex scene that will be shot in their own bedroom. The month before they had a family friendly movie use their entire home, including that same bedroom.

Do they have a right to refuse because it would bother them for their home to be associated with something they believed crossed the line, something they saw as promoting extramarital sex even if done in good taste? What if it wasn't R but XXX? Shouldthey be denied that right to choose because another family wouldn't care or a third family would have refused the family friendly film because one of the parents was black and the other white?

Should they be allowed to refuse if there was planned to be physical damage done intentionally? What about if it changed the way they felt about their home....emotional damage iow? Is emotional pain any less pain than physical?

[bluebell]

Guess what Blue, I didn't tell you how to defend your position. I asked for your own words in defending your position. You, like several others, are unwilling to defend their position with their own words. It is a disturbing trend that people make comments they are unwilling to defend with their own thoughts.

 

By repeatedly asking for my own words when i have told you that Cal's words were an adequate explanation of my beliefs, you are in fact telling me how i need to defend my position.

 

But whatever, it's a dumb thing to argue about.  I'm sorry if it bugs you that you can't get people to defend themselves exactly how you think they should.  I honestly have no idea why it would bother you that someone wouldn't feel it necessary to retype something just because it was said by someone else first and not themselves.

 

Your only recourse is to get past it somehow, or put those you feel are guilty of this disturbing trend on ignore.     

[bluebell]

Samaritans were considered sinners for marrying someone not of their race.  Was Christ encouraging their sins by providing service to  the Samaritan??

 

 

I evidently can't convince you that Christ was a manifestation of charity and love for all and He never qualified His actions based on a persons sins.  I evidently can't convince you that Christ taught that doing something for a sinner is not evil nor is it a sin. I evidently can not convince you that worrying about the sins of another is really not as important as worrying about our own sins.  You have no example where Christ ever withheld His service to others based on their sins.  You have no teachings where Christ taught that helping a sinner encourages that person to sin and is forbiden.  Yet we have plenty of examples where Christ treated sinners exactly the same way as He treated every other person. We also know that he condemned the Pharisees for their attitudes of not wanting to have anything to do with those they considered to be sinners.

 

If the baker wants to withhold his service he provides to a gay couple because he thinks they are sinners for marrying, then that is their choice.  Should the baker never bake a cake for any gay couple?  Should the baker check to see if the person has ever divorced or committed adultery before baking their cakes?  Should the baker be ok with the gay couple living together, just as long as they don't marry??  Should every customer be screened for their worthiness before baking them a cake?  Is this really the message you get from reading the gospels?

 

 

To claim they are following Christ is certainly not supported by the scriptures.  And in my opinion is completely counter to the example set by the Savior and yes, a perversion of His message.

 

You are still not getting it CB.

 

But in actuality you are kind of proving my point.  

 

You keep going on and on about how Christ saw the Samaritans as not sinful, even though the popular belief was that they were.  He continued to behave towards them in a way that was consistent with what He believed, even though society did not agree with Him.  I'm guessing that even if the government of His day tried to force Him to interact with Samaritans in way that agreed with society, He would not have done it.

 

I hope that you can see how you are not the only one who can attempt to commandeer this example in the scriptures to support your own personal views.  Someone who saw gay marriage as being equal to the agenda supported by the Pharisees in this example, and as Christ representing those who are trying to go against society and popular culture and stay true to their beliefs regardless of popular teachings, can just as reasonably and just as validly use this example to support their personal views.

 

In other words, the example of the Samaritans does not support your assertion, because it supports the opposite with equal validity.  Your interpretation is yours and no one is bound by it.

 

But (and this is a HUGE but), none of that has anything to do with what i actually asked.

 

I asked for an example of the Savior supporting an activity that He believed was wrong and sinful.  You keep giving me examples of the Savior supporting activities that He didn't believe were wrong.  Can you see the difference there?

 

Your argument is that Christians should want to support activities that they personally believe are wrong and sinful, because that is what Christ would have done. You can only make that assertion though if you can actually supply an example of Christ doing that. So far, you haven't been able to.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

It really isn't different except for the person being discriminated against. The same accusation of acting brown was used by Arizona to discriminate against people of a certain skin pigmentation.

 

Certain modifications to cars, for public highway use, can result in the mechanic's lose of license and being charged with a criminal offense whether drug smuggling is involved or not.

 

While it is true that Christ never encouraged sin. He freely associated with people who sinned.

[Gray]

It's very unfortunate to see that some have not learned the lessons most of the rest of the country learned in the Civil Rights movement.

[Gray]

 

I asked for an example of the Savior supporting an activity that He believed was wrong and sinful.  You keep giving me examples of the Savior supporting activities that He didn't believe were wrong.  Can you see the difference there?

 

Your argument is that Christians should want to support activities that they personally believe are wrong and sinful, because that is what Christ would have done. You can only make that assertion though if you can actually supply an example of Christ doing that. So far, you haven't been able to.

 

I'm not aware of any faith that teaches that baking cakes is sinful.

[rockpond]

It's very unfortunate to see that some have not learned the lessons most of the rest of the country learned in the Civil Rights movement.

 

It's very unfortunate to see that we, as church members, have yet not learned the lessons of 1978 either.

[Gray]

It's very unfortunate to see that we, as church members, have yet not learned the lessons of 1978 either.

 

Very true. It's easy to look back in the past and wonder how our predecessors could be so prejudiced, but perhaps harder to recognize the ways in which we are doing the same thing. There is always some "out group" that we feel justified in discriminating against. 

[Buzzard]

I'm not aware of any faith that teaches that baking cakes is sinful.

I have made this point before, but none of the bakers being sued in the two or three states where it has happened refused to bake a cake, or sell a loaf of bread, to anyone at all because they were gay. As far as I can tell, they tried to serve all their clientele with a smile.

What they did do was refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony. So serve the sinner with a smile, refuse to support a specific occasion that they held to be sinful and an affront to their moral compass. I hope you can see the difference. 

[california boy]

" I evidently can't convince you that Christ taught that doing something for a sinner is "

As far as I can tell no one here Is saying they would think it right to refuse helping a sinner simply because he was a sinner....even if they think legally others should have that right to show they are total jerks.

It is about supporting what they believe is sinful behaviour.

Not everyone believes porn is a sin...let's make it even something milder...an r rated movie. A person rents out their property to movies, including their own home which is a notable historic site....but privately owned. They are approached by a company to use their site for a film, they ask what type of film and find out there is a pretty explicit sex scene that will be shot in their own bedroom. The month before they had a family friendly movie use their entire home, including that same bedroom.

Do they have a right to refuse because it would bother them for their home to be associated with something they believed crossed the line, something they saw as promoting extramarital sex even if done in good taste? What if it wasn't R but XXX? Shouldthey be denied that right to choose because another family wouldn't care or a third family would have refused the family friendly film because one of the parents was black and the other white?

Should they be allowed to refuse if there was planned to be physical damage done intentionally? What about if it changed the way they felt about their home....emotional damage iow? Is emotional pain any less pain than physical?

There are two different issues here.  To this point, I have only talked about one of these issues.  I am protesting the cycle that has happened since the beginning of time to use religion to justify behavior that is not actually supported by the life of Christ.  I am asserting that Christ never discriminated against someone because they were sinner.  This is what the baker is doing no matter how you try and justify it.  "I don't want to bake gays cakes because their marriage is sinful."  Is discrimination really a value Christ ever embraced?  That is the excuse they are using, and they nor you can point to one example where Christ refused anything to someone because they are in sin.  And I think you have acknowledged this.  

 

The second issue that you bring up is a completely different issue.  Should this country allow businesses to discriminate.  (The teachings of Christ is not a part of this discussion.)  Now we are talking about legal rights.  Should a person legally be required to show an objectionable film in their home.  Should a business be required to rent their establishment when physical damage is done intentionally.  And the hundreds of other situations a business owner could conger up.  The answer to that question lies in what kind of country we want to live in.  Do we want to live in a country where discrimination is a very real part of the fabric of our society.  Do we want to live once again where blacks are not allowed at the lunch counter or allowed to drink at certain drinking fountains or Jews are not allowed to rent or all the other myriad of discriminations that have existed in this country for centuries.  Should a business owner be allowed to do anything they darn well please?  That is the question you are asking.  

 

And should employees be allowed to do what ever they darn well please?.  Should a Muslin grocery clerk be able to refuse to scan bacon.  Should a Mormon waitress be able to refuse to serve coffee.  Should a Jew refuse to cook cheeseburgers.  The list is endless.  Do we really want to live in a country like that?  There are pros and cons on this subject.  We had this discussion 30 years ago, and decided that discrimination would not be a part of our society. With those discrimination laws, comes a loss of certain freedom, the freedom to discriminate.  Every law that is passed limits freedom for some people.  Should we go back to being able to discriminate?

 

I see both sides of this issue.  But what I don't see is pretending that discrimination is a value taught by Christ.  I am tired of those who use Christ to justify their own behavior when they can not find one example where Christ did or taught such a principle.  If you think that discrimination is a value Christ taught, embraced and encouraged in his teachings, then I guess we will just have to disagree.

[bluebell]

I'm not aware of any faith that teaches that baking cakes is sinful.

 

But there are faiths that teach that participating in a SSM is sinful.

[california boy]

I have made this point before, but none of the bakers being sued in the two or three states where it has happened refused to bake a cake, or sell a loaf of bread, to anyone at all because they were gay. As far as I can tell, they tried to serve all their clientele with a smile.

What they did do was refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony. So serve the sinner with a smile, refuse to support a specific occasion that they held to be sinful and an affront to their moral compass. I hope you can see the difference. 

 

And just how does this work?  Does this baker believe that gays are only immoral if they want to get married?

[rockpond]

But there are faiths that teach that participating in a SSM is sinful.

 

Are there any faiths that teach that baking a cake for a gay wedding is sinful?

[bluebell]

Are there any faiths that teach that baking a cake for a gay wedding is sinful?

 

Since there have been bakers who have tried to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM based on their religious beliefs, apparently there are.

[frank_jessop]

Since there have been bakers who have tried to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM based on their religious beliefs, apparently there are.

Surely you can see how faulty your reasoning is?

The actions of individual in a religion do not establish the tenants of that religion?

[frank_jessop]

Are there any faiths that teach that baking a cake for a gay wedding is sinful?

You have to remember the accepted analogy...

If someone believes homosexual behaviour is a sin and doesn't want to promote it, ... 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, ...

gays wanting a cake for their ssm or civil unions = drug dealers asking a mechanic to modify a vehicle for drug smuggling.

[bluebell]

Surely you can see how faulty your reasoning is?

The actions of individual in a religion do not establish the tenants of that religion?

 

If someone says "doing this is against my religious beliefs" i'm not going to argue with them about whether or not it actually is.  They obviously know their religious beliefs better than i do.

[thesometimesaint]

But there are faiths that teach that participating in a SSM is sinful.

 

True, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYgBGQxvGV8#t=329

[Avatar4321]

I'm not aware of any faith that teaches that baking cakes is sinful.

 

Im not aware of how forcing others to bake cakes against their will isn't sinful.

[Gray]

I have made this point before, but none of the bakers being sued in the two or three states where it has happened refused to bake a cake, or sell a loaf of bread, to anyone at all because they were gay. As far as I can tell, they tried to serve all their clientele with a smile.

What they did do was refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony. So serve the sinner with a smile, refuse to support a specific occasion that they held to be sinful and an affront to their moral compass. I hope you can see the difference. 

 

No, I can't see the difference. I don't think serving cake at a gay wedding could be reasonably construed as sinful, even if you believe gay marriage is sinful

[Gray]

Im not aware of how forcing others to bake cakes against their will isn't sinful.

 

No one has ever been forced to be a baker that I'm aware of.