Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 please dont feed trolls.It is well documented that discriminatory polices in the United States were defended, at times, under the guise of religion.But that is not what Stone holm is trying to argue.How well is it documented that those who defended, say, segregated lunch counters did so because they had an authentic, conscience-based objection to what any group of customers would do while eating lunch, as opposed to not wanting groups of customers to mingle freely and enjoy the same facilities?Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Ahab wrote: The flaw in suggesting discrimination against people with black skin is the same as discrimination against gay marriage is that it's a sin for gay people to get married, at least if that includes them having sexual relations with each other, but it is NOT a sin to be black. Regardless of how someone got to be black, or gay.So please stop talking as if it is the same kind of discrimination.I'll help anyone who wants to and tries to do something that is good but I won't help or approve of anyone committing a sin.And now someone will accuse you of merely being intolerant of sinful people, something Jesus would never do.In order to do this, they will be explicitly contradicting your refusal to support and enable specific sinful acts.The facts don't suit them, so they simply invent their own.Regards,Pahoran
Ahab Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Ahab wrote:And now someone will accuse you of merely being intolerant of sinful people, something Jesus would never do.In order to do this, they will be explicitly contradicting your refusal to support and enable specific sinful acts.The facts don't suit them, so they simply invent their own.Regards,PahoranI agree that happens but I'm not always sure it is intended. Some people are "blind" to some things and truly don't know what they are doing. And then again there are some people who are intentionally evil and devious and skilled at being deceptive as they try to induce others to join them in their sinful acts.My intent is not to judge other's intentions. I'm just saying that I won't do anything to be complicit in the sinful acts of any person, and I would appreciate it if others didn't either.
california boy Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Really?Call for references, please.I asked this question before, and was met with thundering silence: can you show even one instance of Jesus actively encouraging or enabling sinful acts? Regards,Pahoran Well if I EVER said that Christ actively encouraged or enabled sinful acts you would have a need for a CFR. I never said that Christ encouraged sin. What id DID say repeatedly is that Christ served everyone, even the sinner. And that this principle was an important part of the message He taught. If you need references on this, I would gladly provide you the references if this concept is new to you. Serving sinners, eating with sinners, associating with sinners are not sins and does not mean that you are encouraging sin. If you disagree with this statement and need a CFR, I would be happy to point you to the scriptures where Christ did all of those things. Pahoran, you have no basis in the teachings of Christ to defend anyone who refuses to serve someone simply because he is sinning or is doing something that a follower of Christ does not like. So how about this. CFR where Christ ever refused to serve someone who is with sin. I have no problem with the baker baking a cake and then when the sinning couple picked it up telling them to go their way and sin no more. This is the example that Christ set. He did not say, I am not going to help the adulteress until she stops sinning or even until she starts to repent. His love and kindness is what would motivate the adulteress to think about her sins perhaps follow this Man who showed her so much love. Does this sound more like the gospel of Jesus Christ. Or does Christ telling the Pharisees, sorry I don't want to help the adulteress in sin. Let me know when she has repented, then I will lend my hand of compassion. How about current church policy. Are you aware that the church has no problem with members working in gambling casinos? That they still can receive a temple recommend? That many members work in the casinos in Nevade in every department from dealers to accountants. And that Richard Bunker is the director of the country's most powerful casino lobby is not only Mormon, but a bishop of one of the Las Vegas wards? That seems a whole lot more envolvement in helping people committing sin than baking a cake. Yet for some reason you and others freak out over baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. Are you aware that church leaders owned and ran brothels in Salt Lake City? Jan 15,1897 � Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. temporarily resigns as vice-president of Brigham Young Trust Company because first counselor George Q. Cannon allows its property to become "a first class" brothel on Commercial Street (now Regent Street), Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber J. Grant is invited to its opening reception and is stunned to discover himself inside "a regular whore-house." This situation begins in 1891, and for fifty years church controlled real estate companies lease houses of prostitution. June 14, 1900 - First Presidency and apostles agree to give $3,600 to Brigham Y. Hampton for his prior "detective work" in which he paid prostitute to allow him and nearly thirty LDS "Home Missionaries" and policemen to spy on anti-Mormons engaging in sex acts in Salt Lake City brothels in 1885. Although first counselor denies it at this meeting, in private meetings of First Presidency George Q. Cannon refers to Hampton's brothel work as "services rendered the Church" and "work in behalf of the Church." Hampton has been set apart as a Salt Lake temple worker since 1893, and another coordinator of brothel spying is the temple doorkeeper (1893-1910).Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge with church owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years of church's leases to brothels. Seems a little more supporting sin than baking a cake. Would you like me to go on or do you get the point. Edited February 12, 2015 by california boy 1
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Just FYI california boy, I would not serve as a dealer in a gambling establishment either, or trade money for chips so somebody could gamble, or serve alcohol, or sell tickets to see immodestly dressed women or even men for that matter, or do anything else to show support for someone who wanted to do sonething I felt was wrong. I know some other people would but I wouldn't, even if there was a law od the world that said that I must. And any reason why you or anyone else would while thinking you should is something I'm not really ibterested in understanding. All I need to know is that I feel it is not a good thing to do.
Pahoran Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 California Boy wrote: Well if I EVER said that Christ actively encouraged or enabled sinful acts you would have a need for a CFR. I never said that Christ encouraged sin. What id DID say repeatedly is that Christ served everyone, even the sinner.And you are demanding -- repeatedly -- that we actively encourage and enable sin; but you choose to characterise it as "serving everyone, even the sinner."Which is a deliberately deceitful misrepresentation.You pretend that the religious freedom exemptions the brethren are asking for are simply intended as a cover for refusing to serve sinful people, whereas they are actually intended to prevent religious believers from being coerced into supporting and enabling sinful acts.And -- what is more -- you know it.Therefore, your argument is a lie.A big, brazen lie.You see, CaliBoy, what the brethren are asking for is something known as "balance." This means that we don't have it all our way -- and neither do you.And those last four words really stick in your craw, don't they?Clearly the only "balance" you are interested in is where you get everything you want, immediately and all the time, and the religious believers you demand it from are then free to believe and practice their religion in whatever space into which you choose not to impose your demands.That's really what it comes down to, isn't it?Quaere: why didn't you provide a citation for that quote you provided? Yet for some reason you and others freak out over baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.Wrong again.I don't "freak out over baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" at all.I shall be charitable, and suppose you simply fail to understand the concept of civil liberties. The strange idea that people ought to be free to negotiate and do business with others, or not, as they please. The weird notion that a business owner's freedom is not taken away the moment someone strolls into his shop. The startling concept that someone who chooses not to bake a cake for a particular event still deserves to have a livelihood.If I "freak out" about anything, it's the catty, vicious, typically "gay" hissy fit whereby the baker is sued into financial oblivion for exercising what, in any plausibly free society, ought to be a simple and obvious right.Regards,Pahoran 3
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 California Boy wrote:And you are demanding -- repeatedly -- that we actively encourage and enable sin; but you choose to characterise it as "serving everyone, even the sinner."Which is a deliberately deceitful misrepresentation.You pretend that the religious freedom exemptions the brethren are asking for are simply intended as a cover for refusing to serve sinful people, whereas they are actually intended to prevent religious believers from being coerced into supporting and enabling sinful acts.And -- what is more -- you know it.Therefore, your argument is a lie.A big, brazen lie.You see, CaliBoy, what the brethren are asking for is something known as "balance." This means that we don't have it all our way -- and neither do you.And those last four words really stick in your craw, don't they?Clearly the only "balance" you are interested in is where you get everything you want, immediately and all the time, and the religious believers you demand it from are then free to believe and practice their religion in whatever space into which you choose not to impose your demands.That's really what it comes down to, isn't it?Quaere: why didn't you provide a citation for that quote you provided?Wrong again.I don't "freak out over baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" at all.I shall be charitable, and suppose you simply fail to understand the concept of civil liberties. The strange idea that people ought to be free to negotiate and do business with others, or not, as they please. The weird notion that a business owner's freedom is not taken away the moment someone strolls into his shop. The startling concept that someone who chooses not to bake a cake for a particular event still deserves to have a livelihood.If I "freak out" about anything, it's the catty, vicious, typically "gay" hissy fit whereby the baker is sued into financial oblivion for exercising what, in any plausibly free society, ought to be a simple and obvious right.Regards,PahoranI'm pretty sure you're going to have to repeat this again before Caliboy gets it, so here I am repeating it for him again. And if he still doesn't get it I know where to get it so I can keep repeating it for him again and again and for however long it takes before he finally understands what "we" have been trying to tell him.Plus I want him to know how adamant I am about this issue of not wanting to "serve the sinner" by somehow suggesting or giving him the impression that I'll support his sinful choices. 1
USU78 Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Well if I EVER said that Christ actively encouraged or enabled sinful acts you would have a need for a CFR. I never said that Christ encouraged sin. What id DID say repeatedly is that Christ served everyone, even the sinner. And that this principle was an important part of the message He taught. If you need references on this, I would gladly provide you the references if this concept is new to you. Serving sinners, eating with sinners, associating with sinners are not sins and does not mean that you are encouraging sin. If you disagree with this statement and need a CFR, I would be happy to point you to the scriptures where Christ did all of those things. Pahoran, you have no basis in the teachings of Christ to defend anyone who refuses to serve someone simply because he is sinning or is doing something that a follower of Christ does not like. So how about this. CFR where Christ ever refused to serve someone who is with sin. I have no problem with the baker baking a cake and then when the sinning couple picked it up telling them to go their way and sin no more. This is the example that Christ set. He did not say, I am not going to help the adulteress until she stops sinning or even until she starts to repent. His love and kindness is what would motivate the adulteress to think about her sins perhaps follow this Man who showed her so much love. Does this sound more like the gospel of Jesus Christ. Or does Christ telling the Pharisees, sorry I don't want to help the adulteress in sin. Let me know when she has repented, then I will lend my hand of compassion.How about current church policy. Are you aware that the church has no problem with members working in gambling casinos? That they still can receive a temple recommend? That many members work in the casinos in Nevade in every department from dealers to accountants. And that Richard Bunker is the director of the country's most powerful casino lobby is not only Mormon, but a bishop of one of the Las Vegas wards? That seems a whole lot more envolvement in helping people committing sin than baking a cake. Yet for some reason you and others freak out over baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. Are you aware that church leaders owned and ran brothels in Salt Lake City? Seems a little more supporting sin than baking a cake. Would you like me to go on or do you get the point.what a vacuous and illogical argument
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) That is not what the law says. It merely says you can't discriminate of the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation in business For example: Say I own a grocery store, and I don't like green beans. There nothing in the law that requires me to carry and sell green beans to anyone if I don't want to.What I can't legally do, in the US, is carry for sale those green beans and refuse to sell them to you for any of the above reasons. Edited February 12, 2015 by thesometimesaint 1
california boy Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 California Boy wrote: And you are demanding -- repeatedly -- that we actively encourage and enable sin; but you choose to characterise it as "serving everyone, even the sinner."Which is a deliberately deceitful misrepresentation.You pretend that the religious freedom exemptions the brethren are asking for are simply intended as a cover for refusing to serve sinful people, whereas they are actually intended to prevent religious believers from being coerced into supporting and enabling sinful acts.And -- what is more -- you know it.Therefore, your argument is a lie.A big, brazen lie.You see, CaliBoy, what the brethren are asking for is something known as "balance." This means that we don't have it all our way -- and neither do you.And those last four words really stick in your craw, don't they?Clearly the only "balance" you are interested in is where you get everything you want, immediately and all the time, and the religious believers you demand it from are then free to believe and practice their religion in whatever space into which you choose not to impose your demands.That's really what it comes down to, isn't it?Quaere: why didn't you provide a citation for that quote you provided? Wrong again.I don't "freak out over baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" at all.I shall be charitable, and suppose you simply fail to understand the concept of civil liberties. The strange idea that people ought to be free to negotiate and do business with others, or not, as they please. The weird notion that a business owner's freedom is not taken away the moment someone strolls into his shop. The startling concept that someone who chooses not to bake a cake for a particular event still deserves to have a livelihood.If I "freak out" about anything, it's the catty, vicious, typically "gay" hissy fit whereby the baker is sued into financial oblivion for exercising what, in any plausibly free society, ought to be a simple and obvious right.Regards,Pahoran LOL. You don't deny that it is church policy to give temple recommends to people who work in gambling establishments and that Richard Bunker is the director of the country's most powerful casino lobby is not only Mormon, but a bishop of one of the Las Vegas wards. I did further research on the quotes that I found and it turns out they appear to come from Quinn, which I know is not a well supported historian. He claims it was from a Salt Lake Tribune article. I did find a reference about the brothel in There has also been a book written about this incident called "God's Brothel" if you would like more informaion on it. Today in Mormon History Pahoran, you have no basis in the teachings of Christ to defend anyone who refuses to serve someone simply because he is sinning or is doing something that a follower of Christ does not like. So how about this. CFR where Christ ever refused to serve someone who is with sin. You now move the goal post and want to talk about civil liberties. I have not addressed civil liberties. I have ONLY addressed the fact some "christians" are using the Bible as a weapon to justify discrimination against gay couples wanting to wed. That position is not supported by anything Christ ever did or said. (hence the unanswered CFR0. What I have also said is that those who discriminate against gays for any reason including religious reasons have been and are breaking the anti discrimination laws of the states that they reside. Did you know that in the case of the Oregon bakery, the gay couple that was shunned by the bakery did not sue the bakery? That in fact it was the State of Oregon that filed charges which were upheld by the courts. And that the fine paid by the bakery was paid to the State of Oregon? They broke the law. Now do they have a civil right to discriminate against gay couples? Well so far, every single court has said NO. So take it up with the legal laws of the land. If you or anyone else breaks the law, then you and they should also be prepared to pay the penalties. If you don't like the anti discrimination laws some of which have been the law of the land for over a half of century, then you should try and change the law. But don't take it out on me. And don't claim that Jesus would have discriminated against anyone. And remember also, the current policy of the church is there is no sin in working in a gambling casino or other jobs that encourage sin. And if you are going to respond to my posts, then respond to them rather than accusing me of lying. You know, the part about Jesus and the adulteress etc. That is how this board works. It is the ideas we are debating not making untrue accusations against the posters. You have a nasty habit of calling everyone you disagree with a lier. Knock it off. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 That is not what the law says. It merely says you can't discriminate of the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation in business For example: Say I own a grocery store, and I don't like green beans. There nothing in the law that requires me to carry and sell green beans to anyone if I don't want to.What I can't legally do, in the US, is carry for sale those green beans and refuse to sell them to you for any of the above reasons. So does refusing to "carry" or "produce" a SSM wedding cake fall under the same right as to carry or not carry green beans. That is assuming there is something unique to a SSM wedding cake that there wouldn't be on a standard cake...The right to choose the kind of product we sell, but not who we sell it to...
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The law is an @ss That it is in many ways. But what would you have us do tear down all the laws to get at Satan?
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 So does refusing to "carry" or "produce" a SSM wedding cake fall under the same right as to carry or not carry green beans. That is assuming there is something unique to a SSM wedding cake that there wouldn't be on a standard cake...The right to choose the kind of product we sell, but not who we sell it to... Everyone has the right to not produce and not sell anything they don't want to. What they can not legally do in the US is make those products and refuse to sell you that product for any of the above reasons.
USU78 Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 That it is in many ways. But what would you have us do tear down all the laws to get at Satan? Very pretty nonsense put into the mouth of a brutal burner of protestants . . . quite disingenuously, in my view. Laws that, in their composition and effect are designed solely for the purpose of punishing thought, feelings and beliefs are tyrannical. You can tell whether they are grossly tyrannical by the inverse relationship the actual alleged harm bears to the punishment: the more draconian, the more tyrannical.
USU78 Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 So does refusing to "carry" or "produce" a SSM wedding cake fall under the same right as to carry or not carry green beans. That is assuming there is something unique to a SSM wedding cake that there wouldn't be on a standard cake...The right to choose the kind of product we sell, but not who we sell it to... Green beans rarely, if ever, have secondary, symbolic or ritual significance. 1
tonie Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 The law is an @ss What does that make lawyers? 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Very pretty nonsense put into the mouth of a brutal burner of protestants . . . quite disingenuously, in my view. Laws that, in their composition and effect are designed solely for the purpose of punishing thought, feelings and beliefs are tyrannical. You can tell whether they are grossly tyrannical by the inverse relationship the actual alleged harm bears to the punishment: the more draconian, the more tyrannical. For all his good qualities, and they were many. Thomas More was a dyed in the wool TBC(True Blue Catholic) and inadvertently helped prolong the Protestant Reformation. Historians are divided on whether More engaged in tortures such as burning at the stake. A charge he vigorously denied until his death.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More I agree. With a very few notable exceptions we, in the US, tend not to punish thoughts, feelings, or beliefs. What is done is that those maybe used as substantiation of intent, an aggravating circumstance, when a serious crime has been committed. IE; A KKK member burning a cross on a black family's front yard. I agree. The best solution for bad speech/religion isn't oppression/suppression, but more good speech/religion. Edited February 12, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 So here's the thing, as far as I am concerned.Neither I nor my wife have a bakery shop, per se, but we both can make and bake cakes which are a lot better than most bakery shops aell and we have made some for others before. We'll just never bake any cake in honor of any gay wedding, although we would make them for a "regular" wedding. And I hate that I even have to use the word "regular" wedding to try to differentiate it from a gay wedding, all because SOME people keep calling what some gay people do a "marriage".And we also will not do anything else to honor any other type of sinful behavior no matter what that sin is, and no matter how much people want us to support their sinful behavior. We will love and support sinners, but not by supporting their sins, because we hate every sin but love all the sinners, as hard as that may be for some people to understand. 2
pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 So here's the thing, as far as I am concerned.Neither I nor my wife have a bakery shop, per se, but we both can make and bake cakes which are a lot better than most bakery shops aell and we have made some for others before. We'll just never bake any cake in honor of any gay wedding, although we would make them for a "regular" wedding. And I hate that I even have to use the word "regular" wedding to try to differentiate it from a gay wedding, all because SOME people keep calling what some gay people do a "marriage".And we also will not do anything else to honor any other type of sinful behavior no matter what that sin is, and no matter how much people want us to support their sinful behavior. We will love and support sinners, but not by supporting their sins, because we hate every sin but love all the sinners, as hard as that may be for some people to understand. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that demonstrates how non-discrimination is explicit support or tacit approval for anything. When ever I bring this up, you resort to saying "If I don't want to do anything, I shouldn't have to". That does NOT explain how it is explicit support or tacit approval. Please explain to me how, non-discrimination could possibly be interpreted as explicit support of sin. Think about what the word means, "nondiscrimination". 2
KevinG Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that demonstrates how non-discrimination is explicit support or tacit approval for anything. It isn't. I believe in many things that the world does not. I also know that my Father in Heaven gave us all agency, and we are commanded to teach and preach repentance. We are not however commended to use lawfare to prevent others from exercising their agency. The only exception is when agency victimizes innocents.
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that demonstrates how non-discrimination is explicit support or tacit approval for anything.When ever I bring this up, you resort to saying "If I don't want to do anything, I shouldn't have to". That does NOT explain how it is explicit support or tacit approval. Please explain to me how, non-discrimination could possibly be interpreted as explicit support of sin. Think about what the word means, "nondiscrimination".To me non-discrimination means not treating people differently for any reason at all, or if you're talking about those non-discrimination laws not treating people differently for any of those reasons specified in those laws. So let's put the rubber to the road now. I don't think or feel I should treat all people the same, because all people are not the same, so when deciding how I will treat people I think about what they want me to do to treat them the way they want to be treated while determining if I would feel right about doing whatever they want me to do.So say someone wants me to do something for them that I feel and think would not be a good thing to do because I think they might get the impression that I approve of what they are doing enough to want to help them do it even though I don't want to help them do it.Do you get the idea now?There are some good reasons for why we should not treat all people the same.
Recommended Posts