sethpayne Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 It is a permissible discrimination based upon the recipient's bad behavior, not his genetics or language or where he was born. Would you rent your barn to an unmarried heterosexual couple who lived together? What about someone who drinks occasionally? Has a a cigarette? Perhaps a cup of joe?
USU78 Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Would you rent your barn to an unmarried heterosexual couple who lived together? What about someone who drinks occasionally? Has a a cigarette? Perhaps a cup of joe? Depends . . .
USU78 Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 No it is an admission of being not "smart" enough to respond in like manner Your God given right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Maybe I'm so much of a git I don't understand what that simple injunction means. OH CRUEL WORLD. Cry me a river. The cruel state says I must follow the rules of the state when in business in the state. BTW: I'm riffing off John Lennon's lyric in I'm So Tired: I'm so tired, I'm feeling so upset, Although I'm so tired I'll have another cigarette, And curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git*! *Pronounced, improperly, "get" in the song to torture a rhyme.
tonie Posted August 26, 2014 Author Posted August 26, 2014 It is a permissible discrimination based upon the recipient's bad behavior, not his genetics or language or where he was born.I must have missed the disclaimers or exceptions Christ taught, can you identify them?Matthew 2534 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto meMatthew 544 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
BCSpace Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Is there a difference with to "take in" a stranger (to include a homosexual), than renting or selling to stranger (to include a homosexual) who needs housing? Homosexuality is involved in one third of all child sex abuse cases. Yet homosexuals make up one percent of less of the population. Why should an apartment owner not take this fact into account when considering whom to rent to? 1
Tacenda Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Homosexuality is involved in one third of all child sex abuse cases. Yet homosexuals make up one percent of less of the population. Why should an apartment owner not take this fact into account when considering whom to rent to?CFR to the max!
sethpayne Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Depends . . . I see. So you have no objective standard you apply. Only your subjective assessment of what sinners you will take money from and those you will not.
tonie Posted August 26, 2014 Author Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) Homosexuality is involved in one third of all child sex abuse cases. Yet homosexuals make up one percent of less of the population. Why should an apartment owner not take this fact into account when considering whom to rent to?Didn't the Church support the Salt Lake City ordinance that prohibit discrimination in housing? Was the Church short-sighted when it supported the ordinance? Edited August 26, 2014 by tonie 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 BTW: I'm riffing off John Lennon's lyric in I'm So Tired: Paul was a better song writer.
USU78 Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I see. So you have no objective standard you apply. Only your subjective assessment of what sinners you will take money from and those you will not. sp, long time no talk at. You been OK? I assume you are using odd language to ask for elaboration. Am I right? It would be out of character for you simply to be dismissive, especially since I know you've followed my posts herein and over the last decade or so on this subject. In the event of the latter, however, I will elaborate anyway. No . . . you are quite mistaken. There is a standard and I posted it above in this thread: Compelling my participation in a mockery of the sacred is what those who would make me bake them a cake or rent them out my barn are doing. I don't buy and never have bought that SSM is meant anything but ironically and for shock value in order to inflict damage on parents, church leaders and such. I know when I'm being insulted. That's basis # 1 for refusing participation: my natural cantankerousness kicks in when somebody insists I do something of this nature. Basis # 2: There is no rational reason for going to the extreme of unmaking and remaking civil society in order to accommodate the very, very few that even desire SSM for themselves other than theoretically. Basis # 3: Government should only seldomly impose upon individuals' economic and other liberties in this fashion. Basis # 4: This is antiMormonism all gussied up and pretending to be a civil rights question: I'm not gonna fall for it. 1
USU78 Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Paul was a better song writer. Singer, too. And thinker, too. And he was/is less broken and angry. And he was/is less nasty to people. 1
USU78 Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 CFR to the max! Tacenda, you have already received the info in other threads. Perhaps you've forgotten that a new, ad hoc taxonomy makes man on boy sex abuse a non-homosexual phenomenon, and this is why this is even worth having a conversation about.
USU78 Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I must have missed the disclaimers or exceptions Christ taught, can you identify them?Matthew 2534 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto meMatthew 544 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.I come not to bring peace, but the sword.Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. In any case, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with refusing to rent my barn out to or bake a cake for such an abomination as SSM. 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Something tells me you would be comfortable living in a certain country in the 30's. Because after all it was the state doing it. No. I definitely would have hated it, and given the opportunity I would have fled, and/or fought against it. My mom was a WAAC in charge of the radio communications on a US Army Air Corps base in England in WW2 and my dad flew in a B-25 as an inflight mechanic out of northern Africa to bomb Italy. A state doing it may make it legal, but moral is a different question. It would totally depend on what the state was doing. Making sure that its citizens are treated fairly and legally equal doesn't sound like being a bully let alone wanting to live a certain 1930's country.
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Singer, too. And thinker, too. And he was/is less broken and angry. And he was/is less nasty to people. True.
USU78 Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 No. I definitely would have hated it, and given the opportunity I would have fled, and/or fought against it. My mom was a WAAC in charge of the radio communications on a US Army Air Corps base in England in WW2 and my dad flew in a B-25 as an inflight mechanic out of northern Africa to bomb Italy. A state doing it may make it legal, but moral is a different question. It would totally depend on what the state was doing. Making sure that its citizens are treated fairly and legally equal doesn't sound like being a bully let alone wanting to live a certain 1930's country. This is where you and I keep parting company. It is perfectly normal, acceptable and wise, to me, to take a Goldwater stand on such issues: outlaw poll taxes, beef up the penalties for lynchings and mobbings, but don't go so far as to create a racehuckstering industry by legislative fiat. It's simply a question of how to go about improving on a bad situation.
BCSpace Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) Homosexuality is involved in one third of all child sex abuse cases. Yet homosexuals make up one percent of less of the population. Why should an apartment owner not take this fact into account when considering whom to rent to? CFR to the max! Shall we start with Kinsey himself? 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard andAB. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, "Homosexual Sample: Age at First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact," Here is another: "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%." Ray Blanchard, et. aI. "Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation." (2000) Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 28, Number 2,pages 111 to 127. et. al. to the max. Edited August 26, 2014 by BCSpace 1
BCSpace Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Homosexuality is involved in one third of all child sex abuse cases. Yet homosexuals make up one percent of less of the population. Why should an apartment owner not take this fact into account when considering whom to rent to? Didn't the Church support the Salt Lake City ordinance that prohibit discrimination in housing? Was the Church short-sighted when it supported the ordinance? Did the regulations balance "fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community."?
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) This is where you and I keep parting company. It is perfectly normal, acceptable and wise, to me, to take a Goldwater stand on such issues: outlaw poll taxes, beef up the penalties for lynchings and mobbings, but don't go so far as to create a racehuckstering industry by legislative fiat. It's simply a question of how to go about improving on a bad situation. SEE Barry Goldwater and the Southern Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Ps; Even George Romney was opposed to the Southern Strategy of Barry Goldwater.http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/11/01/rethinking-george-romney/ Edited August 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint
wenglund Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 As an LDS, I would have no problem renting apartments to homosexuals or fornicators or adulterers or porn addicts or adult beverage imbibers or even Miley Cyrus fans. Their money is as good as anyone else. Nor would I object to hiring the same to work for me and my company as long as they were the most qualified and capable candidates. However, I do object to creating laws based on manufactured controversy rather than in response to legitimate and substantive concerns. I don't like it when the legal system is manipulated into propagandizing certain quasi-religious immoral agendas, particularly using absurd comparisons with real and serious forms of discrimination like Jim Crow laws. For that matter, I wouldn't decline baking a cake or providing flowers or take photos for a SSM wedding, or a wedding between a man and his canine best friend, or toga parties, or a heathen feast, etc., though I strenuously object to creating laws forcing others to do so against their religious wishes. I don't like it when the government imposes its immoral and irreligious views onto the religious, particularly in ways that may violate the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
tonie Posted August 26, 2014 Author Posted August 26, 2014 If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.I come not to bring peace, but the sword.Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.In any case, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with refusing to rent my barn out to or bake a cake for such an abomination as SSM.Your quotes of the Bible do not support your implied premise. Nor do the quotes you provide address the question presented to you. And it is very clear me that you "don't see" in regard to the topic at hand. I can not think of any easier or more simplistic way of putting than what has already been presented; I quoted the Church, I quoted Jesus, and asked a question.I can think of no other way of presenting the issue in a way that you would be able to comprehend. Allbeit, I highly suspect you ignorance is strained and feigned as to what the topic is about. I will also note you misguided attempt to derail the conservation into a ssm debate.
tonie Posted August 26, 2014 Author Posted August 26, 2014 Did the regulations balance "fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community."?Don't be scared to pass judgment on the Church. Was the Church short-sighted when it openly supported Salt Lake City's non-discrimination law? It is a simple yes or no. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Wade: No one is forcing you bake a cake or provide flowers, or take photos for any wedding tradition or otherwise. When you take out a business license to do a business you agree to follow the rules of state. That forms a regular binding contract. You are not entitled to unilaterally change the terms/rules of that contract. The state has as part of their rules that you can not legally discriminate against potential customers on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, or increasingly sexual orientation. At one time it was considered a deeply held religious belief to discriminate against the blacks/Irish/Chinese/Jews/Mormons/etc./etc./etc. in this country. If equal protection under law means anything to you then I suggest you get over this I don't want to discriminate in business except for ___.
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Did the regulations balance "fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community."? Communities(Like towns, cities, counties, states, countries) don't have religious rights. Individual people do.
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Your quotes of the Bible do not support your implied premise. Nor do the quotes you provide address the question presented to you. And it is very clear me that you "don't see" in regard to the topic at hand. I can not think of any easier or more simplistic way of putting than what has already been presented; I quoted the Church, I quoted Jesus, and asked a question.I can think of no other way of presenting the issue in a way that you would be able to comprehend. Allbeit, I highly suspect you ignorance is strained and feigned as to what the topic is about. I will also note you misguided attempt to derail the conservation into a ssm debate. I think we have to be real careful when quoting religious text as proof text for our actions.
Recommended Posts