We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You didn't really address the questions in my post. You're a thoughtful person so I'm interested in your response. I defined the word "bigot" and I'm essentially asking why it doesn't fit.

I reject ideosyncratic definitions that allow people like you to retroactively rehabilitiate your casual slanders against people like me.

I go with the dictionary definition, as I did here:

Quote

Quote

The beliefs may offer a justification that some may find sufficient, but it's still bigoted.

It is not.  "Bigotry" is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Latter-day Saint approaches to same-sex attraction do not fit within that definition.

You are again proving my point about bullying.  And about the apparent futility of attempting to seek "compromise" with an ideological group that is steadfastly determined to label anyone who dares disagree with them as bigots.

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2020 by smac97

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You didn't really address the questions in my post. You're a thoughtful person so I'm interested in your response. I defined the word "bigot" and I'm essentially asking why it doesn't fit.

For the record, I agree with you that finding compromise on this issue is a bit of a futile endeavor and I've stated that a number of times on this thread. I don't believe it is appropriate to compromise on some issues... like civil rights protections.

Who did the following quote come from, mentioned in the post I am quoting?  It seems to suggest a compromise. :

The reason I consider that position to be "obstinate" and/or "unreasonable" is in part because there is not a belief or teaching in the LDS church that specifically states that LGBT individuals should not be allowed housing or employment based on their sxual orientation or practice. Sure, there are teachings against LGBT behaviors, but where is the teaching that these people should be discriminated against in housing and employment. Of course it doesn't exist. Similarly there is no teaching against housing or employing other people or groups the church considers to be sinners. The belief in what is or isn't sin, and the belief that sinners should be discriminated against are two separate things. People are simply conflating a belief/teaching against homosxuality into a belief that they should be discriminated against. In my opinion this is unreasonable.

The compromise would be for someone to offer housing or employment to someone who engages in homosexual behavior even if the person offering the housing or employment considers that homosexual behavior to be a sin.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Who did the following quote come from, mentioned in the post I am quoting?  It seems to suggest a compromise. :

 

The compromise would be for someone to offer housing or employment to someone who engages in homosexual behavior even if the person offering the housing or employment considers that homosexual behavior to be a sin.

That was my quote and I agree, that would be reasonable. But that would require total capitulation of those wanting to maintain the right to discriminate against LGBT for housing and employment. But the "religious freedom" group is arguing that they should be exempt from the civil rights requirement of non-discrimination regarding housing and employment. They aren't willing to do that because they maintain that their belief allows them to discriminate against others. That is what I'm arguing against.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I reject ideosyncratic definitions that allow people like you to retroactively rehabilitiate your casual slanders against people like me.

I go with the dictionary definition, as I did here:

-Smac

I expected more from you.

The "idiosyncratic definition" you reject is from Merriam-Webster. You've probably heard of them   But if you prefer your Dictionary. com definition better, that's your choice.

I hardly see how I'm trying to "retroactively rehabilitate" my comments when I was in fact referencing a word with a very common (if not the most common) definition.

I accept that you don't want to answer my questions. This isn't an interrogation. I was just curious about your thoughts on it. I explained why I defined the word the way I do and why I think it applies. If you want to discuss it using your definition, which I believe also applies, we could do that. But I'm guessing you'll side-step that one as well.

Peace out, Bro!

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That was my quote and I agree, that would be reasonable. But that would require total capitulation of those wanting to maintain the right to discriminate against LGBT for housing and employment. But the "religious freedom" group is arguing that they should be exempt from the civil rights requirement of non-discrimination regarding housing and employment. They aren't willing to do that because they maintain that their belief allows them to discriminate against others. That is what I'm arguing against.

I think some people don't think that is a reasonable compromise because they would equate that to aiding and abetting... in the legal sense, as someone who is supporting someone who is committing a crime, or sin.

Think about it again from that perspective.

For someone to offer housing or employment to someone who engages in homosexual behavior even if the person offering the housing or employment considers that homosexual behavior to be a sin would be to aid and abet the sinner by giving or selling that sinner lodging and employment. To be consistent I would propose that they should also refuse to offer lodging or employment to someone who steals or has murdered someone or committed any other type of sin, but let's just tackle this one sin at a time for now.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think some people don't think that is a reasonable compromise because they would equate that to aiding and abetting... in the legal sense, as someone who is supporting someone who is committing a crime, or sin.

Think about it again from that perspective.

For someone to offer housing or employment to someone who engages in homosexual behavior even if the person offering the housing or employment considers that homosexual behavior to be a sin would be to aid and abet the sinner by giving or selling that sinner lodging and employment. To be consistent I would propose that they should also refuse to offer lodging or employment to someone who steals or has murdered someone or committed any other type of sin, but let's just tackle this one sin at a time for now.

Didn't you just suggest that compromise 2 posts up? But now it's aiding and abetting so compromise isn't really possible, right?

If it was concern about aiding and abetting, wouldn't that apply across sins? Or would it only be the serious ones? Shouldn't I also discriminate against the couple living together outside of marriage? Or someone who has had an abortion, or supports abortion rights?

etc.

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by HappyJackWagon

[Daniel2]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Since Jack Phillips has, subsequent to prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court, been sued again, I think we can't really say that "he is free to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for gay couples."

Also, you are mischaracterizing what Jack Phillips refused to do.  

I agree with you: it's inaccurate to say (as others--not you or I--have said) that Mr. Phillips (or any other private business owner subject to public accommodation law) is free to refuse to bake and decorate a wedding cake for same-sex couples. All those signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" are clearly wrong; that is not a 'right' that business owners actually have.

No, I don't believe I'm mischaracterizing what Jack Phillips refused to do, I just left out the word "wedding" since I assumed that aspect was understood, but I re-phrased it in the first sentence above (see bolded/italicized part). 

Quote

Not just that.  This thread was started to discuss possibilities for compromise.  "Lawfare" against religious people is a serious impediment to compromise.

Similarly, the near-constant accusations of "bigot" and "homophobe" are serious impediments to compromise.  And yet people like HappyJackWagon can't even bring themselves to stop doing this in a thread about exploring possibilities for compromise.

Nobody is suggesting that your side the debate should be prevented access to the Courts.  Don't be silly.  I'm not saying they can't engage in lawfare against religious people.  I am suggesting that, in the spirit of seeking compromise, they shouldn't.

Fair enough.  I appreciate you reiterating the context in which you meant the above, and I better understand where you're coming from.

Further, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I agree that there are areas where compromise simply isn't possible, and I am OK with either side attempting to seek relief from the courts by exercising their right to due process. 

Additionally, I don't feel a need to demonize anyone for asking the courts to intervene in their behalf.  In instances like these, accusations of "bullying" are just about as effective, and certainly as counterproductive, as accusations of "bigotry."

Quote

Same as above.  HJW is labeling people who disagree with him as bigots.  That's de rigueur for your side of the debate.  

But patience will not, it seems, involve A) your side abstaining from accusations of "bigot" and "homophobe" against anyone who disagrees with them, and B) continued lawsuits against religious people to coerce them into speaking things that violate their religious convictions.

Again, this won't work.  There is no "live and let live."  There is no "reasonable minds can disagree."  We either capitulate to your worldview or else be publicly branded a "bigots" and "homophobes."  We either surrender our religious principles or else we will be sued into oblivion.

Bullying.  That's what your side has to offer by way of "compromise."

George has become Biff.

I certainly appreciate that you don't enjoy being called a bigot or a hater.  I likewise don't enjoy being called (both personally and my marriage) an abomination, counterfeit, selfish, committing a sin against nature, etc.

I don't expect you to answer or atone for those 'on your side' who refer to me as such, and I trust you don't expect me to answer for atone for those 'on my side' who do the same to you.

That said, in my experience, I can either a) take the high road and overlook others' choice to use derogatory labels and still strive to engage in substantive dialogue, or b) can complain about the derogatory labels and use them as an excuse to avoid engaging with others.  At some point, I have to set aside my personal feelings and meet others where they are and try to speak beyond the rhetoric, regardless of which side it's coming from. 

At the end of the day, I don't expect to change religious peoples' minds about whether or not my relationship is sinful, or what they feel about me from a religious perspective... I'm more concerned about agreeing to disagree on some key points and still find middle ground where we can at least truly "live and let live," regardless of the labels religious folks may place on me, my relationship, and my family.  When it comes to such labels, I can be a big boy and 'get over it' with my eye on the bigger picture of changing behavior, rather than changing beliefs. 

We don't have to change each others beliefs to find middle ground and respect one another, as much as possible, and leave the areas in which we cannot reach a compromise to those vehicles which are designed to resolve such disputes. 

Daniel

Edited June 30, 2020 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Didn't you just suggest that compromise 2 posts up? But now it's aiding and abetting so compromise isn't really possible, right?

i wouldn't say it isn't possible, just not a reasonable compromise to someone who would see it as aiding and abetting, or approving, of that sinful behavior.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it was concern about aiding and abetting, wouldn't that apply across sins? Or would it only be the serious ones? Shouldn't I also discriminate against the couple living together outside of marriage? Or someone who has had an abortion, or supports abortion rights?

etc.

 

Yes I would think it should apply to any sinful behavior.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I agree with you: it's inaccurate to say (as others--not you or I--have said) that Mr. Phillips (or any other private business owner subject to public accommodation law) is not free to refuse to bake and decorate a wedding cake for same-sex couples. All those signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" are clearly wrong; that is not a 'right' that business owners actually have.

Fair enough.  I appreciate you reiterating the context in which you meant the above, and I better understand where you're coming from.

Further, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I agree that there are areas where compromise simply isn't possible, and I am OK with either side attempting to seek relief from the courts by exercising their right to due process. 

Additionally, I don't feel a need to demonize anyone for asking the courts to intervene in their behalf.  In instances like these, accusations of "bullying" are just about as effective, and certainly as counterproductive, as accusations of "bigotry."

I certainly appreciate that you don't enjoy being called a bigot or a hater.  I likewise don't enjoy being called (both personally and my marriage) an abomination, selfish, committing a sin against nature, etc.

I don't expect you to answer for or atone for those 'on your side' who refer to me as such, and I trust you don't expect me to answer for or atone for those 'on my side' who do the same to you.

That said, in my experience, I can either a) take the high road and overlook others' choice to use derogatory labels and still strive to engage in substantive dialogue, or b) can complain about the derogatory labels and use them as an excuse to avoid engaging with others.  At some point, I have to set aside my personal feelings and meet others where they are and try to speak beyond the rhetoric, regardless of which side it's coming from.  At the end of the day, I don't expect to change religious peoples' minds about whether or not my relationship is sinful, or what they feel about me from a religious perspective.. I'm more concerned about agreeing to disagree on some key points and still find middle ground where we can at least truly "live and let live," regardless of the labels religious folks may place on me, my relationship, and my family.  When it comes to such labels, I can be a big boy and 'get over it' with my eye on the bigger picture of changing behavior, rather than changing beliefs. 

We don't have to change each others beliefs to find middle ground and respect one another, as much as possible, and leave the areas in which we cannot reach a compromise to those vehicles which are designed to resolve such disputes. 

Daniel

The middle ground is that people continue to believe what they believe. No one can change another person's belief. IMO this conversation isn't about what people believe. It's about what they do.

As Ahab suggested above as a compromise, religion can believe/teach something is sinful yet still allow someone civil rights of employment and housing. That seems pretty simple. But like I said previously, many are actually conflating the belief that something is a sin into a belief that they have a right to impose a consequence for that sin. For example, I can believe adultery is a sin, but believing that I have the right to stone the adulterer is a totally separate belief. Similarly, someone can believe hmosxuality is a sin, but it is a totally separate belief to claim they have the right to inflict consequences by discriminating against the sinner.

For example, if an Evangelical were to believe that Mormons are misguided and sinful because of their beliefs, the Evangelical is free to believe that. But it would be a problem if that Evangelical then felt entitled to discriminate against the Mormon and refuse him housing, or refuse to hire him.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

i wouldn't say it isn't possible, just not a reasonable compromise to someone who would see it as aiding and abetting, or approving, of that sinful behavior.

Yes I would think it should apply to any sinful behavior.

Would you agree then, that if the church reserves the right to discriminate against LGBT in housing and employment, they should also reserve the right to discriminate again all other sinners as well? Or just certain sinners who meet a certain threshold of sin? Like a misdemeanor sin may be OK but a felony sin would warrant discrimination.     Seriously, I'm not sure how that would work. As it is, there seems to be a different level of discrimination against LGBT as a group which is why it feels unfair/bigoted

[Daniel2]

On 6/30/2020 at 9:34 AM, smac97 said:

The issue with Jack Phillips involves First Amendment rights (protecting him from compelled speech and from infringements on his religious exercise).

The above sentence is technically not accurate, at least insofar as SCOTUS chose to rule in Masterpiece...

We both know that while both sides were hoping for a ruling to settle whether First Amendment rights were at the heart of the matter, and both sides submitted arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor regarding such, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the question of freedom of speech and religious exercise and 'punted' instead; it ruled that the board demonstrated animus towards Mr. Phillips' religion and overturned the lower courts' rulings against him, thereby exonerating him (only in that one instance), but leaving the questions of speech and exercise to be determined another day and case.

Quote

Daniel apparently can't quite bring himself to disagree with people like HJW on this point.  Rather, he says that calling people like me "bigots" is "pointless" and something "that should be avoided."  That's appreciated.

I strongly suspect that you wouldn't quite be able to bring yourself to disagree with people who call my marriage "sinful," "an abomination," “counterfeit,” or "a sin against nature." 

But I don't demand you change your beliefs in order to have a conversation with you about civil rights in the public square.  You are free to use those labels all you want, either privately or even publicly.  But like you, I do appreciate when others avoid using them in attempts to engage in productive dialogue (as you do; thank you).

But I won't let the fact that some people use labels like "abomination" or "sin against nature," or think them in their heads or feel them in their hearts, become an excuse to avoid dialogue, or to shut down efforts to reach beyond the rhetoric and try to find peaceful coexistence where we can live side-by-side, abide by the law (however it ultimately rules), and still hold our personal beliefs as our own.

D

Edited July 2, 2020 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The middle ground is that people continue to believe what they believe. No one can change another person's belief. IMO this conversation isn't about what people believe. It's about what they do.

As Ahab suggested above as a compromise, religion can believe/teach something is sinful yet still allow someone civil rights of employment and housing. That seems pretty simple. But like I said previously, many are actually conflating the belief that something is a sin into a belief that they have a right to impose a consequence for that sin. For example, I can believe adultery is a sin, but believing that I have the right to stone the adulterer is a totally separate belief. Similarly, someone can believe hmosxuality is a sin, but it is a totally separate belief to claim they have the right to inflict consequences by discriminating against the sinner.

For example, if an Evangelical were to believe that Mormons are misguided and sinful because of their beliefs, the Evangelical is free to believe that. But it would be a problem if that Evangelical then felt entitled to discriminate against the Mormon and refuse him housing, or refuse to hire him.

Well said.  I agree.

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The middle ground is that people continue to believe what they believe. No one can change another person's belief. IMO this conversation isn't about what people believe. It's about what they do.

As Ahab suggested above as a compromise, religion can believe/teach something is sinful yet still allow someone civil rights of employment and housing. That seems pretty simple. But like I said previously, many are actually conflating the belief that something is a sin into a belief that they have a right to impose a consequence for that sin. For example, I can believe adultery is a sin, but believing that I have the right to stone the adulterer is a totally separate belief. Similarly, someone can believe hmosxuality is a sin, but it is a totally separate belief to claim they have the right to inflict consequences by discriminating against the sinner.

For example, if an Evangelical were to believe that Mormons are misguided and sinful because of their beliefs, the Evangelical is free to believe that. But it would be a problem if that Evangelical then felt entitled to discriminate against the Mormon and refuse him housing, or refuse to hire him.

Beliefs are usually intrinsically tied to behavior, so when you see someone do something, such as give something to someone else, such as money or a job or a place to live, that behavior is usually tied somehow to what that person believes is a good reason to give that to someone else.  So ask the question: why would someone want to give something to someone else who did something they believed was not a good thing to do?  What would motivate the giving?

Example:  Person A who believes same sex sexual relations is sinful meets Person B who indicates he has same sex sexual relationships with other men. This motivates Person A to:

a. offer Person B a job wherein Person A would give money to Person B which would help Person B to have money to pay for things that Person B wanted to pay for

b. offer Person B a place to live wherein Person A would give Person B a place to do whatever Person B wanted to do while living in that place Person A was helping Person B to live in

c. just give Person B some money, with no strings attached, because Person A is such a nice person who realizes there must be some things that Person B would like to have some money to pay for?

d. try in some way to teach or suggest to Person B that there are some things that Person A does not want to support in any way such as by giving him a place to do those things or any money to buy whatever would help him to do that

Edited June 30, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would you agree then, that if the church reserves the right to discriminate against LGBT in housing and employment, they should also reserve the right to discriminate again all other sinners as well?  Or just certain sinners who meet a certain threshold of sin? Like a misdemeanor sin may be OK but a felony sin would warrant discrimination.

Yes, I would agree to that.  If the Church leases or sublets any property I think they should at least try to ensure that those they lease to do not intend to do anything immoral on that property.

The "anything goes here" attitude should not be endorsed, in my opinion.

 

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

     Seriously, I'm not sure how that would work. As it is, there seems to be a different level of discrimination against LGBT as a group which is why it feels unfair/bigoted

 I think it's because we've reached a new threshold level of what others think we should be willing to accept or at least tolerate.

Murder, for example, is something most people see as a bad and evil thing to do.  This new thing called "love", though, and "marriage", which some people claim is a "good" thing, is a little bit more difficult for some people to figure out.

... as evidenced by how we are still talking and arguing about this instead of all of us agreeing that it is either a good or bad thing.  I mean, surely it is either good or bad, rather than both.  Right?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Beliefs are usually intrinsically tied to behavior, so when you see someone do something, such as give something to someone else, such as money or a job or a place to live, that behavior is usually tied somehow to what that person believes is a good reason to give that to someone else.  So ask the question: why would someone want to give something to someone else who did something they believed was not a good thing to do?  What would motivate the giving?

Example:  Person A who believes same sex sexual relations is sinful meets Person B who indicates he has same sex sexual relationships with other men. This motivates Person A to:

a. offer Person B a job wherein Person A would give money to Person B which would help Person B to have money to pay for things that Person B wanted to pay for

b. offer Person B a place to live wherein Person A would give Person B a place to do whatever Person B wanted to do while living in that place Person A was helping Person B to live in

c. just give Person B some money, with no strings attached, because Person A is such a nice person who realizes there must be some things that Person B would like to have some money to pay for?

d. try in some way to teach or suggest to Person B that there are some things that Person A does not want to support in any way such as by giving him a place to do those things or any money to buy whatever would help him to do that

Do you really want every business relationship, whether employment or housing or purchasing or banking or whatever, to be tied to one person's personal feelings about the other person? You come into apply for a job. I can't support people with dark hair so I can't give you the job. Why do I have to approve of your hair color? All I have to do is make sure you can do the job and that you'll be effective.

Discriminating against others because one doesn't approve of some element of who they are or how they live their life would be pure chaos. That's not civilized society.

If a Mormon applies for a job from a gay person, should the employer be able to refuse the Mormon just because he's Mormon? I sure hope not. So even if the gay person really disagrees with the Mormon's life choices, he should not be able to harm the Mormon by denying him a job or housing based only on his religion.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, I would agree to that.  If the Church leases or sublets any property I think they should at least try to ensure that those they lease to do not intend to do anything immoral on that property.

The "anything goes here" attitude should not be endorsed, in my opinion.

 

 I think it's because we've reached a new threshold level of what others think we should be willing to accept or at least tolerate.

Murder, for example, is something most people see as a bad and evil thing to do.  This new thing called "love", though, and "marriage", which some people claim is a "good" thing, is a little bit more difficult for some people to figure out.

... as evidenced by how we are still talking and arguing about this instead of all of us agreeing that it is either a good or bad thing.  I mean, surely it is either good or bad, rather than both.  Right?

Love and marriage are definitely a slippery slope to hell   

 

You're a good sport, Ahab. It's fun talking to you

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you really want every business relationship, whether employment or housing or purchasing or banking or whatever, to be tied to one person's personal feelings about the other person?

Yes, I do really want that.  I just want those personal feelings to be good personal feelings, rather than bad or evil personal feelings. 

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You come into apply for a job. I can't support people with dark hair so I can't give you the job. Why do I have to approve of your hair color?

Maybe the place is called Blondies so they only want people with blonde hair to work there, to fit into their theme?  Or Red's, so they want only people with red hair? I dunno, but there could be a good reason.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

All I have to do is make sure you can do the job and that you'll be effective.

But maybe you want a little more than that, rather than only the minimum requirements.  As the employer, the one with the money, I think you should get to choose what you want to pay for.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Discriminating against others because one doesn't approve of some element of who they are or how they live their life would be pure chaos. That's not civilized society.

Nah, it could work rather well, I think.  

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If a Mormon applies for a job from a gay person, should the employer be able to refuse the Mormon just because he's Mormon? I sure hope not.

I would just want to know of a good reason why not, rather than an arbitrary decision based on that person being called a "Mormon" by others.  

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So even if the gay person really disagrees with the Mormon's life choices, he should not be able to harm the Mormon by denying him a job or housing based only on his religion.

Your opinion does not agree with mine here.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, I do really want that.  I just want those personal feelings to be good personal feelings, rather than bad or evil personal feelings. 

Maybe the place is called Blondies so they only want people with blonde hair to work there, to fit into their theme?  Or Red's, so they want only people with red hair? I dunno, but there could be a good reason.

But maybe you want a little more than that, rather than only the minimum requirements.  As the employer, the one with the money, I think you should get to choose what you want to pay for.

Nah, it could work rather well, I think.  

I would just want to know of a good reason why not, rather than an arbitrary decision based on that person being called a "Mormon" by others.  

Your opinion does not agree with mine here.

I am understanding you to say that you are pro-discrimination by those in authority (hiring/firing renting/selling etc). Or maybe not PRO, but you believe people should be able to discriminate against others for virtually any reason if they want to. You just hope that people have good reasons for it. Am I reading you correctly?

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am understanding you to say that you are pro-discrimination by those in authority (hiring/firing renting/selling etc). Or maybe not PRO, but you believe people should be able to discriminate against others for virtually any reason if they want to. You just hope that people have good reasons for it. Am I reading you correctly?

One thing that might help you to understand me is to understand that discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. Check Google for "discriminating" and you may see this: having or showing refined taste or good judgment.

To discriminate is to choose something over something else, not necessarily because one thing is bad but because something else may be and often is better.

I am essentially pro-choice, but I do not regard all choices as equally good and I believe there are or may be some bad consequences that result from making bad choices.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Beliefs are usually intrinsically tied to behavior, so when you see someone do something, such as give something to someone else, such as money or a job or a place to live, that behavior is usually tied somehow to what that person believes is a good reason to give that to someone else.  So ask the question: why would someone want to give something to someone else who did something they believed was not a good thing to do?  What would motivate the giving?

Example:  Person A who believes same sex sexual relations is sinful meets Person B who indicates he has same sex sexual relationships with other men. This motivates Person A to:

a. offer Person B a job wherein Person A would give money to Person B which would help Person B to have money to pay for things that Person B wanted to pay for

b. offer Person B a place to live wherein Person A would give Person B a place to do whatever Person B wanted to do while living in that place Person A was helping Person B to live in

c. just give Person B some money, with no strings attached, because Person A is such a nice person who realizes there must be some things that Person B would like to have some money to pay for?

d. try in some way to teach or suggest to Person B that there are some things that Person A does not want to support in any way such as by giving him a place to do those things or any money to buy whatever would help him to do that

I so do not want to live in a world where every business transaction requires a interview to determine the worthiness before the transaction can go through.  Business would come to a grinding halt.  There is no person who is sinless.  I also think this is totally against the teachings of Christ.  It is not the duty of every store clerk to act as judge for God on who is sinning and who isn't.  If people want to fixate on sin, it should be their own sins, not their neighbors.  

When I start to hear these kinds of posts, then I start to dig in more and realize that it seems the only people who are being judged by whether they are worthy enough for the business to take place are gay people.  Evidently it is only the sin that some believe matters enough to God to refuse service for is if the sin of marrying if you are gay.  I love the hypocrisy the church shows and other "christians" by calling gay marriages an abomination, and apostate, but not calling non married relationships an abomination and apostate.  One starts to think it is JUST about prejudice against gays.  This is a big reason why I don't want to ever get involved with the Church again.  I am not alone.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

One thing that might help you to understand me is to understand that discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. Check Google for "discriminating" and you may see this: having or showing refined taste or good judgment.

To discriminate is to choose something over something else, not necessarily because one thing is bad but because something else may be and often is better.

I am essentially pro-choice, but I do not regard all choices as equally good and I believe there are or may be some bad consequences that result from making bad choices.

Yeah, yeah. I understand discrimination in terms of "fine taste or judgement". That's why I select Grey Poupon mustard. Only the finest. That definition works fine for selecting a product.

But we're not talking about selecting a product we prefer. We're talking about selecting people we prefer and discriminating against protected groups of people who SCOTUS determined are entitled to civil rights protections.

So if you (or any others) view discrimination of protected groups as good, in any way, then that is a huge problem IMO. I don't really care if a person doesn't think gays, or blacks, or muslims are "bad". IF the person places people in these groups behind a group they view as better (like straight white Christians) then that discrimination is abhorrent and in many cases illegal. In civil rights matters I don't get to decide that I prefer straight white Christians better than other groups and then give preferential treatment to the group I like better. HUGE problem. That's exactly why Civil Rights laws exist.

You might want to rethink that one.

[Daniel2]

On 6/29/2020 at 11:39 AM, Ahab said:

...which in essence would be a clash between what is believed to be the government of God vs a government established by men, with the proponents of that clash advocating it is better to obey God rather than men in world government.

Sometimes it seems that some people don't really understand all that is encompassed within the term "religious belief",  I do believe there are actually some freedoms and civil rights, protections, and responsibilities mandated by men and women who are involved in establishing the governments of this world, but I also believe there are some freedoms and civil rights, protections, and responsibilities mandated by God, such as the responsibilities all of us have to share all that God has given to us and may yet give us to build up the kingdom of God on this Earth.  It is essentially a war between good and evil, with many people apparently advocating that people should be legally allowed to to do things which are evil, which I would expect good people to object to, at which point we then have another clash to resolve.

If someone feels that their religious beliefs clash with what the civic (as in, man-made) government requires in the realm of public accommodations in the open marketplace, there's basically four options one would have (at least, these are the only four I can think of):

a) abide by the government requirements

b) seek to change the government requirements (either through the legislature and/or the judiciary)

c) disobey the government requirements and accept the consequences

d) choose a different vocation or line of business that wouldn't conflict with one's religious beliefs.

I certainly agree with you that "some people don't really understand all that is encompassed within the term 'religious belief'," especially from a legal perspective. 

While you may feel you should have certain exemptions due to how you define 'religious belief,' the key aspects we're discussing here is how the law defines the freedom of 'religious exercise,' and especially those areas where the law does not allow unfettered actions in the name of such. 

That is, from the government's perspective, a law restricting certain behaviors (some of which may be religiously motivated by some citizens) but which is universally applied to all members of the population (without targeting or singling out anyone's given behaviors, even those claiming a religious right to such) is allowable and Constitutional.  (See the purple quote in my signature below).

Taken to it's most extreme, as an example: I may belong to a group of people who claim to worship ancient Mayan Gods and whom we believe demand human sacrifice, but since the law does not allow murder, the law can restrict members of my group from practicing human sacrifice, even if there are individuals claiming a right to be killed in the name of their religious freedoms.  The same is true of restricting drug use, refusing life-saving medical care for one's children,  restricting blood atonement, restricting religious-based discrimination, etc. There are certain things the law can prohibit, even when it violates individual citizens' professed religious beliefs. Religious adherents may object to the laws and seek redress through the courts if they feel they're being unfairly treated, but ultimatley the rule of law, whether outlined by the legislature or as interpreted by the courts, have the final word as to how the law is implemented and what the law requires.

Again.... religious adherents who are unhappy with the government's final rules are always free to choose one of the four options above (unless anyone else sees additional options?).

Best,

D

Edited July 1, 2020 by Daniel2

[Islander]

On 6/29/2020 at 4:18 PM, CA Steve said:

At this point your generalizations expose your own prejudices.

You all have very short memories. Brendan Eich was pretty much thrown out of Firefox just because he supported proposition 8 in CA. Again, it does not take much, just ideological opposition to LGBT politics to be thrown to the fire. But, you don't have to agree. Noticed, just because I made a statement that is juxtaposed to yours you labeled "bias". 

[Islander]

On 6/29/2020 at 6:40 PM, Bob Crockett said:

No you are not.  This is your quote:  "That is what the lawsuits against Christian owned businesses has been about."  

Do you really believe that, for instance, the family which owns the Cincinnati Reds, should get away with discriminating against homosexuals and Jews?

You are generalizing now. The exchange was about a baker or a photographer. You got late to the exchange.

[Islander]

On 6/30/2020 at 12:27 AM, The Nehor said:

No. You were talking about businesses as well.

If you look at my response to the OP and all the ones that follow you will see where the exchange is coming from.