February 25, 2015 at 4:14 pm #7156
Remember when Christians were absolutely, steadfastly against interracial marriage? You don’t? It was only about 100 years ago. Well, the reason you don’t remember is because the faith and church has evolved on the issue, and now Christians treat interracial marriage as a non-issue, just like you will treat gay marriage fairly soon. Look at the speed in which the issue has evolved with the rest of society. Heck, look at the Pope. That the Roman Catholic Church would choose Francis says a lot about the evolutionary surge the Church is likely to experience in the next couple decades.
Some Christians made that mistake, but the Catholic Church never opposed interracial marriages.
And what about the Pope? What do you think he’s going to do? The Catholic Church will always define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That’s not going to change.
A battery needs a positive and a negative to be a battery. A real marriage needs a man and a woman. A Christian who believes and understands what Holy Matrimony means will not violate his conscience or harm others by encouraging their sin, by participating in or showing approval of a same-sex marriage, as if it could somehow be equated with Holy Matrimony.February 25, 2015 at 4:29 pm #7158VitalogyParticipant
You are a pathetic, sad story of a human being.
Take your holy matrimony and shove it up your tight ass. You might even find you like it.February 25, 2015 at 5:08 pm #7159Andy BrownParticipant
F&B further released some gas:
The Catholic Church will always define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That’s not going to change.
That is more than likely correct, but that is the Catholic Church’s definition, not a legal definition. The individual states, based on federal constitutional rights, are now dropping that definition and although it may upset your fragile ego, it is changing for the better. Same sex marriage is now legal in 37 states and the list keeps growing. The Catholic Church is not a legal authority. It may be a moral authority for some Catholics, but that is a separate argument.
A battery needs a positive and a negative to be a battery. A real marriage needs a man and a woman.
Don’t confuse reproduction with marriage. let alone either of them with an electrochemical cell or series of cells (battery). Once again you are going way off into Christian dogma land. A sperm is not a human being of the male variety and the ovum is not a human being of the female variety. They individually provide them in sexual reproduction whether it be inside a womb in a female or in a test tube. The notion that you must be a married couple consisting of a man and a woman to have children and raise a family ran out of meaning in the worlds of biology, psychology and morality decades ago. Also, you indirectly infer that adoption or guardianship is a lesser form of family building. You are an effete ass as well as an uninformed hypocritical boob who thinks that somehow Christian values (strict old fashioned Catholic values to be exact) are somehow sacrosanct and above all other values. I’ve got news for you, ace, they are not.February 25, 2015 at 7:59 pm #7165February 25, 2015 at 9:25 pm #7175
I clicked all over that map and couldn’t find a single group called “I Hate Christians” or “The Anti-Christian League” or anything like that.
Most all of these groups on the map battle against intolerance in its many forms. I wonder why Christians would feel threatened by that?February 25, 2015 at 11:57 pm #7178Chris_TaylorParticipant
There are plenty of Christian businesses that work directly with the LGBT community and have for years. I happen to be one of those businesses.
I don’t have a Fish or a cross symbol letting folks know I’m a business owner who happens to be Christian. I simply offer the best work I can at an honest price. Respecting all who contact me for work.
Jerry, lots of Christian’s do business with the LGBT community. You really need to get out more.
This will be a non-issue in the years to come.February 26, 2015 at 12:10 am #7179skepticalParticipant
Folks, when you respond to F&B, it’s like talking to these two people:February 26, 2015 at 6:43 am #7183
I don’t have any problem doing business with or associating with anyone. Neither did the baker who was targeted and is being forced into bankruptcy. She didn’t want to be complicit in the event of a same sex union called a marriage. She should have been able to bow out of that one. It speaks volumes to me that the activists don’t want a reasonable fine, like $300, but instead want blood. They want more than equality. They want to destroy.February 26, 2015 at 6:49 am #7184BrianlParticipant
The baker, and this elderly woman, are destroying themselves. If you have a business license, you gotta play by the rules of the business license.
Discriminating based on anything that violates civil rights statutes is illegal, and has been founnd aa such here.
It relly isn’t that difficult to comprehend.February 26, 2015 at 7:47 am #7185
Come with me and ride the roller coaster that is F&B logic!
“I don’t have any problem doing business with or associating with anyone. Neither did the baker who was targeted and is being forced into bankruptcy.”
Translation: “Christians such as myself as not intolerant at all! The baker was happy to work with all her customers!”
“She didn’t want to be complicit in the event of a same sex union called a marriage. She should have been able to bow out of that one.”
Translation: “But Christians such as myself have the right to be intolerant of customers we disagree with! If we don’t like the way our customers will use the things we sell to them, we shouldn’t have to sell to them!”
“It speaks volumes to me that the activists don’t want a reasonable fine, like $300, but instead want blood.”
Translation: “However…the baker did do something wrong by not selling to the gay couple. What’s unfair is the penalty! They want blood…but a little fine would be okay.”
“They want more than equality. They want to destroy.”
Translation: “How dare this gay couple go an try to give this baker money for her services! How DARE they try and patronize her business! They want to DESTROY her!”February 26, 2015 at 8:08 am #7186
The little fine is telling.
Basically, paying that would be WORTH IT, which renders the law a token law and all sorts of discrimination would happen then.
Just mark up the products a little based on the number of discrimination incidents expected.
(and people would do that too)
Avoiding that case is exactly why the law has a significant penalty.February 26, 2015 at 8:13 am #7187
I don’t think F&B even realizes this, but admitting that there is any kind of “reasonable” penalty at all concedes the point that a wrong was perpetrated on those that were denied service by this baker.February 26, 2015 at 8:24 am #7188
…well maybe. It may be a justifiable type of wrong. “Saving the masses” type of thing.February 26, 2015 at 12:03 pm #7200
I don’t concede that this law is just. People should be able to opt out of cooperating with something that violates their consciences. But since it is a law, and I think an unjust law, the punishment for breaking it is grossly unjust. It shouldn’t ruin someone. But I’m beating a dead horse.
This extreme vindictiveness and anxiousness to to go beyond being reasonable and going for the jugular exposes gay activism as being more than a desire for “civil rights.” It’s poor PR too.February 26, 2015 at 12:25 pm #7203Andy BrownParticipant
Truth is, Vern, you have never conceded a point on your religious fervor fed interpretation of federal or state law. You are liberal with labels and prone to initially jump to extreme conclusions and then back off slowly until you can more concisely express your warped opinion. The fact remains, the issue is not how much non arbiters feel the fine should be, it’s about whether it is infringing on your freedom of religion, which you steadfastly claim. It has been shown quite satisfactorily that it isn’t.
In your disfigured world it would be OK for any business to only be accessible to portions of the public that meet the moral approval of the business owner. Not only is that illegal (as has been shown to everyone’s satisfaction except maybe you) but it is wholly immoral. It certainly isn’t what your Jesus would support, and in that it is only more proof you and your ilk are hypocrites. White racist misogynistic overbearing hypocrites. GFY.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.