stop comparing gay marriage and acceptance to race, only gay stuff is documented as wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.

As a fellow Christian, I find this offensive. Jesus dined with prostitutes and thieves. Do you really think he'd have a problem with you baking a cake for a gay couple? You REALLY need to read the red words in your Bible and think about how you can live your life in the spirit of Jesus.

I am so incredibly sick and tired of this perception that we are all like op and this pp. We are not. I go to an Episcopal church. Our congregation consists of gay couples and mixed race couples. Nobody even thinks twice about it. we also welcome the homeless man who sometimes joins us. We don't question why he has Nike shoes (newsflash: a REAL Christian probably gave him those shoes as a *gasp* handout!). Oh, and we tell our kids that of course they can pray in school any time they want...SILENTLY! We believe that it's our responsibility to teach others about our faith...but not through laws and politics. We do so by inviting people to our service, or to Vacation Bible School, or any other church function.

You need to go back and read your scriptures some more.

Jesus told the adulteress to GO AND SIN NO MORE ( John 8:11). He did not say prostitution, adultery, thieving were OK. I've been seeing these idiotic posters on the internet (and perhaps they are hanging them in your church) that suggest that Jesus dining with prostitutes is an acceptance of prostitution. Again, read John 8:11 -- it's really not that obtuse, you'll get it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us specifically to be kind to gay people. However, gay sex is a sin. This is why Pope Francis has been accepting of the idea of celibate gays within the priesthood.

I treat all people with respect including gays, who I generally like and get along with very well.

Preparing and celebrating a meal with a prostitute might not be the same thing as packing a goodie bag for her to help her next trick go more smoothly. There are many areas of life where you could make a distinction between "loving the person" yet draw the line at participating in their sinful behavior. You can help a homeless pedophile with food, clothing and shelter, but you wouldn't make a cake for him to share with the child he was lusting after. You welcome your drug addicted (child, neighbor, relative) into your home and care for them, but you don't provide their pipe for them.

My parents always welcomed me and my boyfriend into their home, and even sent us all appropriate gifts. But, they refused to buy us furniture or even help us move into our apartment. My brother refused to read at my sisters wedding, because he disapproved that she had been living with her boyfriend before they got married. I thought It was a dick move, but he was following his own moral and religious code. There are fine lines and nuances in life which make all the difference. The government should refrain from interfering in those personal judgement calls unless there is a very compelling reason and there is no other way to achieve a given goal......sort of like these RFRAs state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked about this on another thread, but no one answered -- Did the Indiana bakers face any governmental penalties for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake? Were they arrested? Were they fined? As far as I can tell, the only penalty they suffered was lots of people posting online about what jerks they are, and one lonely protester outside their shop.

If that's correct, how were the bakers prevented from "living life freely"? They made a choice to deny services to someone, and they were mocked in response. Isn't that a justifiable position on both sides?

In Oregon, same case fined the baker over 100K. She lost her bakery

Yes, but that's Oregon, where the laws are different from Indiana. Below are a few links discussing the Oregon situation. There, the legislature passed a law explicitly forbidding business from discriminating based on things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So bakers could not refuse to sell to gay couples, or someone who is black, or even to Christians! According to Wikipedia (FWIW), Indiana does NOT have a similar law, so an Indiana baker did not need the Indiana RFRA to let him be a discriminatory jerk, unless the people of some particular county chose to pass such a law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indiana)

Also, FWIW, the Oregon bakers "risked" fines of up to $150,000, but were never actually fined. They did NOT close their shop because of fines. Instead, "The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals," which I see as pretty justified. I assume you aren't suggesting customers should be forced to buy cakes from a business they disagree with, just because the owners happen to be anti-gay Christians, right?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked about this on another thread, but no one answered -- Did the Indiana bakers face any governmental penalties for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake? Were they arrested? Were they fined? As far as I can tell, the only penalty they suffered was lots of people posting online about what jerks they are, and one lonely protester outside their shop.

If that's correct, how were the bakers prevented from "living life freely"? They made a choice to deny services to someone, and they were mocked in response. Isn't that a justifiable position on both sides?

In Oregon, same case fined the baker over 100K. She lost her bakery

Yes, but that's Oregon, where the laws are different from Indiana. Below are a few links discussing the Oregon situation. There, the legislature passed a law explicitly forbidding business from discriminating based on things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So bakers could not refuse to sell to gay couples, or someone who is black, or even to Christians! According to Wikipedia (FWIW), Indiana does NOT have a similar law, so an Indiana baker did not need the Indiana RFRA to let him be a discriminatory jerk, unless the people of some particular county chose to pass such a law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indiana)

Also, FWIW, the Oregon bakers "risked" fines of up to $150,000, but were never actually fined. They did NOT close their shop because of fines. Instead, "The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals," which I see as pretty justified. I assume you aren't suggesting customers should be forced to buy cakes from a business they disagree with, just because the owners happen to be anti-gay Christians, right?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

And that's very relevant - because government interference is what caused all that to begin with. Indiana saw that and got ahead of it, as well they should. They 'risked' fines - you honestly make that distinction? That's HUGE from the standpoint of whether or not one should keep one's business open. I have a small business and would close shop immediately if I 'risked' a fine that large from government, especially if it meant compromising a personal belief that was protected by the first amendment. Reminds me of the mafia and how they pressured businesses 'pay us to protect you...or else'..

Customers can and should shop where they want, when they want. If that's what closes a shop, that's free market. But it should be on a fair playing field. n an all out nationwide media vendetta goes after a small bakery shop, do you really think it fair to the baker? Atom bomb to kill a fly? At some point, this game will backfire.

Y'all tried it with Chick-fil-a and it kinda backfired. I'd remember that going forward.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all tried it with Chick-fil-a and it kinda backfired. I'd remember that going forward.

You may want to updated your understanding of the Chick-fil-a situation. As I understand it, the company and its foundation have stopped funding anti-gay organizations. The campaign against Chick-fil-a worked.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm way too tired for semantics. What's your take on this?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

That article is too convoluted to read. It is difficult to make heads and tails of things. If I understand correctly, the pro-gay marriage slogan incident took place in Ireland. Also, if I understood correctly, the author called US-based bakeries. Ireland's laws don't apply to the US and, therefore, I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. I am not sure that a lawsuit targeting a baker for refusing to put a specific slogan on a cake would be successful in this US. In that case, a baker could successfully refuse to put either pro-gay or anti-gay slogans on cakes.

The author, as is often the case, is confused about the meaning of "free speech". Free speech is an individual's freedom to speak, not the freedom to force others to speak.

The other issue is the failure to distinguish between the refusal to provide a service because it is not a service you want to provide and a refusal to provide a service because of a characteristic of the customer. For instance, I don't think anyone would expect to be able to compel a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches. However, in many places, the same Jewish deli could be sued for refusing to serve members of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Therefore, if a baker refuses to sell cakes with anti-gay slogans, I believe he is on firm ground. However, if the same baker refused to sell a cake to an anti-gay customer, I would find his ground to be much less firm, though legally he still might be able to get away with it because I am not aware of laws prohibiting discrimination against anti-gay people.

It was the first link that popped up. If you google it, you will find a barrage of articles--choose any one you like. Do not attack the source, talk about the idea.

From what I understand, the Christians did not turned down customers, because they were gay. They refused to provide a service, because it was not a service they wanted to provide, i.e. be part of a ceremony they opposed philosophically.

I can see how tempting it is to try seeing nuance where there is none. I for one have little interest in that.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You provided a source and asked for my take on it. I provided my take and you now criticize me for providing my thoughts on the source. If you are not interested in my thoughts on a source you provide, maybe you shouldn't provide a source and ask for my take on it? Now I don't even know which Christians you are talking about; the Christians in the article to which you referred or some other Christians?

Your suggestion that providing cakes to straight weddings and providing cakes to gay weddings are two different businesses requires significant nuance, something that I find ironic coming from a person who has little interest in nuance. In this instance, I am inclined to agree with your impatience with nuance and suggest that the business is actually the provision of cakes to weddings. As such, refusing to provide service to a couple based on sexual orientation is clearly discriminatory.

You are grasping at straws. You are allowed to be wrong once in a while, you know.

I never asked for your opinion of the source. Don't know the source, don't care. I was interested in your opinion on reverse discrimination demonstrated by gays in this and similar cases.

The suggestion of difference between straight and gay weddings isn't mine. The distinction is in the eyes of those to whom these things are different. It is their right to hold that belief to their hearts' content. You need to either accept it or stop claiming being accepting and tolerant while preaching to others.

[Anonymous]

This outstanding note from a Christian business owner in Indiana illustrates the hypocrisy in the religious freedom law by pointing out whom he shouldn't serve under that law:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/29/1374145/-I-am-a-Christian-business-owner-in-Indiana?detail=facebook_sf

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You are grasping at straws. You are allowed to be wrong once in a while, you know.

I never asked for your opinion of the source. Don't know the source, don't care. I was interested in your opinion on reverse discrimination demonstrated by gays in this and similar cases.

The suggestion of difference between straight and gay weddings isn't mine. The distinction is in the eyes of those to whom these things are different. It is their right to hold that belief to their hearts' content. You need to either accept it or stop claiming being accepting and tolerant while preaching to others.

I am grasping at straws? Is that supposed to be some form of irony? You are really incredible. You posted a link and asked for my take on it. Now you are completely distancing yourself from the link. It's as if the link appeared in your post by some new type of immaculate conception. Please, in the future, don't waste my time like this. If you can't be bothered to find a source that you are prepared to stand behind, don't ask my take on it.

Your final paragraph is an almost farcical example of the "you refuse to tolerate their intolerance" position. If there are companies that believe that providing services for straight weddings is a different business than providing services to gay weddings, I don't have to accept that. I don't have to accept it anymore than I would accept restaurants that believe serving food to white people is a different business than selling food to black people. Both of those are simply semantic games. If I have any intolerance, it is for using language to disguise and hide bigotry.

You actually have not provided a clear cut example of reverse discrimination. You provided a link that you have now backed away from and that link didn't provide and example in any case. Maybe put a bit more effort into this next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but that's Oregon, where the laws are different from Indiana. Below are a few links discussing the Oregon situation. There, the legislature passed a law explicitly forbidding business from discriminating based on things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So bakers could not refuse to sell to gay couples, or someone who is black, or even to Christians! According to Wikipedia (FWIW), Indiana does NOT have a similar law, so an Indiana baker did not need the Indiana RFRA to let him be a discriminatory jerk, unless the people of some particular county chose to pass such a law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indiana)

Also, FWIW, the Oregon bakers "risked" fines of up to $150,000, but were never actually fined. They did NOT close their shop because of fines. Instead, "The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals," which I see as pretty justified. I assume you aren't suggesting customers should be forced to buy cakes from a business they disagree with, just because the owners happen to be anti-gay Christians, right?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

And that's very relevant - because government interference is what caused all that to begin with. Indiana saw that and got ahead of it, as well they should. They 'risked' fines - you honestly make that distinction? That's HUGE from the standpoint of whether or not one should keep one's business open. I have a small business and would close shop immediately if I 'risked' a fine that large from government, especially if it meant compromising a personal belief that was protected by the first amendment. Reminds me of the mafia and how they pressured businesses 'pay us to protect you...or else'..

Customers can and should shop where they want, when they want. If that's what closes a shop, that's free market. But it should be on a fair playing field. n an all out nationwide media vendetta goes after a small bakery shop, do you really think it fair to the baker? Atom bomb to kill a fly? At some point, this game will backfire.

You're misunderstanding what happened in Oregon. The bakery fought the fine and won because the evidence wasn't totally clear against the bakery. The bakery did NOT close because of a risk of fines. The bakery closed because of the public backlash against its discrimination. Customers shopped where they wanted, and the bakery closed because of the free market. That's exactly what you propose, so what's your beef with Oregon?

And as for the threat of fines, I'd say Oregon's legislature passed a law, just like Indiana's did. I don't recall a huge cry against it. In Indiana, they passed a law and faced a huge backlash, so now they're backpedaling in Indiana. Free market of ideas, right?

[Anonymous]

I'll try to remember how important sources are to you. I guess it was silly to assume you'd be interested in discussing ideas rather than specific links and people. It was also too far-fetched to assume you'd consider a hypothetical scenario for the sake of discussion. My bad.

On the merits: you don't have to accept or tolerate anything at all. That's okay in my book, because I think everybody is intitled to his or her opinion (even if I find it wrong or offensive). As long as you don't claim being accepting and tolerant, there is no issue. The issue arises when you are being a hypocrite by claiming acceptance and not accepting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bible was used to advocate for slavery. So yes it was a religious issue then too.

The bible was also used to advocate for abolition of slavery.

Fact is, some people don't like gays. Some people don't like AAs. The bible has about 800,000 words in it. You can pretty much use is to justify whatever the hell you want to.

The problem is the people, not the bible.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'll try to remember how important sources are to you. I guess it was silly to assume you'd be interested in discussing ideas rather than specific links and people. It was also too far-fetched to assume you'd consider a hypothetical scenario for the sake of discussion. My bad.

On the merits: you don't have to accept or tolerate anything at all. That's okay in my book, because I think everybody is intitled to his or her opinion (even if I find it wrong or offensive). As long as you don't claim being accepting and tolerant, there is no issue. The issue arises when you are being a hypocrite by claiming acceptance and not accepting.

You are correct that I consider sources important and find it difficult to discuss a topic when the details of that topic are not clearly presented. I am a literal person and when I am asked my take on a link, I imagine that I am expected to provide my take on that link. I find it confusing when that is not the expectation.

You are also correct that I am a hypocrite for not tolerating the intolerance of others. I feel shameful about that and will attempt to do adequate penance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the pope, Mohammed or who ever changes the text, gay is wrong and is part of their religion. None of those religions say anything about race.

You may not be aware of this but in the segregated South and South Africa under apartheid, the churches there said it was biblical teaching that races should not mix and justified segregation using this as a basis.

Are you aware that those teachings did not just occur in the churches of the segregated South and South Africa? For example, why do you think Boston was under a court order to desegregate during the 1970's-80's?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all tried it with Chick-fil-a and it kinda backfired. I'd remember that going forward.

You may want to updated your understanding of the Chick-fil-a situation. As I understand it, the company and its foundation have stopped funding anti-gay organizations. The campaign against Chick-fil-a worked.

Good business decision, given they want to expand into big cities. I was talking, however, about the 2012 effort and how the big boycott push created a backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all tried it with Chick-fil-a and it kinda backfired. I'd remember that going forward.

You may want to updated your understanding of the Chick-fil-a situation. As I understand it, the company and its foundation have stopped funding anti-gay organizations. The campaign against Chick-fil-a worked.

Good business decision, given they want to expand into big cities. I was talking, however, about the 2012 effort and how the big boycott push created a backlash.

The boycott is the reason that they changed their funding. Sorry if your conservative overlords did not explain this to you. Find more reliable sources of news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but that's Oregon, where the laws are different from Indiana. Below are a few links discussing the Oregon situation. There, the legislature passed a law explicitly forbidding business from discriminating based on things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So bakers could not refuse to sell to gay couples, or someone who is black, or even to Christians! According to Wikipedia (FWIW), Indiana does NOT have a similar law, so an Indiana baker did not need the Indiana RFRA to let him be a discriminatory jerk, unless the people of some particular county chose to pass such a law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indiana)

Also, FWIW, the Oregon bakers "risked" fines of up to $150,000, but were never actually fined. They did NOT close their shop because of fines. Instead, "The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals," which I see as pretty justified. I assume you aren't suggesting customers should be forced to buy cakes from a business they disagree with, just because the owners happen to be anti-gay Christians, right?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

And that's very relevant - because government interference is what caused all that to begin with. Indiana saw that and got ahead of it, as well they should. They 'risked' fines - you honestly make that distinction? That's HUGE from the standpoint of whether or not one should keep one's business open. I have a small business and would close shop immediately if I 'risked' a fine that large from government, especially if it meant compromising a personal belief that was protected by the first amendment. Reminds me of the mafia and how they pressured businesses 'pay us to protect you...or else'..

Customers can and should shop where they want, when they want. If that's what closes a shop, that's free market. But it should be on a fair playing field. n an all out nationwide media vendetta goes after a small bakery shop, do you really think it fair to the baker? Atom bomb to kill a fly? At some point, this game will backfire.

You're misunderstanding what happened in Oregon. The bakery fought the fine and won because the evidence wasn't totally clear against the bakery. The bakery did NOT close because of a risk of fines. The bakery closed because of the public backlash against its discrimination. Customers shopped where they wanted, and the bakery closed because of the free market. That's exactly what you propose, so what's your beef with Oregon?

And as for the threat of fines, I'd say Oregon's legislature passed a law, just like Indiana's did. I don't recall a huge cry against it. In Indiana, they passed a law and faced a huge backlash, so now they're backpedaling in Indiana. Free market of ideas, right?

It doesn't matter, does it, considering there was a legal battle over the fine to begin with. What part of government is stepping on first amendment rights to you not get? Please tell me why gay rights trumps Christian rights.

I am all for the free-market solution.