Anonymous
04/11/2015 18:36
Subject: Re:Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Logic flaw: a Christian would never knowingly patronize a business run by gays.
All you Christians know that you need to give up all your iPhones, iPods, iPads and Macs, right? RIGHT?
Anonymous
04/11/2015 18:34
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
This. I once tried to go to a gay restaurant with friends and they were so bitchy, we walked out. It was an absolute case of reverse discrimination. Gays are actually elitist in my experience and they don't believe they have to be courteous to straight people in their restaurants. You don't here about that in the media.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So say a gay couple goes to a business that denies them service, citing this law and their conservative Christian ideology.
That would be ok.
But the same Christian can go to a business owned by the same exact gay couple, and they must provide s/he with service? The gay couple cannot deny the Christian service, citing his/her offensive religious beliefs?
What the hell?
Logic flaw: a Christian would never knowingly patronize a business run by gays.
Anonymous
04/10/2015 11:57
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Explain what YOU think it says then and how my interpretation is different.
Anonymous
04/10/2015 01:04
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
I don't think you understand what the Constitution actually says. You seem only to understand what you'd like it to say.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 23:14
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The supreme court may not undo their decisions if the law does not change.
That's simply not true. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times. The most famous might be Brown v Board of education, which reversed the Court's prior separate-but-equal ruling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm
And to be clear, if another Boy Scouts case arrived at the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled differently, it probably wouldn't even be reversing itself because the case would involve different facts (since the Boy Scouts have changed their position on gay members).
Let there be a thousand new gay member cases, the freedom of association and the freedom of religion will never permit the admission of homosexuals to associations or religious entities if it impinges on the associations right of expression and if it impinges on the faith of the religious entities. There are many such groups and homosexuality goes completely against their principles. The law defends their right to reject homosexuals. It's not the purpose of government to determine if it's a fair, just, or right view. The law has to permit groups to associate and practice religion even if the views espoused by these groups are in the minority or unpopular.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 23:07
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The supreme court may not undo their decisions if the law does not change.
That's simply not true. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times. The most famous might be Brown v Board of education, which reversed the Court's prior separate-but-equal ruling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm
In the Plessey case, the court said segregation was permissible SO LONG AS THE SEGREGATED SCHOOLS WERE EQUAL. In the Brown case, it was determined that segregated schools were actually NOT equal, thus requiring a reversal of decision. That's a reversal based on mistaken information. That kind of reversal of decision is not likely to happen in the BSA case. Totally different situation.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 22:44
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: [blah blah blah about sex that is "unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths"] That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS.
Let's all be clear about what the Boy Scouts ruling from the Supreme Court really says. It's not really a decision about religion, but rather about the First Amendment. It essentially says the First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of association" (the right to group together with like-minded people, and not join groups with people you disagree with) is important enough to trump state laws prohibiting groups from discriminating. The Boy Scouts claimed (somewhat weakly IMHO) that exclusion of homosexual members was a core tenet of the organization, so the Supreme Court supported the Boy Scouts' freedom of association rights to refuse to admit homosexual members. It's the same freedom of association that allows the Boy Scouts to exclude girls. I've never researched this, but I suppose this same logic would allow the KKK to exclude black people from membership, or maybe to permit the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" to exclude women (even though they let Darla join!). So when you point to the Boy Scouts ruling to claim the Supreme Court confirmed the right to discriminate against homosexual citizens, or to claim the Supreme Court upheld the importance of religious beliefs, you're misinformed.
An interesting side note - In 2014, the Boy Scouts voted to change their policies and admit openly homosexual youth. It sounds like there is also a lot of support for permitting gay scout leaders, but that proposal did not get a majority vote yet. Nevertheless, I suspect the Supreme Court might rule differently if faced with another gay scout leader case today, because the Boy Scouts can no longer claim excluding gays is a core belief of the organization.
YES, You are correct. BSA was permitted to reject Dale, a homosexual scout leader, based on the US' Freedom of Association laws. However, this law permits associations to discriminate homosexuals if it is in the furtherance of the group's expression of social, religious, or cultural values. Here, religion was clearly the foundation for WHY they did not want homosexuals in their association, based on their mission statement and scout law:
"To do my duty to God and my country "and to obey the Scout Law;
"To keep myself physically strong, "mentally awake, and morally straight.[b]
BSA was asked by the Supreme Court what it meant by "morally straight" and they clearly said for their group it meant NOT being homosexual. BSA was founded on Christian principles. Because it's an association, the decision to reject Dale was upheld on freedom of association principles. If they were a religious entity, it would have been upheld on freedom of religion.
As for why the BSA is admitting homosexual youth now - it's because of pressure from WITHIN, not from the Supreme Court or from US laws, which is relatively meaningless to my point. My point is that the US law upholds the right of religious entities and associations to reject homosexuals. That just the way it is.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 18:21
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The supreme court may not undo their decisions if the law does not change.
That's simply not true. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times. The most famous might be Brown v Board of education, which reversed the Court's prior separate-but-equal ruling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm
And to be clear, if another Boy Scouts case arrived at the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled differently, it probably wouldn't even be reversing itself because the case would involve different facts (since the Boy Scouts have changed their position on gay members).
Anonymous
04/09/2015 18:17
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:The supreme court may not undo their decisions if the law does not change.
That's simply not true. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times. The most famous might be Brown v Board of education, which reversed the Court's prior separate-but-equal ruling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm
Anonymous
04/09/2015 17:39
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
The supreme court may not undo their decisions if the law does not change.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 14:13
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote: [blah blah blah about sex that is "unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths"] That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS.
Let's all be clear about what the Boy Scouts ruling from the Supreme Court really says. It's not really a decision about religion, but rather about the First Amendment. It essentially says the First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of association" (the right to group together with like-minded people, and not join groups with people you disagree with) is important enough to trump state laws prohibiting groups from discriminating. The Boy Scouts claimed (somewhat weakly IMHO) that exclusion of homosexual members was a core tenet of the organization, so the Supreme Court supported the Boy Scouts' freedom of association rights to refuse to admit homosexual members. It's the same freedom of association that allows the Boy Scouts to exclude girls. I've never researched this, but I suppose this same logic would allow the KKK to exclude black people from membership, or maybe to permit the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" to exclude women (even though they let Darla join!). So when you point to the Boy Scouts ruling to claim the Supreme Court confirmed the right to discriminate against homosexual citizens, or to claim the Supreme Court upheld the importance of religious beliefs, you're misinformed.
An interesting side note - In 2014, the Boy Scouts voted to change their policies and admit openly homosexual youth. It sounds like there is also a lot of support for permitting gay scout leaders, but that proposal did not get a majority vote yet. Nevertheless, I suspect the Supreme Court might rule differently if faced with another gay scout leader case today, because the Boy Scouts can no longer claim excluding gays is a core belief of the organization.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 14:10
Subject: Re:Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Maybe the people involved in this debate can understand one another better if you shift the discussion about religious freedom away from homosexuality. I read this news article about orthodox airline passengers trying to avoid sitting next to women for fear of accidentally touching them (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/aboard-flights-conflicts-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?_r=0), and it provides an interesting parallel to the bakery scenarios we've all been discussing. So here's my hypothetical ....
Let's say a regular old bakery (not some specialized religious bakery) is run by some guy who happens to be ultra-orthodox, and so he refuses to sell to women or let them enter his store, because it's against his sincere religious beliefs to have contact. Is that defensible because he's just practicing his religion, which prohibits contact with the opposite sex? Or is it discrimination?
To me, that's unlawful discrimination. He's free to practice his religion, but his religion does not require him to run a bakery. If he chooses to run a bakery and sell bread, then he needs to comply with the various laws of the community, including the anti-discrimination laws.
I suppose (changing the hypothetical substantially) that if his store was a specialized religious bakery which provides bread only for particular ultra-orthodox ceremonies, and thus his bakery be shunned by rest of the community if he ever sold to a woman, then I could possibly agree that the ultra-orthodox principles are a core element of the business. But even that's a stretch, because it's so fact specific.
Thoughts?
You are exactly right. When something like this happens to a white Christian woman, you will see OUTRAGE. Just wait.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 13:54
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.
If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.
So if a heterosexual couple happens to prefer any number of potential sexual positions that you do not like, or find unpleasant or even disgusting, are they allowed to engage in their intimate activities the way they would prefer or must they defer to your standards?
Are couples only allowed to marry if they are going to have sex in some 'approved' way? Who has the list? Quick I need to check it before DH gets home! See, that doesn't make much sense, does it?
Any kind of consensual sex between adults is perfectly fine... it's only the business of the people engaging in it. No one is/should be/has any right to be asking you to see or experience anal sex, or any other kind of sex you don't want, so why would you get to decide what kind of sex other people can have?
The only thing that society as a whole should get to judge as objectively wrong is something that harms another person or violates their consent and rights. Everything else should be a matter of personal freedom -- especially in America of all places!
Using your body in any way that feels good seems pretty natural to me, and as long as it's not hurting someone else I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be 'impure' or 'unwholesome'.
Let's say hypothetically you are in a heterosexual marriage, and I find your and your partner's favorite sexual act disgusting or awful in some way. Would you want me telling you you can't do that and it invalidates your relationship? Probably not, and unless you're forcing me to participate in it I would have no right to do so and would never think to attempt it.
(FWIW, I am personally also a bit grossed out by the idea of anal sex, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to engage in it with the consent of their partners. I don't enjoy tennis either, but someone does and there's nothing wrong with that.)
We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.
I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs?
This is sad. Some of you folks are so fixated on other peoples' sex lives!
PP, how does your husband "predominately show you affection"-- on all fours, or while you're on your back? Does that question sound a little intrusive? If so, ask yourself how do you feel when your relationship is denigrated and your love for another person is described as no more than a sex act? You need to butt out and mind your own business. Jesus doesn't like people who think about sex all the time, just as He despises those who judge their fellow men.
My money's on that PP comes back and gives the ol' line about how she's actually "judging the sin not the sinner" and piles on some more anal chat...just to get the point across.
Pp here. He sure as hell doesn't need to do an excrement check on his private area to make sure he didn't get any on him. And DH & I can have children, another indication how we do it is natural and intended.
When you put it that way, how's life as a pilgrim?
If I'm a pilgrim, then I guess I should ask you -- what was the last animal you had sex with? What a ridiculous assumption that because I oppose homosexuality and unnatural acts, that I'm 'a pilgrim.'
Opposing it for yourself is fine and completely your right, but why do you get to dictate what others can do in their own private intimate encounters as long as it doesn't violate consent?
Also, the animal thing is massively offensive. Animals cannot communicate their competent, aware, informed, adult consent to any sex act -- so engaging in ANY sex with an animal is the highest level of immoral. Two consenting adults having whatever sex they both enjoy is completely different. Everyone who has ever had either anal or oral sex is in no way morally equivalent to anyone who would violate an animal. In fact, I would think someone who exhibits that little care for morality and consent is pretty rare. But good job most likely insulting a majority of the readers of this thread -- those acts aren't exactly rare among couples comprised of any gender combination.
I am sure you can find two disabled humans unable to communicate but still able to enjoy sex with one another. Lack of ability to consent via words isn't the determinative factor. What you find highly objectionable is similar to what many practicing religious folks find objectionable too, but you want to be the one to identify what the objectionable criteria is. Anal sex and anal sex betw men is unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths. So is sex w a child. So is sex with animals. That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS.
I think you'll find I didn't specify it had to necessarily be verbal, but clear unambiguous informed consent (which most would agree is unable to be communicated between animal and human, even if the animal had understanding sufficient to grant informed consent) is ABSOLUTELY the only, and essential, determining factor for whether sex is acceptable or not.
Any sort of sex with of age consenting person -- fine. Doesn't harm anyone, everyone involved enjoys it, no one else is directly impacted so it's no one else's business.
Lack of consent, or insufficient consent due to being too young or lacking the current cognitive/mental state necessary to grant informed consent, -- nope, that sounds like the very definition of rape.
The above is the only set of standards that US law should have the right to impose. Other standards based on religion would be to me an unacceptable violation of separation of church and state. People should be free to choose to conform to the requirements of their religion, but we are not a theocracy with a single state religion and nobody who does not believe in a religion should be forced by law to make their personal choices on the basis of the requirements of a religion to which they do not adhere. "That government is best which governs least" and respecting individual freedoms and different choices means that the law should be as non-restrictive as possible while still protecting people's fundamental rights to live without harm and to have the freedom to make their own decisions and choose their own standards for their personal lives (more restrictive if they wish), without their consent being violated.
Anonymous
04/09/2015 13:42
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:First step toward sharia law.
+1000
The conservatives who are in favor of turning away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes are too short-sighted to realize that they are throwing the door wide open for Sharia law, and using the exact same approach, a Muslim business owner could then turn away Christian women if they aren't wearing a headscarf.
Very, very foolish and shortsighted. Typical conservative myopia. They are causing far more damage than they realize.
THIS. I can't wait until someone refuses to serve a white Christian woman because she's not veiled, or she might be menstruating, or otherwise religiously unclean.... let's see how long religious freedom lasts then.
I blame Hobby Lobby,
Anonymous
04/09/2015 13:36
Subject: Indiana's Religious Freedom law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.
If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.
So if a heterosexual couple happens to prefer any number of potential sexual positions that you do not like, or find unpleasant or even disgusting, are they allowed to engage in their intimate activities the way they would prefer or must they defer to your standards?
Are couples only allowed to marry if they are going to have sex in some 'approved' way? Who has the list? Quick I need to check it before DH gets home! See, that doesn't make much sense, does it?
Any kind of consensual sex between adults is perfectly fine... it's only the business of the people engaging in it. No one is/should be/has any right to be asking you to see or experience anal sex, or any other kind of sex you don't want, so why would you get to decide what kind of sex other people can have?
The only thing that society as a whole should get to judge as objectively wrong is something that harms another person or violates their consent and rights. Everything else should be a matter of personal freedom -- especially in America of all places!
Using your body in any way that feels good seems pretty natural to me, and as long as it's not hurting someone else I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be 'impure' or 'unwholesome'.
Let's say hypothetically you are in a heterosexual marriage, and I find your and your partner's favorite sexual act disgusting or awful in some way. Would you want me telling you you can't do that and it invalidates your relationship? Probably not, and unless you're forcing me to participate in it I would have no right to do so and would never think to attempt it.
(FWIW, I am personally also a bit grossed out by the idea of anal sex, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to engage in it with the consent of their partners. I don't enjoy tennis either, but someone does and there's nothing wrong with that.)
We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.
I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs?
This is sad. Some of you folks are so fixated on other peoples' sex lives!
PP, how does your husband "predominately show you affection"-- on all fours, or while you're on your back? Does that question sound a little intrusive? If so, ask yourself how do you feel when your relationship is denigrated and your love for another person is described as no more than a sex act? You need to butt out and mind your own business. Jesus doesn't like people who think about sex all the time, just as He despises those who judge their fellow men.
My money's on that PP comes back and gives the ol' line about how she's actually "judging the sin not the sinner" and piles on some more anal chat...just to get the point across.
Pp here. He sure as hell doesn't need to do an excrement check on his private area to make sure he didn't get any on him. And DH & I can have children, another indication how we do it is natural and intended.
When you put it that way, how's life as a pilgrim?
If I'm a pilgrim, then I guess I should ask you -- what was the last animal you had sex with? What a ridiculous assumption that because I oppose homosexuality and unnatural acts, that I'm 'a pilgrim.'
Opposing it for yourself is fine and completely your right, but why do you get to dictate what others can do in their own private intimate encounters as long as it doesn't violate consent?
Also, the animal thing is massively offensive. Animals cannot communicate their competent, aware, informed, adult consent to any sex act -- so engaging in ANY sex with an animal is the highest level of immoral. Two consenting adults having whatever sex they both enjoy is completely different. Everyone who has ever had either anal or oral sex is in no way morally equivalent to anyone who would violate an animal. In fact, I would think someone who exhibits that little care for morality and consent is pretty rare. But good job most likely insulting a majority of the readers of this thread -- those acts aren't exactly rare among couples comprised of any gender combination.
I am sure you can find two disabled humans unable to communicate but still able to enjoy sex with one another. Lack of ability to consent via words isn't the determinative factor. What you find highly objectionable is similar to what many practicing religious folks find objectionable too, but you want to be the one to identify what the objectionable criteria is. Anal sex and anal sex betw men is unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths. So is sex w a child. So is sex with animals. That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS.