Enacting laws to protect the rights of special interest groups almost always stomps on the rights of others. This lunacy has to stop and we should just let good old Common Sense prevail.
What "special interest group"? Homosexuals? It's not a club where you sign up.
Are races "special interest groups? How about elderly people? Women?
Bigot - you're an embarrassment to religion on ALL levels...you need help. (randallking)
Funny how liberals use hate speech when someone doesn't agree with their side. They expect tolerance but will not allow another sides point of view. Nothing more hateful and intolerant than a liberal with an agenda.
AppleInsider, I would have preferred that you speak with a less biased voice in your writing. Please just report the facts instead of taking sides.
That said, I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination in his holy scriptures.
Nevertheless, I expect a news site to report facts and not lace it with personal feelings, either toward the side I hold or to the other.
LOL. Funny stuff. You forgot the sarcasm tag. Moreover, what news do you read, as I literally can't find any news source that isn't biased nowadays?
That Leviticus is full of good stuff. Not trimming your beard, not going to church within 60 days after giving birth to a child, not eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting the tree, not selling land permanently, not sitting in the presence of the elderly, not being allowed to cut your hair at the sides, are some of my favorites.
What a stupid and biased headline/article. I'm not sure I support such a bill, but it's not a bill that "legalizes discrimination." Under existing Arizona law, gays are not a protected class. It's already legal to refuse service on those grounds. This bill simply clarifies that businesses are free to claim religious expression as a reason for refusing service. This is a result of cases around the country where some businesses are being forced to serve gay customers, arguing that doing so violates their 1st Amendment rights. The best example I can think of is the Christian baker who refused to make a gay couple's wedding cake, and was sued (the business lost in district court, I believe...and is appealing).
As for me, I don't know. Personally, I don't think people should be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. However, I think there are exceptions. I don't think I want the government forcing a Christian business to do something/support something that directly violates its religious liberties. If we can do that, why can we not force churches to marry gay couples? After all, they are non-profits and "get" tax benefits, right?
You almost practically copied and pasted that explanation of the bill straight from the supporter's talking points. I knew what your following sentence was going to be before I read it, and even suspected the wedding cake or photographer example might be used. It's also the same basic language used to support racism at one time, but I'll let that alone.
The bill is not that simple. Whatever they claim the intention is, it left itself wide open to inconsistent interpretation.
Additionally, what counts as a religious liberty? That phrase in itself is wide open. Nobody can prevent religious people from believing what they want, but what biblical passage says not to feed sinners (cake, in your example)? If sinners didn't get fed, then nobody gets fed. Inconsistent. Even Scalia knows people can't cherry-pick their own rules as they go and call it religion. We'd have millions of religions.
Also, churches don't marry couples. The state marries couples. Churches perform weddings. And AZ doesn't have gay marriage anyway.
I understand that some people are more effeminate by nature and consider themselves "gay", and I am OK with that. I think Paul was too. I think what he specifically disapproved of was homosexual sex acts between two men, and saw this as an abomination. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, meaning sex is something that should only be tolerant between husband and wife. Although this is however questionable, considering the story of Mary Magdaline....
I understand that some people are more effeminate by nature and consider themselves "gay", and I am OK with that. I think Paul was too. I think what he specifically disapproved of was homosexual sex acts between two men, and saw this as an abomination. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, meaning sex is something that should only be tolerant between husband and wife. Although this is however questionable, considering the story of Mary Magdaline....
I would not advise you to walk up to any of the gay men I know and call them 'effeminate'.
You might well come away less intact than you arrived.
For the Christians here, please study this passage (and all of chapters 5 and 6 for context) and think about how it applies to this situation:
Quote:
1 Cor 5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.
6:4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?
Note that those statements were made in context of this very subject:
Quote:
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Take a cue from the early church, and stop trying to impose your religion-based morality on others via legal means. At a minimum, it is extremely lazy and it is the source of much resentment and even hatred from those whose lives are harmed by your discrimination. You may be able to use the Bible to justify your beliefs, but it certainly condemns your tactics, and the results speak for themselves.
AppleInsider, I would have preferred that you speak with a less biased voice in your writing. Please just report the facts instead of taking sides.
That said, I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination in his holy scriptures.
Nevertheless, I expect a news site to report facts and not lace it with personal feelings, either toward the side I hold or to the other.
AI has every right to take any side they want to. Your favorite "news" site, Fox News only knows one side, that of the bigot, racist, homophobe, and everything else that Jesus would have been against. God cares about everyone, even people like you. Jesus was one of the first radically liberal person in the world yet conservatives like you latch onto him as a regressive, anti-everything person. The next time you talk to God, ask whether the way you're treating other people is what God expects you to do.
When someone claims that all scripture is God-given and immaculate, ignoring the fact that there are countless different translations of the Bible and even different versions of the original manuscripts, it becomes impossible to have any sort of rational argument.
As an example of the unchangeable word of God:
Leviticus 18:22
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew scriptures.)
NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
MSG (The Message, 1993): Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Again, a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians.)
NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
"Alternatively, the verse could be interpreted to produce ‘And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman,’ which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse."
Just prevent religious people from using technology (I'm sure it's in the bible somewhere) and watch them whither into the abyss even faster than they already are.
If you had even bothered to read the Bible you'd know that Jesus didn't say One word against homosexuality.
You could be refering to the Old Testament - but according to that slavery is OK, so maybe you want Arizona to re-introduce that as well? Don't even start me on all the things the Bible calls an abomination: Eating shrimps and other kinds of shell fish, eating pork, letting women talk in congregations... If we were to live by the Bible word-by-word the society would return to the dark ages. No christian wants that (presumably), so why single out being gay?
Need a bible fact check AND sarcasm check on 0yvind here.
To those having any question whatsoever on the biblical perspective on this, read 1 Corinthians, namely chapter 6 verses 9-11: "Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or who are overly greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or who are thieves — none of these will possess God's Kingdom. Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
It is clear what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. It is ungodly, and it is a sin, and homosexuals are going against God's plan, command, and nature and doing an abominable act which walks against Christ, not with Christ.
The good news of this, is that there is hope, and communion with God and salvation is not completely lost. By turning away from sinful acts and living in accordance with God's law, one may be right with Christ and come to share in the heavenly Kingdom.
It says homosexual perverts, homosexual in this context is "clearly" an adjective and modifies the noun perverts. So, essentially if you believed in this type of thing, I would read what you provided to mean that perverts who are homosexuals shall not possess God's Kingdom. This says nothing to homosexuals who are not perverts. So, the passage you quote is not very clear to me. If the passage meant all homosexuals, it would just use homosexuals as a noun and leave off perverts altogether.
Enacting laws to protect the rights of special interest groups almost always stomps on the rights of others. This lunacy has to stop and we should just let good old Common Sense prevail.
Good old common sense by the good old boy's is what created slavery, a multiple class system, the degradation of women, wars and hatred throughout the world. The problem with your rights are they aren't your rights but ours. Nobody is on this earth alone, WE are here to work together to exist. When the special interest group (SIG) of intolerant bigots attempt to take away the rights of others to live the way they want to, everyone needs to stand up and remind this SIG that they don't rule the world and they need to respect the actions of others. If you want to believe in something, fine, go ahead, and don't enact a law that keeps me from believing the way I want to.
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew scriptures.)
NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
MSG (The Message, 1993): Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Again, a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians.)
NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
"Alternatively, the verse could be interpreted to produce ‘And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman,’ which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse."
Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth.32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
If you read that section of verses in context and not in a vacuum, you'd know that Lot and his two daughters are not viewed favorably.
For the Christians here, please study this passage (and all of chapters 5 and 6 for context) and think about how it applies to this situation:
Note that those statements were made in context of this very subject:
Take a cue from the early church, and stop trying to impose your religion-based morality on others via legal means. At a minimum, it is extremely lazy and it is the source of much resentment and even hatred from those whose lives are harmed by your discrimination. You may be able to use the Bible to justify your beliefs, but it certainly condemns your tactics, and the results speak for themselves.
Comments
Are races "special interest groups? How about elderly people? Women?
Funny how liberals use hate speech when someone doesn't agree with their side. They expect tolerance but will not allow another sides point of view. Nothing more hateful and intolerant than a liberal with an agenda.
AppleInsider, I would have preferred that you speak with a less biased voice in your writing. Please just report the facts instead of taking sides.
That said, I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination in his holy scriptures.
Nevertheless, I expect a news site to report facts and not lace it with personal feelings, either toward the side I hold or to the other.
LOL. Funny stuff. You forgot the sarcasm tag. Moreover, what news do you read, as I literally can't find any news source that isn't biased nowadays?
That Leviticus is full of good stuff. Not trimming your beard, not going to church within 60 days after giving birth to a child, not eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting the tree, not selling land permanently, not sitting in the presence of the elderly, not being allowed to cut your hair at the sides, are some of my favorites.
What a stupid and biased headline/article. I'm not sure I support such a bill, but it's not a bill that "legalizes discrimination." Under existing Arizona law, gays are not a protected class. It's already legal to refuse service on those grounds. This bill simply clarifies that businesses are free to claim religious expression as a reason for refusing service. This is a result of cases around the country where some businesses are being forced to serve gay customers, arguing that doing so violates their 1st Amendment rights. The best example I can think of is the Christian baker who refused to make a gay couple's wedding cake, and was sued (the business lost in district court, I believe...and is appealing).
As for me, I don't know. Personally, I don't think people should be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. However, I think there are exceptions. I don't think I want the government forcing a Christian business to do something/support something that directly violates its religious liberties. If we can do that, why can we not force churches to marry gay couples? After all, they are non-profits and "get" tax benefits, right?
You almost practically copied and pasted that explanation of the bill straight from the supporter's talking points. I knew what your following sentence was going to be before I read it, and even suspected the wedding cake or photographer example might be used. It's also the same basic language used to support racism at one time, but I'll let that alone.
The bill is not that simple. Whatever they claim the intention is, it left itself wide open to inconsistent interpretation.
Additionally, what counts as a religious liberty? That phrase in itself is wide open. Nobody can prevent religious people from believing what they want, but what biblical passage says not to feed sinners (cake, in your example)? If sinners didn't get fed, then nobody gets fed. Inconsistent. Even Scalia knows people can't cherry-pick their own rules as they go and call it religion. We'd have millions of religions.
Also, churches don't marry couples. The state marries couples. Churches perform weddings. And AZ doesn't have gay marriage anyway.
I understand that some people are more effeminate by nature and consider themselves "gay", and I am OK with that. I think Paul was too. I think what he specifically disapproved of was homosexual sex acts between two men, and saw this as an abomination. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, meaning sex is something that should only be tolerant between husband and wife. Although this is however questionable, considering the story of Mary Magdaline....
I understand that some people are more effeminate by nature and consider themselves "gay", and I am OK with that. I think Paul was too. I think what he specifically disapproved of was homosexual sex acts between two men, and saw this as an abomination. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, meaning sex is something that should only be tolerant between husband and wife. Although this is however questionable, considering the story of Mary Magdaline....
I would not advise you to walk up to any of the gay men I know and call them 'effeminate'.
You might well come away less intact than you arrived.
For the Christians here, please study this passage (and all of chapters 5 and 6 for context) and think about how it applies to this situation:
1 Cor 5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.
6:4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?
Note that those statements were made in context of this very subject:
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Take a cue from the early church, and stop trying to impose your religion-based morality on others via legal means. At a minimum, it is extremely lazy and it is the source of much resentment and even hatred from those whose lives are harmed by your discrimination. You may be able to use the Bible to justify your beliefs, but it certainly condemns your tactics, and the results speak for themselves.
AppleInsider, I would have preferred that you speak with a less biased voice in your writing. Please just report the facts instead of taking sides.
That said, I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination in his holy scriptures.
Nevertheless, I expect a news site to report facts and not lace it with personal feelings, either toward the side I hold or to the other.
AI has every right to take any side they want to. Your favorite "news" site, Fox News only knows one side, that of the bigot, racist, homophobe, and everything else that Jesus would have been against. God cares about everyone, even people like you. Jesus was one of the first radically liberal person in the world yet conservatives like you latch onto him as a regressive, anti-everything person. The next time you talk to God, ask whether the way you're treating other people is what God expects you to do.
When someone claims that all scripture is God-given and immaculate, ignoring the fact that there are countless different translations of the Bible and even different versions of the original manuscripts, it becomes impossible to have any sort of rational argument.
As an example of the unchangeable word of God:
Leviticus 18:22
"Alternatively, the verse could be interpreted to produce ‘And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman,’ which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse."
-- http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php
Just prevent religious people from using technology (I'm sure it's in the bible somewhere) and watch them whither into the abyss even faster than they already are.
Naw, it's not in the Bible.
If you had even bothered to read the Bible you'd know that Jesus didn't say One word against homosexuality.
You could be refering to the Old Testament - but according to that slavery is OK, so maybe you want Arizona to re-introduce that as well? Don't even start me on all the things the Bible calls an abomination: Eating shrimps and other kinds of shell fish, eating pork, letting women talk in congregations... If we were to live by the Bible word-by-word the society would return to the dark ages. No christian wants that (presumably), so why single out being gay?
Need a bible fact check AND sarcasm check on 0yvind here.
A business is incapable of having a religion. A business no more has a religious belief than a tree.
Unless it is a sole proprietorship or LLC of course, in which case it has pass-through religion.
To those having any question whatsoever on the biblical perspective on this, read 1 Corinthians, namely chapter 6 verses 9-11: "Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or who are overly greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or who are thieves — none of these will possess God's Kingdom. Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
It is clear what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. It is ungodly, and it is a sin, and homosexuals are going against God's plan, command, and nature and doing an abominable act which walks against Christ, not with Christ.
The good news of this, is that there is hope, and communion with God and salvation is not completely lost. By turning away from sinful acts and living in accordance with God's law, one may be right with Christ and come to share in the heavenly Kingdom.
It says homosexual perverts, homosexual in this context is "clearly" an adjective and modifies the noun perverts. So, essentially if you believed in this type of thing, I would read what you provided to mean that perverts who are homosexuals shall not possess God's Kingdom. This says nothing to homosexuals who are not perverts. So, the passage you quote is not very clear to me. If the passage meant all homosexuals, it would just use homosexuals as a noun and leave off perverts altogether.
Can someone explain exactly what this bill is and why it's being opposed? I'm just trying to understand what PC bandwagon Apple is jumping on here.
I thought they were jumping on the PC bandwagon then they started using Intel chips, but that ended up turning out OK. I'm sure this will too.
Enacting laws to protect the rights of special interest groups almost always stomps on the rights of others. This lunacy has to stop and we should just let good old Common Sense prevail.
Good old common sense by the good old boy's is what created slavery, a multiple class system, the degradation of women, wars and hatred throughout the world. The problem with your rights are they aren't your rights but ours. Nobody is on this earth alone, WE are here to work together to exist. When the special interest group (SIG) of intolerant bigots attempt to take away the rights of others to live the way they want to, everyone needs to stand up and remind this SIG that they don't rule the world and they need to respect the actions of others. If you want to believe in something, fine, go ahead, and don't enact a law that keeps me from believing the way I want to.
As an example of the unchangeable word of God:
Leviticus 18:22
"Alternatively, the verse could be interpreted to produce ‘And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman,’ which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse."
-- http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php
Just to be clear, I believe the first one is the word of God and the others are perversions of God's word.
Hah! Religious values. Gotta love them!
Genesis 19:30-32
Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
If you read that section of verses in context and not in a vacuum, you'd know that Lot and his two daughters are not viewed favorably.
For the Christians here, please study this passage (and all of chapters 5 and 6 for context) and think about how it applies to this situation:
Note that those statements were made in context of this very subject:
Take a cue from the early church, and stop trying to impose your religion-based morality on others via legal means. At a minimum, it is extremely lazy and it is the source of much resentment and even hatred from those whose lives are harmed by your discrimination. You may be able to use the Bible to justify your beliefs, but it certainly condemns your tactics, and the results speak for themselves.
Good points! Thanks!
The day this passes is the day I post a sign up that my businesses do not serve Christians as their behavior is against my religious belief.