or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Inc. asks Arizona governor to veto state gay discrimination bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Inc. asks Arizona governor to veto state gay discrimination bill - Page 2

post #41 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post



This is humorous.



Addressing your last point first, God never said in that context in Leviticus that homosexuals or those who eat shellfish would get "eternal fire" as a punishment.



Further, if we read God's word with a detailed eye we'll notice that he said "it is abomination" to lie with mankind as with womankind. He didn't say of eating shellfish that "it is abomination". He said *to the nation of Israel that "it shall be an abomination unto you". It was an abomination *to them*, not to me as a Gentile. But he never said homosexuality "shall be an abomination to you", speaking of them specifically. He just said "it is abomination" period.



God doesn't make mistakes, though I do daily.



All praise be to him.

 



I can't believe people such as you still exist in the 21st century. You do realise how ridiculous you sound don't you?

The bible is so outdated as a means to live one's life by it never ceases to amaze me how many cling to its words stronger than they love their fellow man and woman. It is sad just how powerful and dangerous indoctrination is.

One day I hope that we will be free of these types of beliefs that are responsible for so much unhappiness and wickedness in the world.
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
post #42 of 295
Some will only be happy when Tim Cook is denied service at the lunch counter in Arizona.
And they'll cloak it as "religious freedom".
post #43 of 295

Whenever I read an article about discrimination, I just replace the group being discriminated against with the words relating to race. It really helps dispel the "no one would dare to suggest it as a valid reason to discriminate against a black person, but here it's ok." The beauty of using racial discrimination as a check is that racial discrimination is so utterly socially unacceptable now (despite that individuals and groups still promote it) that it takes out the time period we live in.

 

Eventually, discrimination such as based on a person's sexuality will be considered so absolutely obnoxious to socially accepted behavior that we will look back on it the same way we do slavery and Jim Crow laws. Those who hide behind their religious beliefs to justify it are no different than those who did the same before.

post #44 of 295
The Constitution provides in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

which First Amendment has become applicable also to the states by reason of the 14th Amendment.

I suggest the law in question violates the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause.
post #45 of 295

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?   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #46 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post



This is humorous.



Addressing your last point first, God never said in that context in Leviticus that homosexuals or those who eat shellfish would get "eternal fire" as a punishment.



Further, if we read God's word with a detailed eye we'll notice that he said "it is abomination" to lie with mankind as with womankind. He didn't say of eating shellfish that "it is abomination". He said *to the nation of Israel that "it shall be an abomination unto you". It was an abomination *to them*, not to me as a Gentile. But he never said homosexuality "shall be an abomination to you", speaking of them specifically. He just said "it is abomination" period.



God doesn't make mistakes, though I do daily.



All praise be to him.

 



I can't believe people such as you still exist in the 21st century. You do realise how ridiculous you sound don't you?

The bible is so outdated as a means to live one's life by it never ceases to amaze me how many cling to its words stronger than they love their fellow man and woman. It is sad just how powerful and dangerous indoctrination is.

One day I hope that we will be free of these types of beliefs that are responsible for so much unhappiness and wickedness in the world.

 

Naw. To paraphrase Steve Jobs from his Stanford commencement speech, death is what solves this problem. Every generation, more of his ilk die and they aren't replaced fast enough to make it sustainable (unless they try to force it on people, which is not unprecedented). 

post #47 of 295
Can someone explain exactly what this bill is and why it's being opposed? If I'm a vegetarian who is morally opposed to killing animals for food and I own a restaurant does Apple think I should be forced to serve meat since not doing so would be discriminating against meat eaters? If I own a photography studio and do weddings but am morally opposed to gay marriage should I be forced to photograph gay weddings even if it goes against my beliefs because not doing do would be discriminating against gays? Even if there are 100 other photography studios that would have no problem at all doing gay weddings? I'm just trying to understand what PC bandwagon Apple is jumping on here.
post #48 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

This bill simply clarifies that businesses are free to claim religious expression as a reason for refusing service. 

 

 

A business is incapable of having a religion. A business no more has a religious belief than a tree. 

post #49 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

I hope the Apple execs didn't spend more than a few minutes on this issue. "Someone wants us to join a petition against this AZ law that has everyone up at arms? Yeah, ok. Now let's get back to the product roadmap."

I imagine the board found it as much of a no-brainer as most of the people commenting here. 

post #50 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Can someone explain exactly what this bill is and why it's being opposed? If I'm a vegetarian who is morally opposed to killing animals for food and I own a restaurant does Apple think I should be forced to serve meat since not doing so would be discriminating against meat eaters? If I own a photography studio and do weddings but am morally opposed to gay marriage should I be forced to photograph gay weddings even if it goes against my beliefs because not doing do would be discriminating against gays? Even if there are 100 other photography studios that would have no problem at all doing gay weddings? I'm just trying to understand what PC bandwagon Apple is jumping on here.

 

If you were running a vegetarian restaurant, your menu would not include meat, so nobody can demand that you serve it. But it would be utterly ridiculous for you to turn away someone who came in asking for a vegetarian meal if that person had eaten a bacon sandwich that morning for breakfast.

 

Furthermore, if you were a wedding photographer, you would presumably sell your services based on the fact that you can take pictures of happy couples. If it bothers you so much, then don't use the pictures of a same sex happy couple in your marketing materials. That way nobody will get the idea that you support such a thing by promoting it in your marketing. Does the sexuality of someone else have any effect on how you take a photograph?

post #51 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

I hope the Apple execs didn't spend more than a few minutes on this issue. "Someone wants us to join a petition against this AZ law that has everyone up at arms? Yeah, ok. Now let's get back to the product roadmap."

If the issue seriously affects Apple's plans and it is cost-effective to do so, they should relocate the factory. If this is just hand waving, then so be it and get back to business. Besides, this just passed law will likely be challenged and go to the Supreme Court.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 295

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.

post #53 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind View Post


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?

Dude, ~40% of Americans believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church! :)

post #54 of 295

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.

post #55 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


If the issue seriously affects Apple's plans and it is cost-effective to do so, they should relocate the factory. If this is just hand waving, then so be it and get back to business. Besides, this just passed law will likely be challenged and go to the Supreme Court.

 

I remarked the other day when I learned about it that AZ is just begging to be taken to the cleaners by SCOTUS. 

 

To the extent that such a backward 'Jim Crow'-style law is a good thing, this would be it - force the issue right to the top of the judiciary and have it struck down once and for all, while at the same time exposing the people who made the law for the bigots and homophobes that they are. If the Republican Party doesn't learn from this, then it will be out of power nationally for generations, since the opinions on this issue are overwhelmingly against them in the up-and-coming demographics. And, worse still, the fact that they support such whomping intolerance actually denies people their democratic rights as it makes it much more difficult to vote for them for the things that people DO agree with them about (economy, healthcare, whatever).

post #56 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
 

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.

 

 

Oh dear.

 

Again, I would urge you to re-examine Scripture. St Paul was, firstly, addressing his letters to people who were inculturated in the habits and fashions of the places where they lived (which included taking part in orgies of all sorts in the hedonistic 'high society' as existed in those times), and secondly - and far more importantly - he was referring to people who deliberately acted contrary to their natures. Much like Jesus Christ never addressed homosexuality directly, Paul never addresses anyone other than those who acted as prostitutes or who conducted themselves with abandoned debauchery (and then, one imagines, went home to their wives!).

 

You simply can't make bold statements as you do with scriptural quotes from St Paul without first having a fuller understanding of the culture within which he and those he wrote to lived!

post #57 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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?   
Everything you said was an argument supporting discrimination based on race. Everything.
post #58 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by m8lsem View Post

The Constitution provides in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

which First Amendment has become applicable also to the states by reason of the 14th Amendment.

I suggest the law in question violates the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause.

The religion has already been 'established' so how does it violate that clause?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

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.


Seriously, you guys live in information age yet you somehow manage to remain completely ignorant. Christianity is now a completely, utterly, totally debunked lie, and basing your life on this idiocy is unforgivable.

 

There is now strong evidence that theistic gods i.e. gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, god who stops the motion of the sun around earth so certain people in the Bible can finish their work, god who takes "our" side in a war, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity are man made invention.

 

Religion comes to us from other human mammals who not only know there is a god, but they also know his mind what he wants us to do. And how do they know? Revelation of course, god told them something often times contradictory what he told others. And you never even seek evidence for their extraordinary claims. But revelation is useless and unreliable as a way to discover truth

 

Revelation can only ever be relevant to the person to whom something is revealed. As soon as that person shares and relates the revelation to someone else, it becomes a testimony at that point. And then it becomes a matter of trusting that person for the claim they are making. Also, the person to whom something is revealed should be apprehensive and wonder which is more likely that laws of nature have been bent in their favor no less, or if perhaps they are under apprehension.

 

Revelations are dime a dozen. Numerous people have claimed that something has been revealed to them. Even worse different people have claimed same god has revealed things that are contradictory to the things god has revealed to other people. In Christianity god reveals himself as a human, he dies on the cross, and resurrects. In Islam, Jesus is not only not the son of god, he never died on the cross and never resurrected. Believing otherwise will have you condemned to hell. In Christianity god says love your enemies, in Islam he says kill your enemies and apostates. Yes it's the same god, and yet both sides claim divine revelation for the "wisdom" they preach.

 

Content of revelation paints a picture of a god who is quite frankly incompetent, stupid and has morals lesser than average decent human being today. And most importantly he leaves it to chance what you will believe about him and if you will be damned to eternity.

What religion you get indoctrinated into has very little to do with its truthfulness, but everything to do with where you were born. If you were born in Saudi Arabia for example you would be a Muslim defending Islam right now. Yet both Islam and Christianity and Judaism (the three desert dogmas) all claim to posses the true and perfect words of the creator of the universe. Yet how many sleepless nights have you spent worrying that Islam could be right? And why is that?

 

And isn't it incredibly stupid of a supreme, intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent being to demand belief in him without evidence? God would presumably know that people would invent scientific method as the only sure way to discover truth. Yet he leaves such important things as if you will be damned for eternity to belief without evidence leading to three desert dogmas that teach completely opposite things about him. Yahweh himself besides being stupid is rather evil god. Look how he behaves exactly as you would expect the people of that age that invented him to behave (he orders genocide of neighboring tribes that worship other gods, enslavement of women and children etc, just read random book of old testament). By the way he was never meant to be god of all, he was meant to be a god of a single tribe (otherwise a lot of stuff god says and orders makes no sense). Evolution of competing religions and the fact we have multiple religions like this is exactly what you would expect to see if religion were man made.

 

All metaphysical claims and especially all physical claims made by religion were proved to be wrong. And would you expect it any other way really? Religion was our first approximation of cosmology, medicine etc. But like all first approximations it proved to be completely wrong. Jesus casts out demons to heal people, he heals lepers instead of healing leprosy, no germs ever mentioned in the Bible (naturally no germ theory of disease either).

 

But now we know better. We know how solar systems are formed, we know how planets are formed, we know how life evolves, we even know how a universe can come from nothing. We really don't need god to kick off any of these things any more. Besides positing an intelligent god capable of creating universes, god that always existed, or that spontaneously came into being is assuming a lot more than assuming the same about the universe itself i.e. dumb matter. Occam's razor cuts him out of existence as superfluous assumption that does not explain anything.

 

And besides, look at the absurdity of belief themselves: we are all supposed to believe that god impregnated his virgin mother in order that he could die on the cross for what he condemned the humanity to and so he could make himself forgive the transgressions he invented, performed by the beings created in his own image. And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone we fear (essence of sadomasochism).

 

I for one am really glad there is absolutely no evidence for this at all. Wishing this to be true is wishing to live under dictatorship. If it were true it would be a worthy goal to fight against this ghastly god figure.

 

So please stop using man made gods and goddesses to launder your hate.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #60 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

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.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobinmurphy View Post

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?
post #62 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaFin421 View Post

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.
post #63 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

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. 

post #64 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

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.


Edited by nowayout11 - 2/25/14 at 8:08am
post #65 of 295

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....

post #66 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
 

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.

post #67 of 295
The source may be politics, but Apples side is business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoRisinSD View Post

Please, AppleInsider, stay away from politics. I would love it if Apple just stayed away from it too.
post #68 of 295

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.

post #69 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

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. 

post #70 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

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."

 -- http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php

post #71 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
 

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.

post #72 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind View Post


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.

post #73 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post
 

 

 

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.

post #74 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
 

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. 

post #75 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

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.

post #76 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobinmurphy View Post
 

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.

post #77 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaren View Post
 

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."

 -- 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.

post #78 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDBA View Post
 

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. 

post #79 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrob View Post
 

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!

post #80 of 295

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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Inc. asks Arizona governor to veto state gay discrimination bill