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 3

post #81 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I suggest you read Scripture carefully.


It denounces those who reject what is their natural state and act unnaturally in defiance of their god. The 'abomination' as you so quaintly describe it is the rejection of that which God has given. Since most homosexuals are what they are not through any act of rebellion or choice, it would, in actual fact, be an abomination for them to be forced to be anything other than they are. 

To go further, Jesus Christ preached acceptance of people as well as forgiveness and tolerance. He didn't once mention homosexuality, but what he DID say was that we should all take the beams of wood out of our own eyes before we start trying to pick specks of dust out of other people's eyes. He said this most emphatically and he appeared to have been annoyed when he said it: to that extent, you, I and everyone else have no business whatsoever in judging the actions of other people and deciding to withhold services or reject or discriminate. 

This 'religious tolerance' bill, far from protecting people who are Christian is demonstrably and unarguably acting in contravention of the fundamental faith these people profess to believe in. In other words, they're all thundering hypocrites. 

Apple is absolutely correct to object to this bill. Whether it does so for business reasons, political ones or simply out of an abundance of human charity and love, it is absolutely correct.

By the way, I'm a committed Christian myself. I've read the Bible from cover to cover. There is nothing in it to support homophobia, discrimination and intolerance. Jesus Christ would be furious with a lot of the people who profess to speak in His name.

This subject gets me angry.

I agree completely. I, too, am I committed Christian and it angers me as well. People come to know Christ because of our actions and our relationships. Who wants to have a relationship with someone who hates and judges. We are called to have relationships and that's what leads them to Christ- not by bible thumping.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #82 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

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.

 

You mean, rich white men?

 

They just happened to be the Pharisees that the Bible spoke against? Then yes, I agree.

post #83 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind View Post

Quote:
That said, I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination in his holy scriptures.

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?

You forgot to mention this is not a news site 1smile.gif
post #84 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.

 

Great points! As a firm believer in liberty, I don't believe that any business owner should be forced to change their business practices to suit the whims of others. None of us is entitled to the good, services, or labors of others. A private business is different than the government (only one place to get a driver's license, etc.).

post #85 of 295
While the bill has it's flaws, the intent of the bill is only being looked at from one side in the media... I keep on hearing people refer to the bill as "legalizing discrimination against homosexuals," but what about the reverse which is, in some effect, legalizing a crushing blow to a person's freedom of religion? A business owner should not live in fear of a civil lawsuit when they feel they have to stand up for what they believe is right by refusing service to someone. That's what they are trying to protect.

There are nuances in how to deal with this, however... I am a Christian, and work in a local computer shop in a very conservative state, but never in a million years would I think that providing service to a homosexual person would compromise my religious beliefs. I think it would be wrong to deny them service. That's the nature of my business. But if I was, say, a wedding photographer in New Mexico (and this really happened), and a gay couple wanted me to shoot photos of their wedding, I would feel deeply conflicted about what to do, because I believe that homosexual marriage is wrong, and participating in a celebration of something that I believe is wrong would be tantamount to accepting it. This is the problem people face whose businesses align closely with their religious beliefs.

Am I going to sue a butcher because he won't serve a vegetarian like me? Are we going to legislate a requirement to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, knowing that it is against the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses to do so?

I'm just going to call it like it is... there is an unfair bias against the free practice of religion in the quest to grant more full civil rights to LGBT persons; and I admit, they have been treated very unfairly in the past. I want all people to be treated fairly, but the government has no business telling me how to practice my religion by separating my beliefs from my business practices. In fact, I expect the government to protect my right to exercise my conscience as I see fit, just as LGBT persons expect the government to protect them from discrimination.
post #86 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. 

 

Satan and his ministers have been twisting the word of God ever since the garden in Eden. They are still doing it today. It is passed off as the word of God, but things have been removed, added, and changed for the purpose of deception.

 

Just because perversions of God's word exist and abound doesn't mean that his true word doesn't exist.

post #87 of 295

The King James version is an interpretation/perversion as well. 

Not that I'm a biblical scholar or anything, but I think the "word of God" and the teachings of Jesus occurred before 1611 AD.

 

Heck who knows maybe the real Bible was something else entirely and the Samsung of the day totally remade it into what we perceive now.

1000 years from now history may tell us that Android supplanted Blackberry and iOS was a minor sect banished to the wilderness.

post #88 of 295
Who issues business licenses then? And laws on non-discrimination don't apply to private business owners?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

Great points! As a firm believer in liberty, I don't believe that any business owner should be forced to change their business practices to suit the whims of others. None of us is entitled to the good, services, or labors of others. A private business is different than the government (only one place to get a driver's license, etc.).
post #89 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

 

 

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. 


I'm on your side now (agnostic, pro-gay rights), but it's pretty clear what the Bible says about homosexuality. So, for those who take it as the "inerrant Word of God", and try to interpret it logically (ironic, I know), it clearly says it is sinful. Some may use it to justify their pre-existing hate and prejudice, but for others its just an objective statement that comes along with the all-inclusive Christianity package. To convince them otherwise will require dealing with many much more complicated issues, which essentially amounts to their entire world view. And we obviously aren't going to be able to begin to address that here.

post #90 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I guess you forgot this little bit of scripture.


No. I'm aware of that portion of scripture. Those verses don't cancel out the rest of scripture, however.

 

The verses you referenced are teaching a lesson to us that we should not think someone else's sin is greater than our own.  Our Lord was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees there, and they were neglecting portions of the law, applying the parts they liked, and adding things that were never there. The lesson is to not be a hypocrite. God can tell if I'm a hypocrite by looking at my heart and by seeing my actions daily, and men can tell I'm a hypocrite only by my actions. Since no one on here presumably knows me in person and the way I live on a daily basis, then no one here can apply this scripture to me. Likewise, I cannot apply it to you. This lesson is an internal one for us to take to our heart, not to throw into the face of another person when they are speaking the truth of God's word.


These scriptures are a favorite among Christians and non-Christians alike today, because it's an easy way of ignoring sin and sweeping it under a rug. It seems that in the eyes of many, the only sin is to speak against sin. They will immediately pull out one of these two versions. But that's not the lesson of scripture as a whole. Forgiveness is to be balanced with things like exhorting, rebuking, repentance, etc. God's holy word speaks of these other concepts, too.

 

Yes, we are to forgive. I forgive homosexuals just like I forgive murderers. I need their forgiveness, too. We all need forgiveness. But after forgiveness comes an exhortation to godly living. We are to encourage one another toward that.

 

"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works..." (Hebrews 10:24)

post #91 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?   

 

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.


The law cannot stand.   Using the new law one could 'legally' discriminate against black people, Muslims, Jews and basically anyone they wanted.  The Governor would be crazy to sign this law.  This law forces the government to become the arbiter of religious values as well, quite a gray area and a huge waste of time and effort.    Are courts to judge what is a valid 'deep seated' belief? 

 

The only cool thing about this law is seeing what great things Pastafarians will do with it. 

post #92 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRaider2011 View Post


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.

Liberals will always allow another sides point of view (please...don't distort the point with another "smoke and mirrors" tactic which is quite typical amongst conservatives) - but when it comes to discrimination (hidden behind "religion") - damn right we're going to speak out AND will continue to put people in office that will protect the rights of EVERY citizen.  We're not going away (unlike the complete dysfunctional Republican party - they are quite hysterical of late).  PS..we don't "expect" tolerance, we'll DEMAND it until every citizen is treated equally. 

post #93 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoG View Post

Who issues business licenses then? And laws on non-discrimination don't apply to private business owners?

 

I don't think we should have business licenses (for most things; I can't say for sure about all things; haven't considered it that carefully).

 

No, I don't think we should have non-discrimination laws for private business owners, corporations, etc. The government should not discriminate, because as I alluded to before, they are a monopoly that there is no way around. For private business owners, they should be able to run their business however they choose. If they do something that you disagree with, you can boycott them, and I can do the same.

post #94 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


I couldn't agree with you more, discrimination based on sexual orientation is the worst example of bigotry and hatred.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


I couldn't agree with you more, discrimination based on sexual orientation is the worst example of bigotry and hatred.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I guess you forgot this little bit of scripture.

 

THEREFORE, we should hate people who believe in God and show bigotry against them.

I regret the day our forefathers settled in North America for whatever reason they left the Old World.

post #95 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius 
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

I take exception to a couple of things here Mobius. The bible is extremely relevant. Love your neighbor as yourself and the entire example set by Jesus is one to be revered- whether you are a Christian or not.

Secondly- how is your intolerance to Christians any different than intolerance to homosexuals? Intolerance is intolerance as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is people like rand who come on a forum thinking they can change the mind of a non believer. And then quotig scripture- as if that means ANYTHING to a non believer. They're just words. It was written so believers would understand it and non believers wouldn't. It is so annoying as a Christian to see these types of people because they give us a bad name. Rand needs to spend less time here convincing no one- and more time being friends with homosexuals and listening to them. Then he'd be a better Christian.

Bottom line- he doesn't speak for me.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #96 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.

Your problem is that you have classed this under "PC bandwagon." It is not an issue of political correctness, it is a matter of practcal business concern for Apple.

They're investing half a billion in new manufacturing there, they will have people working there, they want a welcoming living "climate" there like they have in California. The law would make any business wishing to locate in Arizona at that scale complicit. They may also have ongoing larger plans for Arizona.
post #97 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more.


I love that verse! It shows the triumph of our Savior over death. Thank you for posting it.

 

Here is the whole sentence:

 

"But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:20-21)

 

I think in the context, it's speaking of how sin abounded because of its effect in passing death upon all men since Adam (Rom 5:17-19), but grace abounded much more in its ability through our Lord Jesus Christ of redeeming his elect from that state of death.

 

"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." (Rev 5:13)

 

Amen!

post #98 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.

Stop it! Save bible verses for your bible study- or a Christian forum.

You're not doing any good here- you're just further creating stereotypes. I don't talk with scriptures to non believers just as I don't want them bringing them up to me. You're on two different levels.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #99 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post
 


Just to be clear, I believe the first one is the word of God and the others are perversions of God's word.

 

Hmm. 

 

post #100 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post


No. I'm aware of that portion of scripture. Those verses don't cancel out the rest of scripture, however.

The verses you referenced are teaching a lesson to us that we should not think someone else's sin is greater than our own.  Our Lord was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees there, and they were neglecting portions of the law, applying the parts they liked, and adding things that were never there. The lesson is to not be a hypocrite. God can tell if I'm a hypocrite by looking at my heart and by seeing my actions daily, and men can tell I'm a hypocrite only by my actions. Since no one on here presumably knows me in person and the way I live on a daily basis, then no one here can apply this scripture to me. Likewise, I cannot apply it to you. This lesson is an internal one for us to take to our heart, not to throw into the face of another person when they are speaking the truth of God's word.


These scriptures are a favorite among Christians and non-Christians alike today, because it's an easy way of ignoring sin and sweeping it under a rug. It seems that in the eyes of many, the only sin is to speak against sin. They will immediately pull out one of these two versions. But that's not the lesson of scripture as a whole. Forgiveness is to be balanced with things like exhorting, rebuking, repentance, etc. God's holy word speaks of these other concepts, too.

Yes, we are to forgive. I forgive homosexuals just like I forgive murderers. I need their forgiveness, too. We all need forgiveness. But after forgiveness comes an exhortation to godly living. We are to encourage one another toward that.

"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works..." (Hebrews 10:24)

Nobody's sin is greater than yours or mine. Sins aren't weighted, there aren't ones that are better or worse than the others despite our worldly reasoning. We are not to judge anyone because we're just as sinful as they are.
"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 #101 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post
 

 

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. 


Educate me. Show me the chapter verse etc where this was viewed unfavorably. 

post #102 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

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?
But why should someone be forced to photograph same sex couples if another person isn't forced to serve meat in their restaurant. What's the difference? If you're a same sex couple (or someone who doesn't approve) then you just take your business elsewhere. Why all this outrage because of a perceived discrimination against gays? What's so special about gays?
post #103 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


I take exception to a couple of things here Mobius. The bible is extremely relevant. Love your neighbor as yourself and the entire example set by Jesus is one to be revered- whether you are a Christian or not.

Secondly- how is your intolerance to Christians any different than intolerance to homosexuals? Intolerance is intolerance as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is people like rand who come on a forum thinking they can change the mind of a non believer. And then quotig scripture- as if that means ANYTHING to a non believer. They're just words. It was written so believers would understand it and non believers wouldn't. It is so annoying as a Christian to see these types of people because they give us a bad name. Rand needs to spend less time here convincing no one- and more time being friends with homosexuals and listening to them. Then he'd be a better Christian.

Bottom line- he doesn't speak for me.

 

Brother, I appreciate you as a fellow believer. I'd like to clear up a couple of things. You've made a lot of false assumptions about me, it seems.

 

I fully understand that scripture has no effect on someone whose heart the Lord has not opened. However, as a man, I have no way of knowing who reading this is a believer and who is not. I am to sow seed; if it falls on stony ground, I cannot help that; if it falls on good ground, then may fruit abound to the glory of God!

 

I'd also like to say that the example of scripture is not to befriend those who are living a sinful lifestyle. The example in scripture is to encourage one another in love to turn from wickedness. When Jesus talked to the woman who was taken in adultery, he told her to go her way *and sin no more*. Repentance is a key to Christianity.

 

Example: If I know that fornication is unacceptable and I am living with a woman to whom I am not married, followers of Christ are to not keep company with me until I repent of my wickedness. Paul taught this lesson in his first letter to the church at Corinth. Now, once I do repent, the church is to accept me back into the fold and show me love, as taught in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians.

 

Homosexuality works the same way. If someone living in that sin becomes a follower of Christ, they are to turn from living that lifestyle. There is a call to repentance and separating ourselves.

 

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (II Cor 6:17)

post #104 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Nobody's sin is greater than yours or mine. Sins aren't weighted, there aren't ones that are better or worse than the others despite our worldly reasoning. We are not to judge anyone because we're just as sinful as they are.

I think sins are weighted and that weight varies from person to person on both ends. Meaning, a person can have their own general feeling about how serious a sin as well as vary that depending on who is doing the sinning. It's not exactly something measured by the IEEE.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #105 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Nobody's sin is greater than yours or mine. Sins aren't weighted, there aren't ones that are better or worse than the others despite our worldly reasoning. We are not to judge anyone because we're just as sinful as they are.


In John 19:11, Jesus said, "he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." There is such a thing as a greater sin. However, I do agree that it is not our place to make that determination.


Thankful for God's amazing grace.

post #106 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


I don't disagree with the basic premise you make in this reply (not the first post you made with which I disagree) but it is too oversimplified. IMHO a centrist, balanced news organization should have standards from which to establish where bias and non biased meet and where the line is. This should be established by societal norms. Sadly, currently the USA is in such a state of polarization between science versus myth, equality versus inequality and so on I doubt any new organization can find that line.

 

I think the key phrase is "societal norms". There is a polarization because there's no definite majority. I don't know what you mean by "myths" but with"science", it's whatever society deems as true at a point in time. Mankind discovers new things everyday, sometimes challenging our "concrete" theories, and exposing our finite knowledge.

 

Case in point: the words being used against those who don't favor gay marriage—bigots, hate, zeolots—wouldn't have been used 10-20 years ago. Let's be honest, most of these posts wouldn't be here because it wasn't a "society norm" to support gay marriage back then. But now people of faith are called "bigots" and "haters".

 

I had a Mac in 1997. My friends called me whack, a zeolot. It wasn't supported by the majority and whatever society accepted. Those same guys now use iDevices, partly because most other people use them.

post #107 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.

Refer to the 14th Amendment: Equal Protection means precisely that. A public business serves ALL the public, a state government can't expel groups of people from that equal protection.

"AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

post #108 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

Yes, we are to forgive. I forgive homosexuals just like I forgive murderers. I need their forgiveness, too. We all need forgiveness. But after forgiveness comes an exhortation to godly living. We are to encourage one another toward that.
I'm sorry- what? Why are you forgiving homosexuals? How have they wronged you? You aren't God rand- they don't need your forgiveness.

We encourage other believers and hold them accountable. They will know you are a Christian by the way you treat other people- and you're rude, judgemental, and intolerant.

It's amazing how some of the most versed Christians lose sight of what matters most. Again- I implore you to have a genuine relationship with a homosexual or homosexuals and listen to them and care about them. Then they will know you are a Christian. Because you're methods are awful ones.

What do you think- a gay person is going to read what you wrote and think- wow- that sounds like a life I want! You believe shame and condemnation are methods in which to educate a person? Jesus dined with sinners- he had relationships with them. He had a core group that kept him sharpened and then went to preach to non believers. I'll say it over and over- your methods are wrong. Just like anyone else who tries to conform others to their beliefs on a freakin tech site!!!
Edited by Andysol - 2/25/14 at 9:13am

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #109 of 295

Serious

post #110 of 295

The most sensible gay marriage perspective comes from none other than Peter Griffin: "If gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us I say we let 'em."

post #111 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.

A book. You stand by a book.

 

Beyond that, you've got nothing.

post #112 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post
 

 

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?

 

I just don't understand why a gay couple would *still* want to be served by a business who doesn't want to. Why would an honest couple still want food from people who don't want to serve them? I'd just leave and go to another restaurant. Unless....I want to sue.

post #113 of 295

Secular Humanism has more rationality than a contradictory fairy tale book from the Bronze Age.

 

Your desert religion is patriarchal fascism made for subjugating people - remember how the Dark Ages had kings with 'god given right' to rule.

 

Also here's a big list of bible contradictions.  It's a total hoot:  http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

 

Also why religion is the enemy of progress:

 

 

  

post #114 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.

 

AppleInsider is not a news site.  It's pro-Apple and everything about Apple and has the right to publish editors' opinions and biases.  If you want unbiased articles, go somewhere else.

post #115 of 295
post #116 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

However, I do agree that it is not our place to make that determination.

You've making all sorts of determinations in this thread. In fact, the only determination you haven't made is to think critically about words written by other insecure men thousands of years ago. The irony is that you and your ilk treat others you deem inferior with righteous condemnation without ever considering your hypocrisy. And at the risk of getting an infraction or banned, you are disgusting human being even if it all does stem from your insecurities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

The most sensible gay marriage perspective comes from none other than Peter Griffin: "If gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us I say we let 'em."

I believe I first heard that stated by Kinky Friendman years before Family Guy was on the air.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/25/14 at 9:28am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #117 of 295

If the bill is discriminating.  The federal court will have the final say.  

post #118 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post
 

 

I just don't understand why a gay couple would *still* want to be served by a business who doesn't want to. Why would an honest couple still want food from people who don't want to serve them? I'd just leave and go to another restaurant. Unless....I want to sue.

 

The point is, the photographer's job is to take photographs. He neither has to approve or disapprove of the lives lived by the people he is photographing. Provided they do not require him to break any laws while he is engaged in taking those photographs (and provided they are not themselves breaking laws at the same time) then he has no right to refuse them service if they want.

 

Likewise, the meat eater choosing to eat at a vegetarian restaurant does so because that's what the restaurant puts up for sale. The restaurant is not within its rights to restrict its customers to vegetarians only. If I, a meat eater, wish to eat a vegetarian meal, I may do so and they may not refuse to serve me on the basis that I have, at some time in the near or distant past, eaten meat. Therefore a photographer may not refuse to serve his photography skills on the basis that the customer does something legal in private (i.e. where the photographer is not present) that the photographer would rather not do him/herself. It is of no concern of the photographer's what the same sex couple get up to when he's not there. They only ask that he take photos of record of an event. They are not asking him to get jiggy with them.

 

I have customers who eat curry. I can't stand the stuff and think it vile. I don't refuse them on the basis that they do something I detest. I've never once had a customer who insists I carry out my job AND eat curry at the same time.

post #119 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You've making all sorts of determinations in this thread. In fact, the only determination you haven't made is to think critically about words written by other insecure men thousands of years ago. The irony is that you and your ilk treat others you deem inferior with righteous condemnation without ever considering your hypocrisy.
 

 

Excuse me, but when did I refer to anyone else as "inferior" to me? I have referred to myself as someone who needs forgiveness and fails daily in serving God as I should, but never as superior to anyone. The truth is quite the contrary. I am convicted of my sin daily. As David wrote in Psalm 51:3, "my sin is ever before me."

 

To speak the truth of God's word and reason out of the scriptures is not hypocrisy. It is love in action. God knows that is the desire of my heart.

 

I do not condemn anyone. I will leave that to God. I have spoken repeatedly about repentance, not condemnation. May we all repent of our evil and turn to the living God.

 

 

post #120 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post
 

 

The point is, the photographer's job is to take photographs. He neither has to approve or disapprove of the lives lived by the people he is photographing. Provided they do not require him to break any laws while he is engaged in taking those photographs (and provided they are not themselves breaking laws at the same time) then he has no right to refuse them service if they want.

 

Likewise, the meat eater choosing to eat at a vegetarian restaurant does so because that's what the restaurant puts up for sale. The restaurant is not within its rights to restrict its customers to vegetarians only. If I, a meat eater, wish to eat a vegetarian meal, I may do so and they may not refuse to serve me on the basis that I have, at some time in the near or distant past, eaten meat. Therefore a photographer may not refuse to serve his photography skills on the basis that the customer does something legal in private (i.e. where the photographer is not present) that the photographer would rather not do him/herself. It is of no concern of the photographer's what the same sex couple get up to when he's not there. They only ask that he take photos of record of an event. They are not asking him to get jiggy with them.


I think the point that's missed here is that by enacting laws forcing business owners to serve someone they don't wish to serve is to take the approach that the customer is entitled to the goods or services of that business owner. None of us are entitled to the labor of others, and no one should be forced by the government to serve someone. It should be a matter of liberty.

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