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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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...."
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!!!
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!
Serious
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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I believe I first heard that stated by Kinky Friendman years before Family Guy was on the air.
If the bill is discriminating. The federal court will have the final say.
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.
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.
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.