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.
Better yet, just go somewhere else.
randallking wrote: »
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.
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.
But that is my point. It is not clear based on the passage you provided. My reading of what you provided is that God is only against homosexual perverts, not homosexuals.
As another person also pointed out, different versions of the bible are translated differently. Different versions of the translations can be read to mean different things. Moreover, some people who claim to embrace the bible text so literally, forget about teaching by Jesus such as those without sin cast the first stone, and that God is to be the only judge of our behaviours.
Moreover, even if one's religion follows the bible, the bible was written by people, not God. Moreover, the new testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus was around, and entire chapters were removed.
There's such a thing as reasonable expectation of service. I don't go to Home Depot to do my grocery shopping. You're exaggerating and confusing yourself.
Second point, the discrimination isn't perceived. The example of the photographer exemplifies said discrimination. Just because the defense is religion doesn't mean it's not discrimination. I'm sure religious people don't like the negative connotation of the word, but that's their own problem. Treating religion with kid gloves and playing political correctness with it by using only terms they like only enabled atrocities in religion's name to continue as long as they have.
Thirdly, unlike religion, gays are not a protected class in AZ. They can be fired for no other reason than being gay in the majority of states in the union, including AZ. While religious people feign oppression at every step gay people take towards equality, which you condescendingly call "special", the government picking the side of already-protected religion to embolden discrimination further by making it legal to even deny services for no other reason, flies in the face of enlightenment and a society that's leaning hard towards equality as a whole.
I hold dear every single word of God's holy scriptures, and I strive daily to understand it better by applying myself to studying it. It is perfect truth, never contradicts itself, and is a thorough furnisher unto all good works.
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.
If I choose to make my goods and services available publicly, then I am entreating publicly. In law I cannot (or at least should not) then restrict who I do business with. If I want to restrict my market to certain types of people, then I need to entreat in a limited fashion by marketing only in those ways where I can reliably predict who my customers are. I have to take the risk, though, that there might be some of those who see my entreaties who are still not in my privately-wished target audience. If I entreat publicly, then I entreat ALL the public. Gay, straight, black, white, male, female, those in between, and any other label that people can put upon themselves. Having once entreated publicly, I have already offered my side of the contract to everyone to do business with them. I cannot then back down.
That's your personal opinion, but it's not the opinion that is the side of liberty. That's akin to socialism/fascism.
It's nothing to do with socialism or fascism (which, by the way, are NOT interchangeable as you have presented them, therefore you clearly don't know what you are talking about!)
Basically, if you don't want to sell to gay people, make sure gay people don't know you're there.
Problem is, gay people are everywhere. They're hiding behind trees, under bushes, they're in the pipes, under your desk at work. They're in your computer. Right now. Hiding. Just waiting to get you.
If you don't want to sell to gay people, you'd probably just better emigrate. From the planet.
But they're still going to find you. They're going to follow you across the Universe. Hounding you. Trying to convert you with their awesome fabulousness.
solipsismx wrote: »
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.
I never said they were the same thing.
Any discussion of religion that does not acknowledge the one true deity, The Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His noodly appendage) is heresy and abomination.
You most certainly did! You said a thing was the same as socialism/fascism. You can't deny it. It's there. Above. In black and white.
And you get that rainbow comment for free.
Because I'm nice like that.
Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan.
Good grief. Yes, I did say that. But that's not saying that socialism and fascism are the same thing. *eye roll*
Socialism and fascism have characteristics in common, primarily that they are both the enemy of liberty.
It's always nice to see Apple, or any other company, support everyone equally. The writing is on the wall, we can all see that homosexuals will have the same rights as heterosexuals eventually. It's just unfortunate that we have such hateful, closed-minded, bigoted companies at the moment.
... 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...
Advertisers show racial diversity in their marketing most likely to avoid being sued. This might also apply to any protected class. It's best not to discriminate if running a business.
Would Arizona offer and welcome the same "religious freedoms" to Al-Qaeda so as to allow Sharia law? Should they be allowed to "Stone" women for being raped and claim a religious exemption? I suspect this proposed law is only for Christian, as the authors only considers their beliefs valid. I hope it is signed the governor as I don't believe it could legally be implemented and these clowns are removed from office.
If this becomes law, will Pastafarians be allowed to have colanders and spegetti openly for sale but only allow certain people to buy them?
Strangely enough, you seem to be as well.
I mean, of course, the liberty of your gay and lesbian brethren to be free to walk into any store and purchase what that store sells, free from intrusion into their personal lives.
A gay man eats bread the same way that a straight man eats bread. You would permit the baker to refuse to sell the gay man bread.
How is that fair or equal protection under the law?
I hereby call you out for what you are: one who speaks of liberty and freedom for himself and those of his ilk while working to deny it to others.
I name thee Hypocrite.