Socialism and fascism have characteristics in common, primarily that they are both the enemy of liberty.
The same could be said of religious adherents who talk about religious freedom, but in reality seem to be focused on restricting the freedoms of those who have other beliefs.
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.
And what protection do people who are fat, or have tattoos or lots of piercings have (just using as an example). Why single out gay people? Just because they happen to the the flavor of the month that politicians want to curry favor with? Barack Obama was against gay marriage until he needed their donations for re-election. Then he pivoted on a dime and supported it so he could go to San Francisco and raise a lot of money from gays. I'm trying to understand the real intent behind this law, not the reactionary "it's gay discrimination!" being shouted my the media.
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.
You hold dear every word? Could you point me to some evidence that you frequent seafood forums where you have condemned those for choosing to eat lobster or crab the way you have condemned homosexuals here? One thing is certain is that one can likely choose to eat different food but one can't choose to have the genetics or fetal development to be born intelligent, tall, fat, short, thin, black, blue, white, gay, straight or other. That said, I fully support your decision to not eat lobster as tradition and culture are very important part of humanity, but it's becomes a very different and very dark thing if you were condemn someone for eating oysters.
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.
The liberty of which you speak is not the liberty we are granted by the constitution. We are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty doesn't give me the right to the goods or services of others, or the guaranteed right that they must sell me their goods and services. That would be giving me the right to the labor of others. When the government begins forcing such things, we've gone into socialism and fascism territory.
Cogitodexter: This heterosexual ordained Baptist minister thanks you. That needed to be said. But I'm still a bit incredulous that, after all the other crazy things that Arizona lawmakers have done, it took this particular thing to promote enough outrage to get individuals and businesses to take a stand.
And what protection do people who are fat, or have tattoos or lots of piercings have (just using as an example). Why single out gay people? Just because they happen to the the flavor of the month that politicians want to curry favor with? Barack Obama was against gay marriage until he needed their donations for re-election. Then he pivoted on a dime and supported it so he could go to San Francisco and raise a lot of money from gays. I'm trying to understand the real intent behind this law, not the reactionary "it's gay discrimination!" being shouted my the media.
Well, quite. There shouldn't be 'protected classes' of human beings - everyone should get these protections.
You hold dear every word? Could you point me to some evidence that you frequent seafood forums where you have condemned those for choosing to eat lobster or crab the way you have condemned homosexuals here? One thing is certain is that one can likely choose to eat different food but one can't choose to have the genetics or fetal development to be born intelligent, tall, fat, short, thin, black, blue, white, gay, straight or other. That said, I fully support your decision to not eat lobster as tradition and culture are very important part of humanity, but it's becomes a very different and very dark thing if you were condemn someone for eating oysters.
I haven't condemned anyone, first of all.
Next, what does lobster and crab have to do with this? I know that you're referring to that laws that God gave to Israel, but scripture clearly states that those things were to be an abomination unto them (not to us in the New Testament day). When God spoke of homosexuality, he said it's an abomination, period. He didn't say that it is only an abomination unto them (nation of Israel only). Aside from that, it's mentioned in the New Testament, too.
Next, what does lobster and crab have to do with this? I know that you're referring to that laws that God gave to Israel, but scripture clearly states that those things were to be an abomination unto them (not to us in the New Testament day).
If God is unchanging why was something an abomination one day and not the next.
Did God inspire the New Testament to be written all about forgiveness because the people didn't like all the smiting and stoning in the original version?
The Bible is like statistics. You can make it say anything that supports your argument.
And what protection do people who are fat, or have tattoos or lots of piercings have (just using as an example). Why single out gay people? Just because they happen to the the flavor of the month that politicians want to curry favor with? Barack Obama was against gay marriage until he needed their donations for re-election. Then he pivoted on a dime and supported it so he could go to San Francisco and raise a lot of money from gays. I'm trying to understand the real intent behind this law, not the reactionary "it's gay discrimination!" being shouted my the media.
They have the same protections those that make bad analogies and false equivalencies have. There shouldn't BE protected classes in a perfect world, but racism, sexism, bigotry and more exist as a reality.
The supporters of the bill make clear their intentions... to allow people with religious beliefs to deny people services "based" off those beliefs. And supporters of the bill themselves have singling out gays by citing the examples of a baker or photographer making wedding cakes or taking photographs for gay marriages... even though AZ doesn't have gay marriage and won't anytime soon, making these issues moot and the bill redundant because religion is already a protected class.
But seriously, money? Heaven forbid. It's not as if religion has imposed it's will through money to the tune of countless tax-exempt billions through the years. Allowing gay citizens to have any influence would just be outlandish.
Next, what does lobster and crab have to do with this? I know that you're referring to that laws that God gave to Israel, but scripture clearly states that those things were to be an abomination unto them (not to us in the New Testament day). When God spoke of homosexuality, he said it's an abomination, period. He didn't say that it is only an abomination unto them (nation of Israel only). Aside from that, it's mentioned in the New Testament, too.
1) You said you hold dear every word. Do you or do you not hold dear every word in the Bible?
2) Unto them is just more of the bigoted elitism you've been preaching. Why exactly would God say Israelites can't be lobster but you can? Again, traditions are fine but condemning others for not abiding by them is as silly as condemning people for opening gifts on Christmas Eve instead of Christmas Day.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
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.
Congratulations. There aren't many people with your sincere understanding of what Christianity (and some other religions) is supposed to be about.
Just as many conservatives criticize the new Pope, it is my sincere belief that if the Jesus we have come to believe existed was to return, he would be persecuted as a radical, leftist, Marxist 'nut'.
Especially since Jesus was not born on what we celebrate as Christmas Day.
Nor was his name Jesus.
He was at least caucasian, right? I don't think my fragile disposition could handle not knowing that he had a skin colour that I have been taught my whole life to consider inferior to my own¡
Comments
Socialism and fascism have characteristics in common, primarily that they are both the enemy of liberty.
The same could be said of religious adherents who talk about religious freedom, but in reality seem to be focused on restricting the freedoms of those who have other beliefs.
You hold dear every word? Could you point me to some evidence that you frequent seafood forums where you have condemned those for choosing to eat lobster or crab the way you have condemned homosexuals here? One thing is certain is that one can likely choose to eat different food but one can't choose to have the genetics or fetal development to be born intelligent, tall, fat, short, thin, black, blue, white, gay, straight or other. That said, I fully support your decision to not eat lobster as tradition and culture are very important part of humanity, but it's becomes a very different and very dark thing if you were condemn someone for eating oysters.
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.
The liberty of which you speak is not the liberty we are granted by the constitution. We are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty doesn't give me the right to the goods or services of others, or the guaranteed right that they must sell me their goods and services. That would be giving me the right to the labor of others. When the government begins forcing such things, we've gone into socialism and fascism territory.
And what protection do people who are fat, or have tattoos or lots of piercings have (just using as an example). Why single out gay people? Just because they happen to the the flavor of the month that politicians want to curry favor with? Barack Obama was against gay marriage until he needed their donations for re-election. Then he pivoted on a dime and supported it so he could go to San Francisco and raise a lot of money from gays. I'm trying to understand the real intent behind this law, not the reactionary "it's gay discrimination!" being shouted my the media.
Well, quite. There shouldn't be 'protected classes' of human beings - everyone should get these protections.
You hold dear every word? Could you point me to some evidence that you frequent seafood forums where you have condemned those for choosing to eat lobster or crab the way you have condemned homosexuals here? One thing is certain is that one can likely choose to eat different food but one can't choose to have the genetics or fetal development to be born intelligent, tall, fat, short, thin, black, blue, white, gay, straight or other. That said, I fully support your decision to not eat lobster as tradition and culture are very important part of humanity, but it's becomes a very different and very dark thing if you were condemn someone for eating oysters.
I haven't condemned anyone, first of all.
Next, what does lobster and crab have to do with this? I know that you're referring to that laws that God gave to Israel, but scripture clearly states that those things were to be an abomination unto them (not to us in the New Testament day). When God spoke of homosexuality, he said it's an abomination, period. He didn't say that it is only an abomination unto them (nation of Israel only). Aside from that, it's mentioned in the New Testament, too.
Maybe not, but oh well, to each his own.
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/38863/width/200/height/400[/IMG]
Next, what does lobster and crab have to do with this? I know that you're referring to that laws that God gave to Israel, but scripture clearly states that those things were to be an abomination unto them (not to us in the New Testament day).
If God is unchanging why was something an abomination one day and not the next.
Did God inspire the New Testament to be written all about forgiveness because the people didn't like all the smiting and stoning in the original version?
The Bible is like statistics. You can make it say anything that supports your argument.
And what protection do people who are fat, or have tattoos or lots of piercings have (just using as an example). Why single out gay people? Just because they happen to the the flavor of the month that politicians want to curry favor with? Barack Obama was against gay marriage until he needed their donations for re-election. Then he pivoted on a dime and supported it so he could go to San Francisco and raise a lot of money from gays. I'm trying to understand the real intent behind this law, not the reactionary "it's gay discrimination!" being shouted my the media.
They have the same protections those that make bad analogies and false equivalencies have.
There shouldn't BE protected classes in a perfect world, but racism, sexism, bigotry and more exist as a reality.
The supporters of the bill make clear their intentions... to allow people with religious beliefs to deny people services "based" off those beliefs. And supporters of the bill themselves have singling out gays by citing the examples of a baker or photographer making wedding cakes or taking photographs for gay marriages... even though AZ doesn't have gay marriage and won't anytime soon, making these issues moot and the bill redundant because religion is already a protected class.
But seriously, money? Heaven forbid. It's not as if religion has imposed it's will through money to the tune of countless tax-exempt billions through the years. Allowing gay citizens to have any influence would just be outlandish.
1) You said you hold dear every word. Do you or do you not hold dear every word in the Bible?
2) Unto them is just more of the bigoted elitism you've been preaching. Why exactly would God say Israelites can't be lobster but you can? Again, traditions are fine but condemning others for not abiding by them is as silly as condemning people for opening gifts on Christmas Eve instead of Christmas Day.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
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.
Congratulations. There aren't many people with your sincere understanding of what Christianity (and some other religions) is supposed to be about.
Just as many conservatives criticize the new Pope, it is my sincere belief that if the Jesus we have come to believe existed was to return, he would be persecuted as a radical, leftist, Marxist 'nut'.
but condemning others for not abiding by them is as silly as condemning people for opening gifts on Christmas Eve instead of Christmas Day.
Especially since Jesus was not born on what we celebrate as Christmas Day.
but condemning others for not abiding by them is as silly as condemning people for opening gifts on Christmas Eve instead of Christmas Day.
Especially since Jesus was not born on what we celebrate as Christmas Day.
Nor was his name Jesus.
He was at least caucasian, right? I don't think my fragile disposition could handle not knowing that he had a skin colour that I have been taught my whole life to consider inferior to my own¡
I've enjoyed the discussion, but I have lots of work to do. May the Lord bless you all!
Let us all seek his will and ways in all things, for his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts.
All glory to the Lamb!
Jesus is the translation of Yeshua, but his last name was definitely not Christ.
Can't vote you up enough.
Ugh, now you're going to have to explain why he's called the Lamb.