oseame said: turning the other cheek if you really are a Christian?
No, since you don’t seem to know anything about Christianity.
You got all that from a one line post? Incredible. I'll have to hunt down my religious education teachers, the vicar I babysat for and my school chaplain and let them know that what they're teaching is incorrect according to someone on the internet.
oseame said: You got all that from a one line post?
"Seem".
...my religious education teachers, the vicar I babysat for and my school chaplain...
What give you the impression that this proves you right? Do you want to try again with an actual argument? Because it's one of the more fundamental understandings of Jesus' teachings and you don't seem to get it.
oseame said: You got all that from a one line post?
"Seem". What give you the impression that this proves you right? Do you want to try again with an actual argument? Because it's one of the more fundamental understandings of Jesus' teachings and you don't seem to get it.
I was merely objecting to your entirely unsubstantiated claim that I seem not to know a thing about the Christian religion. If you had expressed an argument to begin with rather that that claim, perhaps there would be one to be had. Do you want to try again with an actual argument? Substantiate your statement "Turn the other cheek refers exclusively to petty, secular behaviours, not to heresy and sin."? Would you consider adultery sin, as per the adage of throwing the first stone? Where exactly did Jesus tell us to discriminate against others based on their choice of life partner?
The point is, believer of fake man up in the clouds, is that people simply do their jobs under much worse circumstances than selling a cake or pizza to much worse people. Just do your job and shut up.
How delightful. Now the true (insulting and bigoted and intolerant and authoritarian) colors are beginning to show. I'm surprised it took this long.
I hate religion. It is my right to believe religion is stupid as fuck if I want to. But if someone who is religious comes to my business I serve them like I would everybody else, putting my beliefs aside. My beliefs are mine to express but acting on them in refusing someone service is plain wrong. Why can't you wrap your mind around this simple concept?
No. It is yes OR no. And you think people do have a "right" to force other to do business with them against their will. Thanks for your honesty.
Suffice to say, I disagree that anyone has the right to force anyone else to do business with them. The state, through the law (and its guns) may allow (and even mandate) the infringement of this right. But that doesn't make it okay.
Though your rights may sometimes be referred to as God given, they are really only validated by "The State." Following the laws of the land is a Bible doctrine. Romans 13:1-14
I was merely objecting to your entirely unsubstantiated claim that I seem not to know a thing about the Christian religion. If you had expressed an argument to begin with rather that that claim, perhaps there would be one to be had. Do you want to try again with an actual argument? Substantiate your statement "Turn the other cheek refers exclusively to petty, secular behaviours, not to heresy and sin."? Would you consider adultery sin, as per the adage of throwing the first stone? Where exactly did Jesus tell us to discriminate against others based on their choice of life partner?
So here we go again:
1. Not throwing a stone. That is both literally and figuratively not stoning someone because of their sin. 2. Not enabling, supporting and going along with a sin.
These seem different to me.
1.Throwing the stone is analogous to passing judgement i.e. stating that a same-sex partnership is immoral 2. Unless you're getting involved in the sexual congress between same-sex partners for financial gain I fail to see how doing business with them would be enabling/supporting it. If we're talking about an 'Adam & Steve' wedding cake all you're enabling is a celebratory cake, one which could quite well be substituted for a plain cake and a tube of icing.
Here's some breaking news for the religious nutjobs out there....religious freedom is already protected in the United States, by THE CONSTITUTION! You'll have to find other avenues to peddle your hatred.
How delightful. Now the true (insulting and bigoted and intolerant and authoritarian) colors are beginning to show. I'm surprised it took this long.
But if someone who is religious comes to my business I serve them like I would everybody else, putting my beliefs aside. My beliefs are mine to express but acting on them in refusing someone service is plain wrong. Why can't you wrap your mind around this simple concept.
This is the basic principle here.
This is the difference in thinking that's going on. One puts the good of others, of all of us collectively, regardless of religious belief, at the forefront. The other is fundamentally self-centred, and if left to its own devices, ultimately injurious to others who most require the material benefits of full social inclusion.
This latter form of thinking is why the United States is still stuck in the mud on basic social issues that others have put to bed a long time ago.
Me, me, me. MY rights. MY freedoms. MY personal comfort. And so on. This is the problem. ATTITUDES.
I love you folks down South of the border - we're brothers and sisters, and we have a shared heritage. But socially, some of you really need to get right with the notion that there is just as much virtue in understanding that your liberties have necessary limits, as much as there is in the exercising of them.
Actually the law simply empowers religious freedom.
Gay people don't need to have their lifestyle choices held above religious freedom.
Sorry.
Just st leave it alone tim. There is nothing there that would threaten a gay person.
It it simply gives substance to religious freedom. That's a good thing.
Have you ever heard of a document called the Constitution of the United States of America? No? Well this document already protects religious freedom. You know what's not a good thing? Spreading disinformation.
Though your rights may sometimes be referred to as God given, they are really only validated by "The State." Following the laws of the land is a Bible doctrine. Romans 13:1-14
Incorrect again. States may enumerate rights. They may protect them. They often violate them. But the are not the validator of them.
You know you have lost an argument when you start to quibble over minor word definition differences. Please read the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is law.
1.Throwing the stone is analogous to passing judgement i.e. stating that a same-sex partnership is immoral 2. Unless you're getting involved in the sexual congress between same-sex partners for financial gain I fail to see how doing business with them would be enabling/supporting it. If we're talking about an 'Adam & Steve' wedding cake all you're enabling is a celebratory cake, one which could quite well be substituted for a plain cake and a tube of icing.
1. Well, stating a truth is (e.g., X is immoral according to God) may or may not be "passing judgement" but it certainly is not prohibited by God.
2. The point is that some genuinely feel (whether you or I agree with them or not) that being involved with a same-sex wedding in those ways enables, supports or condones what they view as a sinful activity. The real issue here is whether you have any right to impose whatever our view of that question might be onto others by compelling them to take an action against their will under threat of the power of the state. I say no one has that right.
1. I should have said acting on that judgement but in any case I think it's hasty to make statements about what's certainly allowed or prohibited by god
2. It could be said that paying taxes enables, supports or condones what many view as sinful activity including but not limited to same-sex marriage, but I don't see many people refusing that particular imposition of government for the same views regardless of how strong their will not to pay taxes may be.
You're basically arguing that governments give people their rights. That is wrong.
Indeed, because the Bible is not a legal document. You only have the rights spelled out in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and in this case, the Civil Rights Act.
1. I should have said acting on that judgement but in any case I think it's hasty to make statements about what's certainly allowed or prohibited by god
2. It could be said that paying taxes enables, supports or condones what many view as sinful activity including but not limited to same-sex marriage, but I don't see many people refusing that particular imposition of government for the same views regardless of how strong their will not to pay taxes may be.
1. Are you suggesting that God does not want for us to speak the truth about what is right and wrong?
2. In many cases it does, and it's true that most people don't. But that doesn't mean it's right.
1. No, I'm just saying we shouldn't state it as definitively being god's opinion and act negatively upon those opinions; For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
2. Regardless of whether it's right it seems odd to pick and choose by which means you will enable, support or condone the same behaviours you believe to be immoral. It seems to suggest that one would be willing to go only so far in support of such strongly held religious convictions.
TL;DR: ‘Freedom of Religion’ – THAT is the problem. It’s tragically
vague, a crock and should be phased out.
The spirit of the phrase 'Freedom of Religion' presumes that religions in general,
the tenets, values and practices apparently endorsed by the god, are benign.
However, it is easily arguable, particularly with respect the texts ascribed to
the Abrahamic god, that these presumptions are absolutely not the case. Some of
the Abrahamic values are idiotic and illogical, some are easily arguable as
being odious in relation to considerations of fairness, kindness, empathy, patience,
common sense and reason.
Freedom to believe in a particular spirit, to privately pray
to that spirit – to publicly announce one’s belief – that’s absolutely fine and
benign. However, freedom to practiceone’s religion cannot be absolute. It can be deeply problematic, as the
practices may be odious and infringe on the liberties of others, particularly
in public spaces. Do Jews, Christians and Muslims have the right to enslave
given the tacit endorsement of the practice in their texts? Does one have the
right to lob off bits of their children? We argue about the rights of the
foetus, but not the rights of the infant to choose whether s/he wants their bits
hacked off. Do Muslims have the right to pray in the middle of the road at rush
hour under the appeal to freedom of religion? Do Pastafarians have the right to
wear colanders for their Photo IDs?
Freedom of speech (that doesn't incite hatred) – yes. The spiritof ‘Freedom of Speech’ is in
relation to the right, the freedom, to openly argue against the decisions of
the Community’s leadership. That’s about it. We need ‘Freedom of Speech’, it’s
sufficient; we need to dump ‘freedom of religion’ (to believe in whatever god
one wants) as it is, for all intents and purposes, covered by ‘freedom of
Speech’.
No one has the right to not feel insulted, or to not feel embarrassment. Arguing
against, or ridiculing, an ideology, like a religion or political views, is not
incitement to hatred. And let’s not forget, in the reference to Race, Gender,
nationality and religion, ‘religion’ is the odd one out as it is a CHOICE, it’s
not inherent; because it’s a choice, an ideology, one shouldn't be criminalised
for belittling it. Otherwise we’re on the road to being criminalised for besmirching,
say, Republicanism – are you reading this Donald Trump?
People should have the right to refrain from doing business
or associating with those whose values they find odious – and, to determine a
rule by which to live, what exactly is deemed odious must be determined by what
the society, in general, feels to be odious. The trouble with this is the
measure of society. Is the society one’s neighbourhood? Town? City? All the
people of the State or its ‘representatives’, or is it the majority of the population
of the USA?
Should I have the right to not serve anyone who values and
promotes the Old Testament - which contains many passages reflecting the
endorsement of slavery, unfairness, lack of empathy, immorality, cruelty, and idiocy - as a
Guide for living? Or, as a Baker, to not serve someone who wants a cake with
the words ‘Behead those who besmirch Mohamed’? I would say, yes, I have the
right. What if the person who wanted that told me it was for a ruse and so
therefore it would be morally ‘ok’? Would that affect the correctness of my
position of refusal?
I can read some contradiction in what I've written above. I'm
not sure where I'm heading with this. Sadly, it may be ‘might is right’? I
would hope it to be the might of fair-play, calm reflection, common sense and
logic – without an appeal to the evidently absent spirit world, it's alleged texts, and what She allegedly wants.
Just trying to give you an insight into the psychology behind your position, no charge.
You're taking this way too personally. Do you have the right to force me etc.? You have nothing to do with it. The law requires that I don't discriminate against anyone if I'm operating a public-facing service.
Does the gov't. (my society) have the right to require me to not discriminate against you on the basis of your sexual preference, and to offer you the same service that I offer to others? Yes, because society provides the platform that allows me to carry on my public business as a livelihood.
It was a yes or no question. Your evasion speaks volumes.
It was a bogus yes or no question, prosecutor. The government, the instrument of our collective will, has evolved to the point to where slavery is prohibited, to where our former slaves have full rights to all the benefits of our society, to where women have equal standing with men, and to where people of any sexual or gender identity have equal rights to all others.
If you are part of a gay couple and you want my pizzaria to cater your wedding, then I follow the law, run my business properly, and cater the wedding. I also do it if you are an Aryan Nation couple, or fundamentalist pagans.
"You" are not forcing me to do anything. "You" are not the issue. That you want to make yourself the issue "speaks volumes."
Comments
If the business is a lunch counter with available seating, yes. If the business is a private entrepreneur who accepts or rejects job offers, then no.
What give you the impression that this proves you right? Do you want to try again with an actual argument? Because it's one of the more fundamental understandings of Jesus' teachings and you don't seem to get it.
2. Unless you're getting involved in the sexual congress between same-sex partners for financial gain I fail to see how doing business with them would be enabling/supporting it. If we're talking about an 'Adam & Steve' wedding cake all you're enabling is a celebratory cake, one which could quite well be substituted for a plain cake and a tube of icing.
This is the difference in thinking that's going on. One puts the good of others, of all of us collectively, regardless of religious belief, at the forefront. The other is fundamentally self-centred, and if left to its own devices, ultimately injurious to others who most require the material benefits of full social inclusion.
This latter form of thinking is why the United States is still stuck in the mud on basic social issues that others have put to bed a long time ago.
Me, me, me. MY rights. MY freedoms. MY personal comfort. And so on. This is the problem. ATTITUDES.
I love you folks down South of the border - we're brothers and sisters, and we have a shared heritage. But socially, some of you really need to get right with the notion that there is just as much virtue in understanding that your liberties have necessary limits, as much as there is in the exercising of them.
2. It could be said that paying taxes enables, supports or condones what many view as sinful activity including but not limited to same-sex marriage, but I don't see many people refusing that particular imposition of government for the same views regardless of how strong their will not to pay taxes may be.
2. Regardless of whether it's right it seems odd to pick and choose by which means you will enable, support or condone the same behaviours you believe to be immoral. It seems to suggest that one would be willing to go only so far in support of such strongly held religious convictions.
TL;DR: ‘Freedom of Religion’ – THAT is the problem. It’s tragically vague, a crock and should be phased out.
The spirit of the phrase 'Freedom of Religion' presumes that religions in general, the tenets, values and practices apparently endorsed by the god, are benign. However, it is easily arguable, particularly with respect the texts ascribed to the Abrahamic god, that these presumptions are absolutely not the case. Some of the Abrahamic values are idiotic and illogical, some are easily arguable as being odious in relation to considerations of fairness, kindness, empathy, patience, common sense and reason.
Freedom to believe in a particular spirit, to privately pray to that spirit – to publicly announce one’s belief – that’s absolutely fine and benign. However, freedom to practice one’s religion cannot be absolute. It can be deeply problematic, as the practices may be odious and infringe on the liberties of others, particularly in public spaces. Do Jews, Christians and Muslims have the right to enslave given the tacit endorsement of the practice in their texts? Does one have the right to lob off bits of their children? We argue about the rights of the foetus, but not the rights of the infant to choose whether s/he wants their bits hacked off. Do Muslims have the right to pray in the middle of the road at rush hour under the appeal to freedom of religion? Do Pastafarians have the right to wear colanders for their Photo IDs?
Freedom of speech (that doesn't incite hatred) – yes. The spirit of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is in relation to the right, the freedom, to openly argue against the decisions of the Community’s leadership. That’s about it. We need ‘Freedom of Speech’, it’s sufficient; we need to dump ‘freedom of religion’ (to believe in whatever god one wants) as it is, for all intents and purposes, covered by ‘freedom of Speech’.
No one has the right to not feel insulted, or to not feel embarrassment. Arguing against, or ridiculing, an ideology, like a religion or political views, is not incitement to hatred. And let’s not forget, in the reference to Race, Gender, nationality and religion, ‘religion’ is the odd one out as it is a CHOICE, it’s not inherent; because it’s a choice, an ideology, one shouldn't be criminalised for belittling it. Otherwise we’re on the road to being criminalised for besmirching, say, Republicanism – are you reading this Donald Trump?
People should have the right to refrain from doing business or associating with those whose values they find odious – and, to determine a rule by which to live, what exactly is deemed odious must be determined by what the society, in general, feels to be odious. The trouble with this is the measure of society. Is the society one’s neighbourhood? Town? City? All the people of the State or its ‘representatives’, or is it the majority of the population of the USA?
Should I have the right to not serve anyone who values and promotes the Old Testament - which contains many passages reflecting the endorsement of slavery, unfairness, lack of empathy, immorality, cruelty, and idiocy - as a Guide for living? Or, as a Baker, to not serve someone who wants a cake with the words ‘Behead those who besmirch Mohamed’? I would say, yes, I have the right. What if the person who wanted that told me it was for a ruse and so therefore it would be morally ‘ok’? Would that affect the correctness of my position of refusal?
I can read some contradiction in what I've written above. I'm not sure where I'm heading with this. Sadly, it may be ‘might is right’? I would hope it to be the might of fair-play, calm reflection, common sense and logic – without an appeal to the evidently absent spirit world, it's alleged texts, and what She allegedly wants.
If you are part of a gay couple and you want my pizzaria to cater your wedding, then I follow the law, run my business properly, and cater the wedding. I also do it if you are an Aryan Nation couple, or fundamentalist pagans.
"You" are not forcing me to do anything. "You" are not the issue. That you want to make yourself the issue "speaks volumes."