Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT

[bodecea]

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

It's what you get when you choose to have a secular government, as opposed to one where a religion gets to make the laws of the land.

A secular government that must not infringe religious freedom.

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

And then doxing them on Facebook....why do people not mention that little gem?

 

[jknowgood]

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I expect the same consideration.

You are not forced to operate a secular business that would require you by law to violate your religious beliefs.

So I'm not obligated to pay extra taxes or conform my lifestyle to worship at the alter of your religion, climate change?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I expect the same consideration.

You are not forced to operate a secular business that would require you by law to violate your religious beliefs.

So I'm not obligated to pay extra taxes or conform my lifestyle to worship at the alter of your religion, climate change?

No sane people classify climate change views, for or against, as a religion. Including US law.

 

[jknowgood]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

 

[jknowgood]

Ok so a mass murderer is forgiven as long as he repents before he dies? But someone who is gay and follows his heart shouldn't be forgiven? You would rather hire a repentant mass murderer then a unrepentant gay person? Sorry to put it in those terms but that is the logical conclusion to that argument.

You invoked the teachings of Jesus on forgiveness...and I informed you that you were mistaken.

My religion doesn't require that I hire, or refuse to hire either. But the government should also not force me to hire either. Jesus chose to eat with sinners, and he didn't rebuke those who chose not to do so. A person with deeply held religious convictions should not be forced by the government to embrace sin, or be forced to invite sin into their business. Whether that is paying for abortion or contraception, or hiring people who engage in behavior the owners religious beliefs codify as sinful.

That is religious freedom.

It's not like we just made this stuff up last year...it has been a part of our religion for millenia. The prohibitions against homosexuality are recorded in the very first book of the Bible...Genesis 19:4-5 and continue through out the Old Testament and into the New...Jesus reiterated the proclamations that God had made them male and female...and that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife. There isn't any room for discussion in that statement.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

 

[jknowgood]

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

It's what you get when you choose to have a secular government, as opposed to one where a religion gets to make the laws of the land.

A secular government that must not infringe religious freedom.

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

And then doxing them on Facebook....why do people not mention that little gem?

Never heard about that, what did he do?

 

[jknowgood]

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I expect the same consideration.

You are not forced to operate a secular business that would require you by law to violate your religious beliefs.

So I'm not obligated to pay extra taxes or conform my lifestyle to worship at the alter of your religion, climate change?

No sane people classify climate change views, for or against, as a religion. Including US law.

What? You want people to change their lifestyles for your religion of climate change that's a fact. I remember Obama telling us to bump up the thermostat in the summer and bump it down in the winter. Screw him I pay my power bill, I will keep my thermostat where it keeps me comfortable. Or Obama going after coal, before he found an alternative source of energy. In which raises our power bill. You mean that kind of forcing your religion of climate change down my throat. My goodness the baker refused to bake a wedding cake, but he did sell them everyday pastries.

 

[miketx]

Why would anyone mention their sexual preference to an employer?

Hoping for a date?

 

[bodecea]

It's what you get when you choose to have a secular government, as opposed to one where a religion gets to make the laws of the land.

A secular government that must not infringe religious freedom.

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

And then doxing them on Facebook....why do people not mention that little gem?

Never heard about that, what did he do?

That's exactly what he did.....it's good to know that particulars of a case you are discussing

 

[bodecea]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That's not what happened, you know.

 

[jknowgood]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

That's not what happened, you know.

So if you agree with the business owners it's okay? Got it, lol.

 

[jknowgood]

A secular government that must not infringe religious freedom.

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

And then doxing them on Facebook....why do people not mention that little gem?

Never heard about that, what did he do?

That's exactly what he did.....it's good to know that particulars of a case you are discussing

So he blackmailed them?

 

[forkup]

Ok so a mass murderer is forgiven as long as he repents before he dies? But someone who is gay and follows his heart shouldn't be forgiven? You would rather hire a repentant mass murderer then a unrepentant gay person? Sorry to put it in those terms but that is the logical conclusion to that argument.

You invoked the teachings of Jesus on forgiveness...and I informed you that you were mistaken.

My religion doesn't require that I hire, or refuse to hire either. But the government should also not force me to hire either. Jesus chose to eat with sinners, and he didn't rebuke those who chose not to do so. A person with deeply held religious convictions should not be forced by the government to embrace sin, or be forced to invite sin into their business. Whether that is paying for abortion or contraception, or hiring people who engage in behavior the owners religious beliefs codify as sinful.

That is religious freedom.

It's not like we just made this stuff up last year...it has been a part of our religion for millenia. The prohibitions against homosexuality are recorded in the very first book of the Bible...Genesis 19:4-5 and continue through out the Old Testament and into the New...Jesus reiterated the proclamations that God had made them male and female...and that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife. There isn't any room for discussion in that statement.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

 

[bodecea]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

Political views are not protected by PA laws in any state.

 

[bodecea]

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

And then doxing them on Facebook....why do people not mention that little gem?

Never heard about that, what did he do?

That's exactly what he did.....it's good to know that particulars of a case you are discussing

So he blackmailed them?

No, he doxed them. You do know what that means, right?

 

[jknowgood]

Ok so a mass murderer is forgiven as long as he repents before he dies? But someone who is gay and follows his heart shouldn't be forgiven? You would rather hire a repentant mass murderer then a unrepentant gay person? Sorry to put it in those terms but that is the logical conclusion to that argument.

You invoked the teachings of Jesus on forgiveness...and I informed you that you were mistaken.

My religion doesn't require that I hire, or refuse to hire either. But the government should also not force me to hire either. Jesus chose to eat with sinners, and he didn't rebuke those who chose not to do so. A person with deeply held religious convictions should not be forced by the government to embrace sin, or be forced to invite sin into their business. Whether that is paying for abortion or contraception, or hiring people who engage in behavior the owners religious beliefs codify as sinful.

That is religious freedom.

It's not like we just made this stuff up last year...it has been a part of our religion for millenia. The prohibitions against homosexuality are recorded in the very first book of the Bible...Genesis 19:4-5 and continue through out the Old Testament and into the New...Jesus reiterated the proclamations that God had made them male and female...and that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife. There isn't any room for discussion in that statement.

So you are saying that its alright to not follow the example of Jesus Christ who as you said, chose to eat with sinners. Because in the end he doesn't judge me for doing the right thing? This is the ultimate religious catch all. Hey I'll be forgiven as long as I repent at the end. It's also the reason I think the poster asked that question. By the way yes he did rebuke being religious over being compassionate. Its like I said the whole premise of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the bible it says hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus ate with them, he didn't help them do what they did when they sinned. Big difference.

How is giving a person a job helping them sin? How is even baking their wedding cake helping them sin?I didn't realize wedding cake makers offered sexual help on the side. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Cause if you consider that helping, then Jesus eating with sinners is helping them. Btw as I stated before the bible is full of stuff that is simply immoral by today's standards, what's your criteria for social relevance, because in the end its all pick and choose and intolerance was something that Jesus actually did preach against. Something that you now are trying to justify.

You will never get it. The baker didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, because it is a sin against his religion. That's it, he sold them everyday items. Would you demand a Satanist give special services to a Christian function?

 

[deltex1]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

It's not about religion as much as its about abnormal people. Would you want a social worker who is counseling your kids to show up one week as a man...and the next week as a woman?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the transgender issue....if that is, in fact what you're alluding to.?? Ignorance is abnormal although not as much as it should be.

I know a guy who does exactly that. GFY.

 

[jknowgood]

wjmacguffin ... Let me turn that around for you...should liars and adulterers (those who remarry would also be classified as adulterous) be given special protections under the law?

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

Let me see if I can help to screw your head on the right way.

The issue is not who gets special protections.

The issue is: Should employers and places of public accommodation be able to use religion to discriminate against those who they consider sinners or offensive to them.

They want to use that ability to discriminate against LGBT people while ignoring everything else that they profess to abhor . It is selective discrimination.

Anyone who thinks that being forced to treat people with equality to forcing them to "embrace sin" should get help to quell the voices in their head telling them that.

So how about those businesses that say they won't do business with Trump supporters. I also saw a video that a coffee shop owner kicked out a group of people for being against abortion? Now I think a business has the right to refuse service for any reason, except if it endangers the life or safety of a person. So where are you on these two circumstances?

Political views are not protected by PA laws in any state.

So if the baker said he didn't agree with the politics of the wedding. You would support it.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

And then doxing them on Facebook....why do people not mention that little gem?

Never heard about that, what did he do?

That's exactly what he did.....it's good to know that particulars of a case you are discussing

So he blackmailed them?

No, he doxed them. You do know what that means, right?

I looked it up, and it said blackmailing on Facebook.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

It's not about religion as much as its about abnormal people. Would you want a social worker who is counseling your kids to show up one week as a man...and the next week as a woman?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the transgender issue....if that is, in fact what you're alluding to.?? Ignorance is abnormal although not as much as it should be.

I know a guy who does exactly that. GFY.

You still don't know what the fuck your talking about.