Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[TemplarKormac]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Got point, however 85% of the religious hate crimes were not directed at Christians.

And from what I read, the FBI report didn't specify what religious demographic was the primary target of these hate crimes. Nice dodge, but you forgot about the wall.

And predictably, a majority of the religious hate crimes are against Jews:

Religious bias
Of the 1,223 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

• 60.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
• 13.7 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.
• 6.1 percent were victims of anti-Catholic bias.
• 4.3 percent were victims of bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 3.8 percent were victims of anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.6 percent were victims of anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 11.2 percent were victims of bias against other religions (anti-other religion). (Based on Table 1.)

FBI Victims

 

[NYcarbineer]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

IOW, you didn't name any issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

IOW, you didn't name any issues.

You proved that rightwingers like you don't want to tolerate AT ALL the actions you disagree with,
and your thread is just an elaborate rationalization of that desire.

 

[JoeB131]

How is my saying, "Yes, your relationship is just like my marriage" essential for them to get married? How is having a specific baker bake their wedding cake required for them to get married?

No one's "not allowing" it. We just aren't agreeing with it. Doesn't stop them from having a marriage, if that's what they think it is, any more than my thinking the next-door neighbor's marriage is a sham because he's fucking three or four women a week on the side (my actual neighbor doesn't, but if he did . . .)

But here's the thing. Your neighbor who fucks three or four other women STILL gets the legal recognition of his marriage. His wife still gets the legal protections that the other four women don't get. He has a heart attack while boning Mistress #3, the wife still gets all his property and custody of the kids.

Gays should get the same protections.

 

[JoeB131]

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

This is sort of nonsense. No one is forcing you not to believe in your imaginary sky man. You just can use that as an excuse to abuse those who don't believe in him, or maybe they do, but they don't think he's as hung up on the butt-sex as you do.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

So you want victims of racism and rape and violence and discrimination to be tolerant of their victimizers?

So you want gays to be tolerant of homophobe bullies? Or do you just want them to shut up because of free speech? That I understand.

Didn't the pope say expect a reaction when you offend? You offended George. Oh my!

 

[NYcarbineer]

So here's a poser for you religious rights advocates that believe discrimination is a right if it's done for a professed religious belief:

The Presbyterian Church now recognizes same sex marriage as legitimate. The church has embraced same sex marriage as a part of its religious teachings/beliefs.

So...let's say a same sex Presbyterian couple goes to a baker to buy a wedding cake. The baker, a Christian of a different variety, claims HIS religion rejects same sex marriage and sees it as sinful and therefore he believes he can refuse a same sex couple service on religious grounds.

The same sex couple responds, we are Presbyterians and our religion approves of same sex marriage. It is thus our religious belief that we have the right to marry, and the right to be treated equally...

...therefore you are discriminating against us based on our religion, which is a violation of our constitutional rights.

Who wins?

 

[Seawytch]

There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.

Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).

Don't lecture me on intolerance.

Oh, nice try...but take a look at the actual breakdown...

Of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:​

• 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

Deflection.

I think you need to look up what deflection means. Responding directly to a claim made with facts that don't support that claim is not a deflection.

 

[Seawytch]

Got point, however 85% of the religious hate crimes were not directed at Christians.

And from what I read, the FBI report didn't specify what religious demographic was the primary target of these hate crimes. Nice dodge, but you forgot about the wall.

And predictably, a majority of the religious hate crimes are against Jews:

Religious bias
Of the 1,223 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

• 60.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
• 13.7 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.
• 6.1 percent were victims of anti-Catholic bias.
• 4.3 percent were victims of bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 3.8 percent were victims of anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.6 percent were victims of anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 11.2 percent were victims of bias against other religions (anti-other religion). (Based on Table 1.)

FBI Victims

It does say what the demographics are....you just listed them. 85% are non Christian.

Why "predictably" Jews, in your estimation?

 

[Andylusion]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

Where's the list of issues the left is willing to be tolerant on? How about Christian faith in regards to LGB issues? Are you willing to be open-minded and tolerant on that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

Where's the list of issues the left is willing to be tolerant on? How about Christian faith in regards to LGB issues? Are you willing to be open-minded and tolerant on that?

What? And advocate discrimination against gays? Are you mad?

 

[Andylusion]

So here's a poser for you religious rights advocates that believe discrimination is a right if it's done for a professed religious belief:

The Presbyterian Church now recognizes same sex marriage as legitimate. The church has embraced same sex marriage as a part of its religious teachings/beliefs.

So...let's say a same sex Presbyterian couple goes to a baker to buy a wedding cake. The baker, a Christian of a different variety, claims HIS religion rejects same sex marriage and sees it as sinful and therefore he believes he can refuse a same sex couple service on religious grounds.

The same sex couple responds, we are Presbyterians and our religion approves of same sex marriage. It is thus our religious belief that we have the right to marry, and the right to be treated equally...

...therefore you are discriminating against us based on our religion, which is a violation of our constitutional rights.

Who wins?

That's easy. The error in thinking, involves you assuming the "Presbyterian Church" has any authority in the matter.

A Christian only has one ultimate authority in his life. Just one. G-d through his Word, the Bible. I don't care what ANYONE says about ANYTHING.... if it contradicts the Bible. The Bible is the one single ultimate Authority.

It's not the Pope. It's not the Southern Baptist Convention. It's not Joel Osteen, or Billy Gram, or Jerry Fawell. It's not the Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church, or the Methodist Church, or the Anglican church.

It is G-d through the Bible... ALONE. No other authority.

So here is the answer to your question. The Bible makes it absolutely, 100% clear, that Homosexuality is a sin. Period. No discussion.

Therefore, if a "christian" has claimed that SSM is ok in their church..... then what they have done is identified themselves as opposing the Word of G-d, and thus they are not Christians.

If any person claims to be Christian, and says that homosexuality is not a sin, then from that point on, I treat that person like they are a pagan, because they are not a Christian.

 

[Andylusion]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

Where's the list of issues the left is willing to be tolerant on? How about Christian faith in regards to LGB issues? Are you willing to be open-minded and tolerant on that?

What? And advocate discrimination against gays? Are you mad?

So you are saying you are not open-minded and tolerant of our beliefs? Then why would you expect us to be tolerant of yours? Stalemate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

Where's the list of issues the left is willing to be tolerant on? How about Christian faith in regards to LGB issues? Are you willing to be open-minded and tolerant on that?

What? And advocate discrimination against gays? Are you mad?

So you are saying you are not open-minded and tolerant of our beliefs? Then why would you expect us to be tolerant of yours? Stalemate.

I'm saying that to be tolerant of intolerance is intolerance.

So here's a poser for you religious rights advocates that believe discrimination is a right if it's done for a professed religious belief:

The Presbyterian Church now recognizes same sex marriage as legitimate. The church has embraced same sex marriage as a part of its religious teachings/beliefs.

So...let's say a same sex Presbyterian couple goes to a baker to buy a wedding cake. The baker, a Christian of a different variety, claims HIS religion rejects same sex marriage and sees it as sinful and therefore he believes he can refuse a same sex couple service on religious grounds.

The same sex couple responds, we are Presbyterians and our religion approves of same sex marriage. It is thus our religious belief that we have the right to marry, and the right to be treated equally...

...therefore you are discriminating against us based on our religion, which is a violation of our constitutional rights.

Who wins?

That's easy. The error in thinking, involves you assuming the "Presbyterian Church" has any authority in the matter.

A Christian only has one ultimate authority in his life. Just one. G-d through his Word, the Bible. I don't care what ANYONE says about ANYTHING.... if it contradicts the Bible. The Bible is the one single ultimate Authority.

It's not the Pope. It's not the Southern Baptist Convention. It's not Joel Osteen, or Billy Gram, or Jerry Fawell. It's not the Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church, or the Methodist Church, or the Anglican church.

It is G-d through the Bible... ALONE. No other authority.

So here is the answer to your question. The Bible makes it absolutely, 100% clear, that Homosexuality is a sin. Period. No discussion.

Therefore, if a "christian" has claimed that SSM is ok in their church..... then what they have done is identified themselves as opposing the Word of G-d, and thus they are not Christians.

If any person claims to be Christian, and says that homosexuality is not a sin, then from that point on, I treat that person like they are a pagan, because they are not a Christian.

All the religions you cite draw their beliefs, teachings, tenets, and dogma from the Bible.

Secondly, there are no rules from 'God' dictating how literally one must follow the Bible in order to be a Christian.

Thirdly, the Bible offers no instruction to Christian business owners on who they must not serve.

Fourthly, religious rights in the Constitution are not limited to a particular Christianity of 'God's' definition. 'God' has never actually spoken to Man, btw. All of what is called God's word is hearsay.

...the correct answer is, if the 1st amendment is adhered to, a business denying a Presbyterian couple service because they are a same sex couple is religious discrimination.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

Tolerance stops at intolerance. Now you know.

And the Christians didn't just force Jews, Muslims, and others to convert, they expelled them or killed them if they didn't.

Centuries ago.

To illustrate the concept of evolution, ask yourself what percentage of modern day Christians are be-heading non Christians? What percentage of Christians believe that their wives should be punished for getting an education? What percentage of Cheistians stand behind the notion that the world's only Jewish state should be wiped out?

Comparatively, who is actively killing those who refuse to convert today?

 

[aris2chat]

Got point, however 85% of the religious hate crimes were not directed at Christians.

And from what I read, the FBI report didn't specify what religious demographic was the primary target of these hate crimes. Nice dodge, but you forgot about the wall.

And predictably, a majority of the religious hate crimes are against Jews:

Religious bias
Of the 1,223 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

• 60.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
• 13.7 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.
• 6.1 percent were victims of anti-Catholic bias.
• 4.3 percent were victims of bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 3.8 percent were victims of anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.6 percent were victims of anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 11.2 percent were victims of bias against other religions (anti-other religion). (Based on Table 1.)

FBI Victims

Considering jews make up around 2% of the population, that is a lot of hate crimes

 

[Pogo]

Got point, however 85% of the religious hate crimes were not directed at Christians.

And from what I read, the FBI report didn't specify what religious demographic was the primary target of these hate crimes. Nice dodge, but you forgot about the wall.

And predictably, a majority of the religious hate crimes are against Jews:

Religious bias
Of the 1,223 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

• 60.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
• 13.7 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.
• 6.1 percent were victims of anti-Catholic bias.
• 4.3 percent were victims of bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 3.8 percent were victims of anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.6 percent were victims of anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 11.2 percent were victims of bias against other religions (anti-other religion). (Based on Table 1.)

FBI Victims

Considering jews make up around 2% of the population, that is a lot of hate crimes

And ditto for Muslims at <1%. Taking the two together that's 74% (virtually three-quarters of all religion-based hate crimes) classified anti-Semitic.

 

[aris2chat]

To wit:

Where is the litany of issues people like you are willing to be tolerant on, despite your disagreement with the right on those issues? You are so focused on bending someone to tolerate you and your ways that you don't have time to be tolerant to them. We call that subversion Carbine. Tolerance, like I have explained an inordinate amount of times before on PC's thread and this one, is not forcing someone to believe as you do, to accept what they believe and believe what you want at the same time. That's tolerance.

IOW you can't name a single issue.

Where's the list of issues the left is willing to be tolerant on? How about Christian faith in regards to LGB issues? Are you willing to be open-minded and tolerant on that?

What? And advocate discrimination against gays? Are you mad?

So you are saying you are not open-minded and tolerant of our beliefs? Then why would you expect us to be tolerant of yours? Stalemate.

I'm saying that to be tolerant of intolerance is intolerance.

So here's a poser for you religious rights advocates that believe discrimination is a right if it's done for a professed religious belief:

The Presbyterian Church now recognizes same sex marriage as legitimate. The church has embraced same sex marriage as a part of its religious teachings/beliefs.

So...let's say a same sex Presbyterian couple goes to a baker to buy a wedding cake. The baker, a Christian of a different variety, claims HIS religion rejects same sex marriage and sees it as sinful and therefore he believes he can refuse a same sex couple service on religious grounds.

The same sex couple responds, we are Presbyterians and our religion approves of same sex marriage. It is thus our religious belief that we have the right to marry, and the right to be treated equally...

...therefore you are discriminating against us based on our religion, which is a violation of our constitutional rights.

Who wins?

That's easy. The error in thinking, involves you assuming the "Presbyterian Church" has any authority in the matter.

A Christian only has one ultimate authority in his life. Just one. G-d through his Word, the Bible. I don't care what ANYONE says about ANYTHING.... if it contradicts the Bible. The Bible is the one single ultimate Authority.

It's not the Pope. It's not the Southern Baptist Convention. It's not Joel Osteen, or Billy Gram, or Jerry Fawell. It's not the Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church, or the Methodist Church, or the Anglican church.

It is G-d through the Bible... ALONE. No other authority.

So here is the answer to your question. The Bible makes it absolutely, 100% clear, that Homosexuality is a sin. Period. No discussion.

Therefore, if a "christian" has claimed that SSM is ok in their church..... then what they have done is identified themselves as opposing the Word of G-d, and thus they are not Christians.

If any person claims to be Christian, and says that homosexuality is not a sin, then from that point on, I treat that person like they are a pagan, because they are not a Christian.

All the religions you cite draw their beliefs, teachings, tenets, and dogma from the Bible.

Secondly, there are no rules from 'God' dictating how literally one must follow the Bible in order to be a Christian.

Thirdly, the Bible offers no instruction to Christian business owners on who they must not serve.

Fourthly, religious rights in the Constitution are not limited to a particular Christianity of 'God's' definition. 'God' has never actually spoken to Man, btw. All of what is called God's word is hearsay.

...the correct answer is, if the 1st amendment is adhered to, a business denying a Presbyterian couple service because they are a same sex couple is religious discrimination.

Most laws are based on the morals of the bible.
Most of religions of the world hold similar beliefs and laws.

Christianity is based on the foundation of the OT, Islam in based on the foundation of the OT and part of the NT.

Without the "god" issues, most people have found the rules and guidelines found in the bible are the basis of a good life and community.

It should not be so much about following a religion but about just being a good person. Treat each other the way you would want people to treat you. Set the example. We do not live in the world alone, nor can we. We need to work with others, cooperate. To thrive we should not be dealing with war and hate, but with jobs and living standards, with building the economy for everyone.

If a customer is disruptive, hostile, dangerous or rude to the owner and other customers, a business should have the right to ask the person to leave and find someone else to do business with. It should not be about the troublesome customer but about all the other customers. It should not be a judgement of dress or looks, but behavior and the situation in general for all.

Everyone should have a right not to be prejudged, to be given a chance.