Equality and Tolerance: A Purely Objective View

[TemplarKormac]

As far as Christian beliefs and homosexuality go, equality is something that both sides need to observe. Tolerance likewise, should work on an equal plane; respect for beliefs on both sides should be equal, but without one or the other sacrificing what they are or believe in for the other. Gay or Christian, it is wrong to bully one or the other into submission. I am a Christian who inherently believes homosexuality is wrong, but on the other hand, what right does that give me to force a homosexual to change him or herself because of it? It isn't my right to change them but God's if he so chooses. He created all of mankind, so it stands to reason that he has the ability to change them as well.

But it also stands to reason that a levelheaded homosexual shouldn't expect a Christian to change what he believes to sate their demands for tolerance and equality either. To change the beliefs anyone in my opinion, changes the essence of who they are. What right does any man or woman have to forcibly mold another person to fit their idyllic views of their society? But back to equality: Forcing a person to serve a homosexual couple against what he/she believes and adheres to is no better than if the converse were true. Forcing someone to exchange their beliefs for the tolerance and acceptance of another set of beliefs is wrong. There is a fine line between service and belief that needs to be addressed.

When running a business means you have to sacrifice your beliefs to keep the peace, what good is running the business? Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" When you can't run your business and hold on to your beliefs, are you truly happy? Are you being allowed to live your life the way you see fit? If not, then the laws designed by our government to ensure equality among men only breed discord and malcontent from one group to another, and vice versa. As noted author Tom Robbins says about laws: "Laws, it is said, are for the protection of the people. It's unfortunate that there are no statistics on the number of lives that are clobbered yearly as a result of laws: outmoded laws; laws that found their way onto the books as a result of ignorance, hysteria or political haymaking; antilife laws; biased laws; laws that pretend that reality is fixed and nature is definable; laws that deny people the right to refuse protection. A survey such as that could keep a dozen dull sociologists out of mischief for months."

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

 

[Plasmaball]

an objective view would have the answers in the OP.

 

[TemplarKormac]

an objective view would have the answers in the OP.

And you would make sense. A tall task.

 

[occupied]

Is homo hate inherent to Christianity? I do not think so. Hating groups of people for what they are is a learned behavior, there are many more enlightened Christians who feel that how you treat people is far more important than blind adherence to ancient scriptural dogma, how many people do you think reject Christianity only because so many Christians seem to be overly-pious pricks?

 

[Glensather]

In a perfect world, there would be no laws about who you can and cannot serve with your business because no one would give a damn.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Sorry but if a gay wants to buy some M&M's from your store you have to sell it to them. And if you, an infidel, go to a store with a muslim manager they have to sell you groceries.

If you don't like it there are several countries in the world experimenting in segregation and discrimination. They are in the middle east and Africa, the most wonderful places in the world

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

 

[Dutch]

I thought you had an epiphany and were done with this topic? Or was that your second personality?

 

[occupied]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

we are all forced to do things that do not reflect our beliefs, it's all part of living in an egalitarian society. allowing prejudice to be an accepted and even protected thing means that someone else has less rights than you do, now why would you want that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

What if a Christian business owner doesn't want to serve Jews?

It's in your power to decide which religion's freedom to protect.

What's your call, and why?

 

[SAYIT]

As far as Christian beliefs and homosexuality go, equality is something that both sides need to observe. Tolerance likewise, should work on an equal plane; respect for beliefs on both sides should be equal, but without one or the other sacrificing what they are or believe in for the other. Gay or Christian, it is wrong to bully one or the other into submission. I am a Christian who inherently believes homosexuality is wrong, but on the other hand, what right does that give me to force a homosexual to change him or herself because of it? It isn't my right to change them but God's if he so chooses. He created all of mankind, so it stands to reason that he has the ability to change them as well.

But it also stands to reason that a levelheaded homosexual shouldn't expect a Christian to change what he believes to sate their demands for tolerance and equality either. To change the beliefs anyone in my opinion, changes the essence of who they are. What right does any man or woman have to forcibly mold another person to fit their idyllic views of their society? But back to equality: Forcing a person to serve a homosexual couple against what he/she believes and adheres to is no better than if the converse were true. Forcing someone to exchange their beliefs for the tolerance and acceptance of another set of beliefs is wrong. There is a fine line between service and belief that needs to be addressed.

When running a business means you have to sacrifice your beliefs to keep the peace, what good is running the business? Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" When you can't run your business and hold on to your beliefs, are you truly happy? Are you being allowed to live your life the way you see fit? If not, then the laws designed by our government to ensure equality among men only breed discord and malcontent from one group to another, and vice versa. As noted author Tom Robbins says about laws: "Laws, it is said, are for the protection of the people. It's unfortunate that there are no statistics on the number of lives that are clobbered yearly as a result of laws: outmoded laws; laws that found their way onto the books as a result of ignorance, hysteria or political haymaking; antilife laws; biased laws; laws that pretend that reality is fixed and nature is definable; laws that deny people the right to refuse protection. A survey such as that could keep a dozen dull sociologists out of mischief for months."

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

Thing is, no one is asking or requiring anyone to be gay or condone homosexuality but we've had enough experience with intolerance and bigotry to have, as a society, accepted rules of public engagement. It's simple ... anyone who wants to enjoy our liberties must play by the rules that govern and protect those liberties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought you had an epiphany and were done with this topic? Or was that your second personality?

This is headed for healthmyths and the 46 million uninsured obsession territory.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As far as Christian beliefs and homosexuality go, equality is something that both sides need to observe. Tolerance likewise, should work on an equal plane; respect for beliefs on both sides should be equal, but without one or the other sacrificing what they are or believe in for the other. Gay or Christian, it is wrong to bully one or the other into submission. I am a Christian who inherently believes homosexuality is wrong, but on the other hand, what right does that give me to force a homosexual to change him or herself because of it? It isn't my right to change them but God's if he so chooses. He created all of mankind, so it stands to reason that he has the ability to change them as well.

But it also stands to reason that a levelheaded homosexual shouldn't expect a Christian to change what he believes to sate their demands for tolerance and equality either. To change the beliefs anyone in my opinion, changes the essence of who they are. What right does any man or woman have to forcibly mold another person to fit their idyllic views of their society? But back to equality: Forcing a person to serve a homosexual couple against what he/she believes and adheres to is no better than if the converse were true. Forcing someone to exchange their beliefs for the tolerance and acceptance of another set of beliefs is wrong. There is a fine line between service and belief that needs to be addressed.

When running a business means you have to sacrifice your beliefs to keep the peace, what good is running the business? Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" When you can't run your business and hold on to your beliefs, are you truly happy? Are you being allowed to live your life the way you see fit? If not, then the laws designed by our government to ensure equality among men only breed discord and malcontent from one group to another, and vice versa. As noted author Tom Robbins says about laws: "Laws, it is said, are for the protection of the people. It's unfortunate that there are no statistics on the number of lives that are clobbered yearly as a result of laws: outmoded laws; laws that found their way onto the books as a result of ignorance, hysteria or political haymaking; antilife laws; biased laws; laws that pretend that reality is fixed and nature is definable; laws that deny people the right to refuse protection. A survey such as that could keep a dozen dull sociologists out of mischief for months."

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

Thing is, no one is asking or requiring anyone to be gay or condone homosexuality but we've had enough experience with intolerance and bigotry to have, as a society, accepted rules of public engagement. It's simple ... anyone who wants to enjoy our liberties must play by the rules that govern and protect those liberties.

Since when did liberty play by rules?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

What if a Christian business owner doesn't want to serve Jews?

It's in your power to decide which religion's freedom to protect.

What's your call, and why?

He should be able to serve (or not) anyone he wishes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

What if a Christian business owner doesn't want to serve Jews?

It's in your power to decide which religion's freedom to protect.

What's your call, and why?

Given that most of Christianity was derived from Judaic principles, to say we would ever refuse service to Jews would be like us discriminating against ourselves. Your argument is one of false equivalency.

 

[KNB]

Why don't Christians understand that Christianity doesn't have authority over American law?

You Republican Conservative Christians claim to love the US Constitution so much, so why don't any of you respect it enough to quit trying to vote your religious beliefs into public law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

What if a Christian business owner doesn't want to serve Jews?

It's in your power to decide which religion's freedom to protect.

What's your call, and why?

He should be able to serve (or not) anyone he wishes.

That constitutes discrimination, and the Jew has the constitutional right not to be discriminated against because of HIS religion.

Where in the Constitution is it stated or implied that Christians are exempt from having to obey the laws that protect the religious freedom of the Jew?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you even read your own question?

 

[SAYIT]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

What if a Christian business owner doesn't want to serve Jews?

It's in your power to decide which religion's freedom to protect.

What's your call, and why?

Given that most of Christianity was derived from Judaic principles, to say we would ever refuse service to Jews would be like us discriminating against ourselves. Your argument is one of false equivalency.

Perhaps but do you doubt that America's Christians once discriminated against Jews, often using the levers of gov't, as a matter of course? Ever heard of Blue Laws? They still exist and are enforced.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I live near a town of about 20,000 that now has a grand total of 2 supermarkets. If by some chance, in a different sort of America, they were both owned by Christians who didn't want homosexuals on the premises, and the law allowed them to discriminate,

all the known to be gay people in that town would have to do their grocery shopping in the next town down the road,

about 20 miles away.

That would be the penalty, or a penalty, that being gay would impose on those people, with the blessing of the Constitution of the United States of America.

That is also, in just one example, what modern American conservatism looks like.