Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT

[deanrd]

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!

Do you have a link?

About what?

 

[jc456]

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

so, is it your purpose to have everyone being the same? And you wish to legislate that? you wish to force others to think like you? LOL. what a fking moron.

 

[jc456]

Why would anyone mention their sexual preference to an employer?

They shouldn't have to. It has no bearing on how they do their work.

Yea, but once they figure it out, then what?

then what is right? so fking what? no one cares about your sexual habits, so why advertise it?

 

[Votto]

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!

The secular state has no business being in the marriage business period, the end.

Why should I care what politicians in Washington think as they have endless affairs and have dysfunctional marriages? Polygamists have just as much a right to marry as anyone else, but why do we want the state to be involved to prevent them?

I think the answer is obvious, it's just another entitlement. But why should someone who is not sexually active have just as many rights as those that choose to be? That also makes no sense.

In fact, why do we get a marriage license to begin with? What test did I have to take to earn it? Nothing, that is what. All it is, is a tax to earn an entitlement. Do we really want more people to marry than not? Is that the aim of the entitlement? Again, it makes no sense.

As for hiring gays, I would have no qualms hiring people who were gay, but I do have qualms forcing people to bake cakes for an event they regard as an abomination to God.

 

[jc456]

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

Well we disagree. You take a slippery slope the moment you attempt to try to legislate thoughts of another human being and I want no part of that agenda in creating a fascist state. As much as I hate what people do sometimes I know that they suffer themselves when they become hateful and their own misery falls back on them in ways perhaps you cannot see. I have been discriminated against for being non discriminatory and I believe that the purpose of discrimination and lies people push most generally derives from their own greed. The excuses that they come up with can come under the color of discrimination but that doesn't mean that is the truth behind their motivation.

again, isn't this what Hitler did with the Nazis? who is acting more like the nazis lately? hmmmm seems the left is.

 

[BlackSand]

You feel that people are capable of judging and taking responsibility for their own morals? Pretty sure that every murderer and rapist would love that idea. Government punishes and steers morals all the time. The whole point of the constitution is nothing but to give a framework of morality to society as it was understood at the time. They needed to do that because in any society their are always people who don't adhere to its norms and defining what is accepted is perfectly valid. I'm perfectly willing to accept that you have a perfect sense of right and wrong. Can you guarantee that of your neighbor?

My neighbor is not my responsibility ...

The Constitution limits the federal government ... Doesn't suggest the federal government should be the moral compass for anyone.
It also suggests that the people are better equipped to manage their affairs (10th Amendment) than the federal government.

.

 

[forkup]

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

Well we disagree. You take a slippery slope the moment you attempt to try to legislate thoughts of another human being and I want no part of that agenda in creating a fascist state. As much as I hate what people do sometimes I know that they suffer themselves when they become hateful and their own misery falls back on them in ways perhaps you cannot see. I have been discriminated against for being non discriminatory and I believe that the purpose of discrimination and lies people push most generally derives from their own greed. The excuses that they come up with can come under the color of discrimination but that doesn't mean that is the truth behind their motivation.

again, isn't this what Hitler did with the Nazis? who is acting more like the nazis lately? hmmmm seems the left is.

No what Hitler did was institutionalize racism. He took away rights from Jews on the justification that they were harmful to society. They were forbidden to participate in normal society and had all kinds of other restrictions put on them, including who they could have sex with. Sounds familiar?

 

[forkup]

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

so, is it your purpose to have everyone being the same? And you wish to legislate that? you wish to force others to think like you? LOL. what a fking moron.

No my purpose would be that everyone is treated the same before the law regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs, political beliefs, social standing, medical condition, sexual preference ( expressly understanding consensual sex), a purely merit based society, with the understanding that everybody gets the same chance of proving their merit.

 

[jc456]

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

so, is it your purpose to have everyone being the same? And you wish to legislate that? you wish to force others to think like you? LOL. what a fking moron.

No my purpose would be that everyone is treated the same before the law regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs, political beliefs, social standing, medical condition, sexual preference ( expressly understanding consensual sex), a purely merit based society, with the understanding that everybody gets the same chance of proving their merit.

well yes, if your purpose is that, then it is for everyone to have your view of the world. and dude, you don't get to make that rule. sorry, you can tell me shame on me all you want, but friend, you don't get to force me to think like you. LOL typical lib shit.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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!

Religion is an excuse to justify their hatred . These people don't care about the Bible ! They are fake religious . The Bible says tattoos are a sin. Is there an uproar over tattooed people !? No.

Old Testament Jewish law, just like eating shellfish. Never applied to the Gentiles

Perhsps YOU should actually learn the Bible before trying to use it

 

[BlackSand]

No my purpose would be that everyone is treated the same before the law regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs, political beliefs, social standing, medical condition, sexual preference ( expressly understanding consensual sex), a purely merit based society, with the understanding that everybody gets the same chance of proving their merit.

No one is stopping you from doing any of that ... We are just saying the federal government wasn't granted the power to make anyone else follow your desires.
If you want to change society ... Do the hard work required to accomplish that goal by your own merit.

.

 

[bodecea]

So....who can tell us what the purpose of marriage is?

for what reason?

Asking. Can't tell us?

 

[Timmy]

Cakes are for wedding receptions...not weddings. In fact where does the bible even talk about wedding cakes?

You just don't get it. The cake is a symbol of the celebration of the two joining together as one. The baker didn't want to be the one that made the symbol of that. But I think any business should have a choice in who he wants to do business with. As long as it doesn't effect a persons safety, or endangers their life.

So, you are actively working to get PA laws repealed, right? Signed petitions? Joined lobby organizations? Donated money to such organizations?

Look, this is an opinion forum. Didn't earlier you say that someone could be denied service if it was political?

I said that no state's PA law includes political beliefs. Race, yes....religion, yes....sexual orientation in some states, yes. Nothing about political beliefs. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So if a black guy comes in wearing an Obama shirt I could refuse him service because of politics?

Yes .

 

[Timmy]

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!

Religion is an excuse to justify their hatred . These people don't care about the Bible ! They are fake religious . The Bible says tattoos are a sin. Is there an uproar over tattooed people !? No.

Old Testament Jewish law, just like eating shellfish. Never applied to the Gentiles

Perhsps YOU should actually learn the Bible before trying to use it

Since when is the Old Testament not part of Christianity ?

Thanks for proving what fakes you are . One day you want the 10 commandments everywhere, the next day the old testament doesn't count ?! Lol. Phony Christians .

 

[JoeMoma]

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 should not discriminate. A private employer on the other hand..........

 

[Missourian]

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!

Religion is an excuse to justify their hatred . These people don't care about the Bible ! They are fake religious . The Bible says tattoos are a sin. Is there an uproar over tattooed people !? No.

Old Testament Jewish law, just like eating shellfish. Never applied to the Gentiles

Perhsps YOU should actually learn the Bible before trying to use it

Since when is the Old Testament not part of Christianity ?

Thanks for proving what fakes you are . One day you want the 10 commandments everywhere, the next day the old testament doesn't count ?! Lol. Phony Christians .

It's the old covenant...the new covenant fulfills the old and supersedes a lot of the old customs and laws. If you read the books of Moses...all those offering are replace by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The unclean beasts...Jesus says in the New Testament that "it's not what goes into the mouth that makes man unclean, but what comes out of the mouth"...wiping away the dietary laws. But when asked what one must do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven...Jesus' very first reply is "Do you keep the commandments?".

I'll add some links directly.

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

Matthew 19:17

It is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean. It is what comes out of the mouth that makes a person unclean."

Matthew 15:11

As to tattoos...here is an article that may help you understand, if you are interested:

Is my TATTOO a sin? » Reasons for Hope* Jesus

The directive condemning homosexuality is another, like the 10 Commandments, that is reinforced in the New Testament.


Romans 1:26-27, First Corinthians 6:9, First Timothy 1:9-10

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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!

Religion is an excuse to justify their hatred . These people don't care about the Bible ! They are fake religious . The Bible says tattoos are a sin. Is there an uproar over tattooed people !? No.

Old Testament Jewish law, just like eating shellfish. Never applied to the Gentiles

Perhsps YOU should actually learn the Bible before trying to use it

Since when is the Old Testament not part of Christianity ?

Thanks for proving what fakes you are . One day you want the 10 commandments everywhere, the next day the old testament doesn't count ?! Lol. Phony Christians .

You, as usual, do not have the first clue. You used an example, I called you out for being wrong. Just like when you bible "scholars" try to use the shellfish routine.

You don't know wtf you're blabbering about...so stop. You look ridiculous

 

[bodecea]

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!

The secular state has no business being in the marriage business period, the end.

Why should I care what politicians in Washington think as they have endless affairs and have dysfunctional marriages? Polygamists have just as much a right to marry as anyone else, but why do we want the state to be involved to prevent them?

I think the answer is obvious, it's just another entitlement. But why should someone who is not sexually active have just as many rights as those that choose to be? That also makes no sense.

In fact, why do we get a marriage license to begin with? What test did I have to take to earn it? Nothing, that is what. All it is, is a tax to earn an entitlement. Do we really want more people to marry than not? Is that the aim of the entitlement? Again, it makes no sense.

As for hiring gays, I would have no qualms hiring people who were gay, but I do have qualms forcing people to bake cakes for an event they regard as an abomination to God.

So...you are working to have states drop legal (secular) marriage?

 

[jknowgood]

You just don't get it. The cake is a symbol of the celebration of the two joining together as one. The baker didn't want to be the one that made the symbol of that. But I think any business should have a choice in who he wants to do business with. As long as it doesn't effect a persons safety, or endangers their life.

So, you are actively working to get PA laws repealed, right? Signed petitions? Joined lobby organizations? Donated money to such organizations?

Look, this is an opinion forum. Didn't earlier you say that someone could be denied service if it was political?

I said that no state's PA law includes political beliefs. Race, yes....religion, yes....sexual orientation in some states, yes. Nothing about political beliefs. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So if a black guy comes in wearing an Obama shirt I could refuse him service because of politics?

Yes .

Well then the baker should say now the couple was liberal, so I don't want to bake them the cake.

 

[bodecea]

Cakes are for wedding receptions...not weddings. In fact where does the bible even talk about wedding cakes?

You just don't get it. The cake is a symbol of the celebration of the two joining together as one. The baker didn't want to be the one that made the symbol of that. But I think any business should have a choice in who he wants to do business with. As long as it doesn't effect a persons safety, or endangers their life.

So, you are actively working to get PA laws repealed, right? Signed petitions? Joined lobby organizations? Donated money to such organizations?

Look, this is an opinion forum. Didn't earlier you say that someone could be denied service if it was political?

I said that no state's PA law includes political beliefs. Race, yes....religion, yes....sexual orientation in some states, yes. Nothing about political beliefs. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So if a black guy comes in wearing an Obama shirt I could refuse him service because of politics?

Yes...no law against it...if you are clearly making it known it's because of the political shirt.....look to your state's PA laws....political leanings are not part of them.