If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Syriusly]

The distinction with the Muslim was that his ride didn't ask him to brew the booze for him and pour it down his throat. If the ride had asked that, the Muslim would've won.

Silly Silly. Your stupid tricks are for kids!

Christian baker- refused to bake cake for gay customers- citing religious objections.
Muslim cabbie- refused to give ride to customers with dogs- citing religious objections.

Exact same thing- in both cases business citing religious objections as a reason to refuse to do business with a customer who was in a protected class.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we need to post the video again?

Oh please do.

I am pretty sure I know which one you mean- and if you post it- just please be sure that that means you are saying you believe that video to be an honest and true presentation of the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

I’m agreeing with you on this. Children legally have diminished capabilities, so arguing they can enter in to this kind of agreement is baseless

Children can NEVER enter into a contract with adults that harms them. That's why Obergefell isn't worth the paper its written on. A child cannot share benefits of a contract that contains terms that banishes him or her from all hope of having either a mother or father for life. It's illegal.

Children can enter into contracts with their parents permission.
They can't enter into contracts before they are born.
Obergefell of course is still in effect- and has nothing about contracts with children.
And no marriage banishes any child from anything.

You are just an idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Except of course.......not really.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Mind you, I don't blame them. I wouldn't pick a fight with someone who might decide to blow up my house, either.

Or maybe Muslims value and understand the true meaning of religious freedom

You've never lived in a Muslim country, have you?

I live in America with American Muslims. I have never had an American Muslim ever use the term '***' to me- but I have certainly had many American Christians use that term in my presence.

 

[buttercup]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

Hold on a minute. You don't believe that all laws are rooted in objective truth, do you? You can't actually believe that, but the reason I ask is because the way you worded your last sentence almost makes it sound like you are equating those two. So to be clear, please answer this question… Do man-made laws constitute objective truth, yes or no?

And I see what the problem is here. You are looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. And I am looking at it from a more philosophical standpoint. When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Syriusly]

I just realized, the right will never win this argument. Political correctness has become so ingrained into our culture, it has made people afraid to stand for their values, and beliefs.

The left will never understand that, because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate them, or even want to oppress them.

People just want to be left alone, to do what it is they do, and to have government stay out of their lives.

People just need to get over themselves, and suck it up. If someone offends you, get over it, move along. So, you got your feelings hurt, does that give you the right to ruin someone's life over it? No, it doesn't, and the fact that the law sides with you is wrong, and if you think you have the right to ruin someone's life, and business just because you got your feelings hurt, then you seriously need a reality check.

So what, someone doesn't like you, or won't do business with you because you are gay, if that upsets you, then it shows what a weak willed and emotionally bankrupt person you are. Anyone with self esteem would probably not want to do business with that company anyway, but no, gay man gets his feathers ruffled, so he's going to make a fuss over it, business possibly has to close its doors, and that family is now in dire straits, because of your feelings??

This is akin to what a child would do, "you said a bad word, so I'm going to tell on you!!"

But alas, the law is in the side of "feelings", so rational decision making is out the window...

People just want to be left alone......

Louisiana Lawmakers Refuse To Repeal State Law Banning Oral Sex

Louisiana Lawmakers Refuse To Repeal State Law Banning Oral Sex

 

[buttercup]

I live in America with American Muslims. I have never had an American Muslim ever use the term '***' to me- but I have certainly had many American Christians use that term in my presence.

I was replying to PP's statement "maybe Muslims value and understand the true meaning of religious freedom" – which actually made me laugh out loud, because I have lived in a Muslim country. There was certainly no religious freedom there, as we were not even allowed to openly practice our religion, we had to do it secretly.

As for what you said above, please keep in mind that many Christians in the US are solely cultural Christians. In other words, they may come from a Christian background, they may even identify as Christians, but they are not actual followers of Christ. Followers of Christ are commanded to love others… That is the second most important command. So any Christian who acts in a hateful way is probably either a spiritually immature Christian, or a cultural Christian who isn't actually saved and following Jesus.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't care what gays do in private. But now we HAVE to "accept" gays mandatorily because it's "freedom". When did Rod Serling add the liberal "twilight zone" amendment to the constitution? I missed that. And if we don't agree, because we are free humans that might have difference of opinion? We can't have THAT much freedom, can WE?

Mary- what law says you have to accept gays- or blacks or Jews?

You can have whatever opinion you want- nothing has changed.

Doesn't mean your opinion will be free from criticism- but you clearly can express your opinion here or elsewhere.

 

[Syriusly]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

I don't know about Progressive but I will answer that- as I did before.

All of man's laws are subjective. Every one of them. Take murder for instance- we say it murder is wrong- but we define murder very subjectively- it isn't murder for instance to kill someone who is attacking you- or to kill an enemy.

Now can anyone's opinion be more right than anyone else's?

Sure. The opinion that rape- and murder- and arson- are all bad is more right than the opinion that those are good things.

 

[Syriusly]

I live in America with American Muslims. I have never had an American Muslim ever use the term '***' to me- but I have certainly had many American Christians use that term in my presence.

As for what you said above, please keep in mind that many Christians in the US are solely cultural Christians. In other words, they may come from a Christian background, they may even identify as Christians, but they are not actual followers of Christ. Followers of Christ are commanded to love others… That is the second most important command. So any Christian who acts in a hateful way is probably either a spiritually immature Christian, or a cultural Christian who isn't actually saved and following Jesus.

Sorry I don't accept that when Muslims do bad things they are still Muslims, but when Christians do bad things they are not really Christians.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry I don't accept that when Muslims do bad things they are still Muslims, but when Christians do bad things they are not really Christians.

And up in the top ten probably as a bad thing a Christian could do is to condone, participate in or promote homosexual lifestlyists hijacking the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman and then using that icon to normalize their deviant lifestyle in any culture the Christian is a part of.

Read Romans 1 first. Then read Jude 1. It's all there in black and white. It's a mortal sin condemning a Christian soul to the pit of fire forever. No state can force a Christian to do that. And no state may punish a Christian by disallowing him in the public marketplace for passively refusing to do that; that would be discrimination and violation of his 1st Amendment rights. CLEARLY delineated and spelled out. Meanwhile after searching the federal laws I cannot find one that Congress enacted saying that gay lifestylists (only, but not other repugnant behavior groups) have equal or similar protections. It just isn't there.

 

[buttercup]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

I don't know about Progressive but I will answer that- as I did before.

All of man's laws are subjective. Every one of them. Take murder for instance- we say it murder is wrong- but we define murder very subjectively- it isn't murder for instance to kill someone who is attacking you- or to kill an enemy.

Now can anyone's opinion be more right than anyone else's?

Sure. The opinion that rape- and murder- and arson- are all bad is more right than the opinion that those are good things.

Killing someone in self-defense is not murder. The definition of murder is: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Both legally and morally there has always been a distinction between killing an attacker who is trying to murder you.... and killing an innocent person, especially with malice aforethought. The latter is murder.

As for what you said about man’s laws and opinions… Let’s set aside man’s laws, for the moment, and go to the ideas behind those laws. Do you believe that all morals/ethics are subjective?

Because if you do, then you are completely contradicting yourself in the last thing you said. If all morals are subjective, then no... no one opinion can be more right than any other.

Subjective by definition means of or relating to the subject (the person holding the idea), instead of the object. It has to do with a person's tastes, perceptions or personal beliefs.... Not facts or external universal truths.

If you claim that morality is subjective, then you are putting it in the same category as which flavor of ice cream is best. One person might say "chocolate is the best flavor!" And another person will say "vanilla is the best!" Who is right? There is no right answer, because it is subjective, it relates to a person’s tastes, and we all have different tastes, likes or dislikes.

If morality is subjective, then no particular morality can be more right or true than any other. What that really boils down to is it makes morality and principles completely meaningless. If there is no actual truth, then Jeffrey Dahmer is just as right as Mother Teresa. His morality can’t be bad, if there is no fixed, objective standard to measure it against.

 

[Syriusly]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

I don't know about Progressive but I will answer that- as I did before.

All of man's laws are subjective. Every one of them. Take murder for instance- we say it murder is wrong- but we define murder very subjectively- it isn't murder for instance to kill someone who is attacking you- or to kill an enemy.

Now can anyone's opinion be more right than anyone else's?

Sure. The opinion that rape- and murder- and arson- are all bad is more right than the opinion that those are good things.

Killing someone in self-defense is not murder. The definition of murder is: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Both legally and morally there has always been a distinction between killing an attacker who is trying to murder you.... and killing an innocent person, especially with malice aforethought. The latter is murder.t.

And who created that definition? Humans. It is an entirely subjective definition. I agree that Murder is wrong- and killing in self defense is not- but both are killing. So we cannot say objectively that killing another human is wrong- we have made the subjective decision that killing in certain situations is wrong.

 

[buttercup]

I live in America with American Muslims. I have never had an American Muslim ever use the term '***' to me- but I have certainly had many American Christians use that term in my presence.

As for what you said above, please keep in mind that many Christians in the US are solely cultural Christians. In other words, they may come from a Christian background, they may even identify as Christians, but they are not actual followers of Christ. Followers of Christ are commanded to love others… That is the second most important command. So any Christian who acts in a hateful way is probably either a spiritually immature Christian, or a cultural Christian who isn't actually saved and following Jesus.

Sorry I don't accept that when Muslims do bad things they are still Muslims, but when Christians do bad things they are not really Christians.

Is that what you got out of what I said?? I never asserted that.

I can’t comment on Islam, because I haven't studied the Koran. The only thing I was saying was that Christians who are hateful are in direct contradiction to one of the most important commandments, straight from the mouth of Jesus. (Matthew 22:34-40)

In the Bible, Jesus said you will know who is true by their “fruits”.... Jesus also said “anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.” So obviously if a professed Christian continually thumbs their nose at Jesus' commands, then they most likely aren’t a true believer...or they are very early in their journey with God and still have a lot of growing and learning to do.

 

[Syriusly]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

I don't know about Progressive but I will answer that- as I did before.

All of man's laws are subjective. Every one of them. Take murder for instance- we say it murder is wrong- but we define murder very subjectively- it isn't murder for instance to kill someone who is attacking you- or to kill an enemy.

Now can anyone's opinion be more right than anyone else's?

Sure. The opinion that rape- and murder- and arson- are all bad is more right than the opinion that those are good things.

Killing someone in self-defense is not murder. The definition of murder is: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Both legally and morally there has always been a distinction between killing an attacker who is trying to murder you.... and killing an innocent person, especially with malice aforethought. The latter is murder.

As for what you said about man’s laws and opinions… Let’s set aside man’s laws, for the moment, and go to the ideas behind those laws. Do you believe that all morals/ethics are subjective?

Because if you do, then you are completely contradicting yourself in the last thing you said. If all morals are subjective, then no... no one opinion can be more right than any other.

Subjective by definition means of or relating to the subject (the person holding the idea), instead of the object. It has to do with a person's tastes, perceptions or personal beliefs.... Not facts or external universal truths.

If you claim that morality is subjective, then you are putting it in the same category as which flavor of ice cream is best. One person might say "chocolate is the best flavor!" And another person will say "vanilla is the best!" Who is right? There is no right answer, because it is subjective, it relates to a person’s tastes, and we all have different tastes, likes or dislikes.
.

We as a society decide what morals are correct- which means that they are subjective- not objective.

Human life? Many societies- perhaps most societies- in human history- put less value on human life than we do now.

If any morals were 'objective' then there would be some way to 'prove' that that specific moral was correct. So how do you prove that a moral is objectively correct?

 

[Syriusly]

I live in America with American Muslims. I have never had an American Muslim ever use the term '***' to me- but I have certainly had many American Christians use that term in my presence.

As for what you said above, please keep in mind that many Christians in the US are solely cultural Christians. In other words, they may come from a Christian background, they may even identify as Christians, but they are not actual followers of Christ. Followers of Christ are commanded to love others… That is the second most important command. So any Christian who acts in a hateful way is probably either a spiritually immature Christian, or a cultural Christian who isn't actually saved and following Jesus.

Sorry I don't accept that when Muslims do bad things they are still Muslims, but when Christians do bad things they are not really Christians.

Is that what you got out of what I said?? I never asserted that.

I can’t comment on Islam, because I haven't studied the Koran. The only thing I was saying was that Christians who are hateful are in direct contradiction to one of the most important commandments, straight from the mouth of Jesus. (Matthew 22:34-40)

In the Bible, Jesus said you will know who is true by their “fruits”.... Jesus also said “anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.” So obviously if a professed Christian continually thumbs their nose at Jesus' commands, then they most likely aren’t a true believer...or they are very early in their journey with God and still have a lot of growing and learning to do.

I was commenting on what you said. You commented on Muslims- and then on Christians.

I judge people by how they actually act- if someone calls himself a Muslim and acts in a particular way- I do not try to analize whether he was a 'real' Muslim or not- I judge him by his actions. I do the same with any Christian.

When Muslim imams call Islamist terrorists not true Muslims- I accept that in the same way I accept when you say others are not true Christians- either it is one way or the other.

 

[buttercup]

We as a society decide what morals are correct- which means that they are subjective- not objective.

Human life? Many societies- perhaps most societies- in human history- put less value on human life than we do now.

If any morals were 'objective' then there would be some way to 'prove' that that specific moral was correct. So how do you prove that a moral is objectively correct?

This is a big topic, and there is so much to be said about it. It’s probably not something we can get to the bottom of in a few paragraphs on this thread. Not to mention the fact that it’s not the thread topic.

As for the proof that you want, you do realize that when something is not physical… In other words abstract, immaterial… You can’t prove it in the same way that you would prove something scientifically.

So, when it comes to things like this, I think one needs to look at all the arguments, weigh the evidence… and decide which one makes more sense and is more logical. I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and the view that morality is subjective results in lots of contradictions and absurdities. I firmly believe that morality is objective.

And by the way, did you know that even some atheists believe that? They just don’t attribute that objective morality to God… But nevertheless, even some atheists will tell you that morality is not subjective.

 

[Pop23]

(Until the paradox is resolved)

What class of person(s) is he discriminating

I can’t think of a single discrimination case where this is so difficult to define.

If it’s males, then he would serve females, he doesn’t. If it were homosexuals, he would serve heterosexuals, he doesn’t.

So, what class does he discriminate?

No unresolved paradox.

The court proceedings were based on sexual orientation (because we all know that was the real characteristic of the customers that mattered). Lower courts found him in violation of the law - no paradox. In a narrow ruling the SCOTUS reversed the ruling not because he did't break the law, but because of hostile actions of the Commission.

They did not rule against the law, so today if Mr. Phillips takes the same action he will again be in violation of the law and the case will start all over again. They specifically noted in their punt opinion that addressing the core issue of freedom of speech and religion providing exceptions to generally applicable laws would have to be addressed in a later (i.e. untainted case).

You tied to make an argument that he didn't violate the law because he wouldn't sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple that were heterosexual. I pointed out that he still violated the law because sex is also included. Since that was pointed out you have tried to make it appear he didn't discriminate based on sex either, clearly a failure of logic because he specifically said he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman customers but not man/man or woman/woman. Clearly a decision based on the sex of the customer.


.>>>>

So now, this case that was thrown out is based on sexuality?

Time after time it was Sex, now it’s sexuality?

Strange, he won’t make same sex wedding cakes for heterosexuals either.

So, what protected class is being treated differently then the non protected class?

 

[Pop23]

(Until the paradox is resolved)

What class of person(s) is he discriminating

I can’t think of a single discrimination case where this is so difficult to define.

If it’s males, then he would serve females, he doesn’t. If it were homosexuals, he would serve heterosexuals, he doesn’t.

So, what class does he discriminate?

No unresolved paradox.

The court proceedings were based on sexual orientation (because we all know that was the real characteristic of the customers that mattered). Lower courts found him in violation of the law - no paradox. In a narrow ruling the SCOTUS reversed the ruling not because he did't break the law, but because of hostile actions of the Commission.

They did not rule against the law, so today if Mr. Phillips takes the same action he will again be in violation of the law and the case will start all over again. They specifically noted in their punt opinion that addressing the core issue of freedom of speech and religion providing exceptions to generally applicable laws would have to be addressed in a later (i.e. untainted case).

You tied to make an argument that he didn't violate the law because he wouldn't sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple that were heterosexual. I pointed out that he still violated the law because sex is also included. Since that was pointed out you have tried to make it appear he didn't discriminate based on sex either, clearly a failure of logic because he specifically said he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman customers but not man/man or woman/woman. Clearly a decision based on the sex of the customer.


.>>>>

It is also quite clear that he would make wedding cakes for any sex and any sexuality in the traditional style, he simply does not, nor has he ever carried or created the new product.

As in my example of the song writer, the artist cannot create the art that he does not relate too.

Forcing an artist to create art is absurd.