CDZ Individual Rights vs. Society

[Nosmo King]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

 

[dblack]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

 

[Bonzi]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Yet, it's okay to discriminate against Christian's?

 

[dblack]

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Yet, it's okay to discriminate against Christian's?

I think discrimination laws are wrong across-the-board. But according to the law, in the narrow sense that discrimination is defined, it's not ok. My understanding is that a gay baker who refused to bake cakes for Christians would be in violation of the law as well.

 

[Nosmo King]

So stop the lies. These people are not Christians at all. These people are mindless bigots who chose to twist Christianity to serve their vile purpose. And then they seek to twist an amendment that is supposed to prevent religious repression so they can repress using phony religious grounds. The gall these people show is unparalleled and totally revealing of a weak intellectual makeup

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Exactly! This is a recent phenomena. The obscure dogma championed by a minority of alleged Christians is not a basic tenet of the faith. These so-called Christians have conducted business with homosexuals for decades. Yet as soon as marriage equality became the law of the land, these bigots in the guise of Christians found a piece of scripture they mis-interpreted just so they might find ecumenical and legal cover for their bigotry.

I'm a Christian and never have I heard my minister, nor any other minister admonish the congregation to discriminate against homosexuals. Never has the status of our immortal souls been brought into question over the issue of commerce with the LGBT community.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Yet, it's okay to discriminate against Christian's?

Where have Christians been denied service? Where have Christians been told that they are not worthy of commerce?

 

[Bonzi]

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Yet, it's okay to discriminate against Christian's?

Where have Christians been denied service? Where have Christians been told that they are not worthy of commerce?

Commerce is not the only form of discrimination.
Do you think a child would be kicked out of school for wearing a gay pride shirt?

 

[dblack]

Do you think ALL Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin -- are not a Christians at all?

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Exactly! This is a recent phenomena. The obscure dogma championed by a minority of alleged Christians is not a basic tenet of the faith. These so-called Christians have conducted business with homosexuals for decades. Yet as soon as marriage equality became the law of the land, these bigots in the guise of Christians found a piece of scripture they mis-interpreted just so they might find ecumenical and legal cover for their bigotry.

I'm a Christian and never have I heard my minister, nor any other minister admonish the congregation to discriminate against homosexuals. Never has the status of our immortal souls been brought into question over the issue of commerce with the LGBT community.

Well, ok. That's not really what I meant though. I don't know, nor do I care, whether true Christianity deems homosexuality a sin. My point is that the First Amendment shouldn't be construed as a get-out-of-jail-free-card allowing people to ignore laws that don't accommodate their religious views.

 

[Nosmo King]

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Yet, it's okay to discriminate against Christian's?

Where have Christians been denied service? Where have Christians been told that they are not worthy of commerce?

Commerce is not the only form of discrimination.
Do you think a child would be kicked out of school for wearing a gay pride shirt?

Is this an example of discrimination against Christians?

 

[emilynghiem]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Well written laws ensure both individual liberty and collective law and order.

Where people start fearing loss of control, division, competition or greed for power,
this "scarcity mentality" fuels the fear we cannot balance both, but have to "compete" for political interests.

If you look at the media and politicians who profit off the division, they are not focused on solving the actual conflicts.
My advice is to look at people who are able to manage diverse interests, resolve conflicts, and promote effective solutions
that don't compromise one for the other. And let that set the standard instead of this fear-mongering victim mentality.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's not at all what I said, is it? I'm saying that so-called Christians who hide behind their "faith" in order to discriminate in commerce are not acting at all as Christians. They are bigots who seek to pervert Christianity to an ugly purpose and should not have the cover of "religious freedom' to do so.

Okay well I will admit, there are those that do that. Unfortunately, they make other well meaning and sincerely believing Christian's look bad (because people then assume all Christian's are like that) - it's important for Christian's to explain themselves and why they believe what they do.... but for a TRUE Christian, it's not about hate. Jesus commanded us to LOVE our neighbor.

Could these bigots masquerading as Christians be able to secure legal cover under the first amendment to protect their discriminatory practices? Can it be said that Christianity mandates discrimination against homosexuals? Would that be a fair and accepted practice of faith?

If discrimination is illegal for everyone else, there's no reason religions should get a pass. That's not a proper application of the first amendment.

Exactly! This is a recent phenomena. The obscure dogma championed by a minority of alleged Christians is not a basic tenet of the faith. These so-called Christians have conducted business with homosexuals for decades. Yet as soon as marriage equality became the law of the land, these bigots in the guise of Christians found a piece of scripture they mis-interpreted just so they might find ecumenical and legal cover for their bigotry.

I'm a Christian and never have I heard my minister, nor any other minister admonish the congregation to discriminate against homosexuals. Never has the status of our immortal souls been brought into question over the issue of commerce with the LGBT community.

Well, ok. That's not really what I meant though. I don't know, nor do I care, whether true Christianity deems homosexuality a sin. My point is that the First Amendment shouldn't be construed as a get-out-of-jail-free-card allowing people to ignore laws that don't accommodate their religious views.

No part of the First Amendment should be taken out of context with the rest of the law, Bill of Rights, and Constitution.
The same laws that guarantee religious freedom and equal protection for the protesting Christian
also protect others and the "right to petition to redress grievances."

If you abuse your rights or freedoms to violate the same protections of others, then that violates the same law you are invoking and would cause people to protest, object and/or petition to redress grievances as well.

With the laws and rulings on health care and on marriage, since there were beliefs on both sides,
and neither the legislators or judges resolved those conflicts before making decisions favoring one sides' beliefs,
then those rulings and laws were not fully Constitutional because they failed to protect people equally.

When it comes to cases where there are beliefs on both sides that merit equal protection of the laws,
there is no shortcut to resolving the conflicts first, so that any govt policies will be equally fair and represent all.
Instead, by overriding the conflicts and just imposing a one-sided decision, either way, this violates the beliefs of opponents.

This is why I would call for political, party and govt leaders to RECOGNIZE political beliefs on both sides of
these issues, quit trying to treat them like any other laws that can be passed by majority vote, and commit to
redressing grievances, resolving conflicts and objections, and writing laws/reforms by consensus to prevent
from discriminating on the basis of creed.

We need people who are not in denial about political beliefs, but understand people cannot be forced to
compromise or change their views by govt, and certainly will not tolerate being penalized and fined for them.
We should not put people in such a compromising situation to begin with, but AVOID passing onesided laws when it comes to equal political beliefs. Again, there is no shortcut. People who want an easy answer by overriding the interests of others
should not be in charge of the political process because it censors the real work it takes to address and resolve the issues.

 

[Iceweasel]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

Where does that happen? Society doesn't vote on every issue, thank God. Most are too clueless. Any collective I've ever heard about had a figurehead in charge deciding the greater good.

 

[Agit8r]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

"the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison (Sept. 6, 1789)

"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (April 4, 1819)

 

[The sheeple sea]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

Where does that happen? Society doesn't vote on every issue, thank God. Most are too clueless. Any collective I've ever heard about had a figurehead in charge deciding the greater good.

Eh, ancient Greece, but with technology today it would be possible. I'm not saying we necessarily should, but we could. And I can't help but feel the people who didn't know about things probably wouldn't participate in voting. Doesn't our current system already have figureheads deciding the greater good?

 

[Iceweasel]

What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

Your point is more about dictators deciding what is good for the people as a society, which is of course always a bad idea. But what about when the majority of the country decides what is good for society via democracy?

Where does that happen? Society doesn't vote on every issue, thank God. Most are too clueless. Any collective I've ever heard about had a figurehead in charge deciding the greater good.

Eh, ancient Greece, but with technology today it would be possible. I'm not saying we necessarily should, but we could. And I can't help but feel the people who didn't know about things probably wouldn't participate in voting. Doesn't our current system already have figureheads deciding the greater good?

Yes, it's called a republic, representative government. Do the uninformed vote? Hell yes, most know little more than the name of the candidate and a few catch phrases. It's especially bad at the ballot level where it is democracy in action. People read the title which is often an emotional appeal to something and sign it, without even reading the text.