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

[TemplarKormac]

aris2chat

Tell me. How much of the Bible have you read? If you've read all of it, then what you are doing by cherrypicking verses is a sin in and of itself. If you haven't, then how can you claim to be an expert on the bible? How can you quote the Bible and do literally nothing it says?

 

[Andylusion]

[ May I remind you that such a responsibility lies with the customer to find what is adequate for his or her needs. However, such a need should not completely trump the religious conscience of the proprietor if such a service requires the proprietor to take part in something his religious teachings tell him is reprehensible.

Shouldn't it be on the proprietor to not engage in a business where he might do something hedoesn't like or engage in behavior his fairy tales says is bad.

Here's the key thing. There are a whole bunch of behaviors the Bible says are bad.

But I'm willing to bet that your bakers and photographers and florists will still take their money if the bride isn't a virgin on her wedding night or if she has braids in her hair. (Both of wich the bible says is bad.)

Couple of problems there. Everyone does things that are bad. There is a difference between committing something bad, and repenting, and committing something bad, and arrogantly sticking to it.

I'll bend over backwards for someone who has screwed up, but wants to make it right.

We told a couple, that they could not come to our church groups, because they were shacking up, and the Bible says that's wrong. In fact, we ousted a pastor for that behavior.

He said there was nothing wrong, and we pointed at the Bible, and said "uh... yeah there is", and kicked him out.

Now if that couple, or that pastor had said "yes we were wrong", yeah if they repent, and turn away from evil, sure I'll supply their wedding, and volunteer to decorate the church.

And if a SSM couple repent, turn away from their evil homosexuality, and commit to living a pure life, I'll supply their OSM just the same.

And no, it's not up to the proprietor to avoid any business where they could do something wrong, because every business you could do something wrong. You could avoid activities that are in and of themselves evil, like I'll never take a photo job for a porno. I'll never do that. Because the job is inherently evil. But providing wedding services, is not inherently evil. In fact it is very good. Only SSM is evil, and that I will not do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That OP desperately needs a nutgraph.

Say what now? I don't need no stinkin' lede.

 

[Andylusion]

The debate of human rights for gays is not about sexual abuse or rape, it is about two people of the same sex falling in love and sharing their lives.
It is not about sin, but about people at fall in love.
Why is this so hateful to others? What are they so afraid of? They don't have a plague that is contagious. They are not proselytizing a religion. They are not forcing others to join in their bedroom activities. They just want not to be condemned or abuse because of who they are genetically attracted to.

That's what you say it is.

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It's not about hate. I hate anyone. Hillary Clinton comes the closest with a standing "absolute distrust and dislike".

It's not about hate.

Sin.... is sin. We as Christians are to avoid being involved in sin. We can't be involved in a same sex marriage. Period. Doesn't mean I hate you.

If I was Jewish, I can't eat pork. Does that mean I hate pig farmers? People who eat bacon? No. I just can't be involved in that. It's part of my faith.

If I am a Muslim, I can't drink alcohol. Does that mean I hate the brewers, or the bar owners? No. I just can't partake in that.

I'm a Christian. I can't be involved in SSM. It's sin to me. Does that mean I 'hate' the people who are gay? No. I just can't supply a SSM wedding with cakes, or photo-shoots, or catering. It's part of my faith.

It's that simple.

 

[Pogo]

cherrypicking verses is a sin in and of itself

Lotta preachers ain't gone be gwiiiiiiiiiiine up ta hebb'n then, because that's what sermons are made of.
Never been to church?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Hmmm, tolerance.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different matters altogether. You can to a degree legislate tolerance, but you can never legislate acceptance. Attempts to force acceptance are where the troubles begin.

For example, forced integration in education in the 50s and 60s was fleeting, and was immediately followed by a wide degree of slow-moving self-resegregation. Hence the war for dollars between the increasingly abysmal public system and private/parochial systems.

Just an example. You cannot force togetherness.

 

[Andylusion]

cherrypicking verses is a sin in and of itself

Lotta preachers ain't gone be gwiiiiiiiiiiine up ta hebb'n then, because that's how sermons are made. Never been to church?

I would agree with that. Of course the irony is that most of those preachers, are liberals that generally support the left-wing positions related here.

 

[Andylusion]

ISIS Executes Pigeon and Bird Breeders in Diyala Iraq - NBC News

It is not about refusing business but doing business that benefits the community as a whole.

You can't do business with a business that has been shut down because a thin skinned customer sued them under the law because he or she had his or her feelings hurt by the religious consciences of the proprietor. Tell me, you speak of business and community... yet this kind of behavior, (i.e. suing a religious cake maker for not catering a gay wedding, and subsequently having them eviscerated from the marketplace) only harms the community, does it not? The glue that should bind business and community should be tolerance, on both sides of the spectrum, but neither side is willing to show it.

Nobody wants to meet in the middle, simply because they are too busy prejudging each other.

Yes, actually that's true. You are harming the entire community by eliminate jobs and services, when you drive someone out of business because they have a religious belief you don't like.

But... I for one, will just open another business. You shut that down, and I'll open another. Some you will drive out, and they'll go somewhere else that is more tolerant, and benefit that community.

However, what you will not do, is change our faith. You are not going to change what we believe, or us worshiping our G-d. That's never going away.

Prejudging? We're not prejudging anything. Homosexuality is a sin in our belief. That's what G-d said, and that's what we believe. There is nothing prejudging about it.

and yet churches and even the pope are welcoming gays. Some are even being led by gay ministers

Jesus did not say anything about it being a sin. He did mention not throwing stones if you are not without sin.

so can you truly say you are without any sin at all, at any time in you life?

How about prejudice and hate? Not loving your brother? Defaming others? Not treating others are equals or as you would want others to treat you?

I don't really care what 'other churches do'. What matters is what G-d said. That's it. So all that "well the pope said...." doesn't matter. I follow what G-d said. Not anyone else.

Yes, Jesus did refer to sexuality and marriage.
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife"
Mark 10:7.

And if that is not enough, there are plenty of other verses describing sexual immorality.

Yes, he did mention not throwing stones. And I have not stoned anyone yet, or have any plans to.

This isn't about Hate, or Prejudice. And I am treating people, as I would want to be treated. Absolutely I am. If I asked a Jew, or a Muslim, to do something that violated their faith, I was expect them to turn me down.

I am not asking anything I would not expect from anyone else.

 

[Andylusion]

Hmmm, tolerance.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different matters altogether. You can to a degree legislate tolerance, but you can never legislate acceptance. Attempts to force acceptance are where the troubles begin.

For example, forced integration in education in the 50s and 60s was fleeting, and was immediately followed by a wide degree of slow-moving self-resegregation. Hence the war for dollars between the increasingly abysmal public system and private/parochial systems.

Just an example. You cannot force togetherness.

I have actually read, that forced integration in schools was the absolute worst thing for Black students, because you removed black students from although poorly funded, but schools with teachers who truly cared about the students, and placed them in schools with teachers who not only didn't care, but were covertly hostile to the black students.

Leftists actually forced black students into worse situations than the poorly funded schools. But then, that's leftism at it's core. It's all about feeling good, rather than having good results.

 

[Spare_change]

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

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

I am going to use very small words ... maybe you'll be able to understand.

You ask where the long list of issues that RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on .... the answer is simple. All of them .......

Just because we are tolerant does not indicate that, in any way, we are accepting of deviant, or sinful, behavior. I will tolerate your homosexuality, even as I disagree with it. I will tolerate a lot of things ... but it doesn't mean that I have to accept them.

Christians have an old saying - love the sinner, but hate the sin. Atheists, and Muslims, cannot tolerate sinners. You insist on assassinating (either physically or their character) anyone who disagrees with your position. I love you, and hope you get to spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, but I find you (the collective you) to be incredibly self centered, biased, and prejudiced. It is your intolerance the problem, not mine.

 

[Spare_change]

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

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

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

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

 

[Spare_change]

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

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

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

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

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

Who wins?

How incredibly inane can you be?

You trot this out, as if it is some kind of gotcha for the Christian community. Your intentional misrepresentation of the Christian community is funny ... and dumb.

The Christian communities consist of many different religions. Some believe in gay marriage, some don't. Some believe in dancing, some don't. Some believe in singing in their church, some don't. Those communities are united in only one thing - their love of God.

But, we are unanimous in one thing .... you do not have the right to impose your beliefs (or disbeliefs) on someone else. Your mythical Presbyterian couple should not be able impose their religious beliefs on my Christian baker. To do so is to deny the baker his ability to conduct himself in accordance with HIS religious beliefs.

 

[Spare_change]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I should not tolerate your intolerance of our beliefs? Good. We agree.

Go ahead. Oppose equal rights.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to follow my beliefs.

You'll find out otherwise if you violate anti-discrimination laws.

No, actually I won't. I am prepared to die for my beliefs. Your little fines, will not be a big issue. Besides that, if Memories Pizza can raise a million dollars, without violating anything, I will have enough support for your cheesy fines.

Oh look, an anonymous fuckstick on the internet prepared to DIE for the right to refuse to sell a pizza to a gay person.

Thank goodness we get people like you to speak up occasionally and reveal the true mentality of the modern Am erican conservative.

Kinda makes him sound like all those Americans for the past 250 years, huh? To die for the rights of others ... how foolish can you get??

 

[Spare_change]

It is not about refusing business but doing business that benefits the community as a whole.

You can't do business with a business that has been shut down because a thin skinned customer sued them under the law because he or she had his or her feelings hurt by the religious consciences of the proprietor. Tell me, you speak of business and community... yet this kind of behavior, (i.e. suing a religious cake maker for not catering a gay wedding, and subsequently having them eviscerated from the marketplace) only harms the community, does it not? The glue that should bind business and community should be tolerance, on both sides of the spectrum, but neither side is willing to show it.

Nobody wants to meet in the middle, simply because they are too busy prejudging each other.

Yes, actually that's true. You are harming the entire community by eliminate jobs and services, when you drive someone out of business because they have a religious belief you don't like.

But... I for one, will just open another business. You shut that down, and I'll open another. Some you will drive out, and they'll go somewhere else that is more tolerant, and benefit that community.

However, what you will not do, is change our faith. You are not going to change what we believe, or us worshiping our G-d. That's never going away.

Prejudging? We're not prejudging anything. Homosexuality is a sin in our belief. That's what G-d said, and that's what we believe. There is nothing prejudging about it.

What kind of Jew are you with the G-d bit?

And, someone puts a gun to head as says either renounce your faith or die. What do you do?

You take the bullet ---- ask all those Christians on the beaches.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

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

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Someone gets it!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

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

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

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Someone gets it!

Well boys, we are fixing the law. So sad for you two.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It is not about refusing business but doing business that benefits the community as a whole.

You can't do business with a business that has been shut down because a thin skinned customer sued them under the law because he or she had his or her feelings hurt by the religious consciences of the proprietor. Tell me, you speak of business and community... yet this kind of behavior, (i.e. suing a religious cake maker for not catering a gay wedding, and subsequently having them eviscerated from the marketplace) only harms the community, does it not? The glue that should bind business and community should be tolerance, on both sides of the spectrum, but neither side is willing to show it.

Nobody wants to meet in the middle, simply because they are too busy prejudging each other.

Yes, actually that's true. You are harming the entire community by eliminate jobs and services, when you drive someone out of business because they have a religious belief you don't like.

But... I for one, will just open another business. You shut that down, and I'll open another. Some you will drive out, and they'll go somewhere else that is more tolerant, and benefit that community.

However, what you will not do, is change our faith. You are not going to change what we believe, or us worshiping our G-d. That's never going away.

Prejudging? We're not prejudging anything. Homosexuality is a sin in our belief. That's what G-d said, and that's what we believe. There is nothing prejudging about it.

What kind of Jew are you with the G-d bit?

And, someone puts a gun to head as says either renounce your faith or die. What do you do?

You take the bullet ---- ask all those Christians on the beaches.

They died as thier faith requires. Sorry that you disapprove, so do I with their early deaths, but life is a bitch.

 

[aris2chat]

Paul was not a disciple and did not follow Jesus till after his death. A lot of what Paul taught had nothing to do with Jesus or what he said.

That's the thing, he still followed Jesus. Jesus appeared to him (as Saul) on his way to Damascus. Paul the Apostle was originally Saul of Tarsus, who made it his then life's work to persecute and kill Christians. In Acts, Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Demascus, and in so doing blinded him for three days, asking "why dost thou persecutest me?" At that point, his conversion to Christianity had been set in motion. For three days he sat in deep meditation, after a visit from the Christian disciple Ananias, he recovered his eyesight and began to preach Jesus' gospel. Jesus hand picked Paul to be one of the most ardent messengers of the gospel. What he was transcended the role of a simple disciple, he effectuated the the rise of the Christian faith throughout the ancient world, and secured its dominance as one of the largest religions on the planet.

Paul is one of the most well known figures in Christianity, aside from Jesus.

So, what he wrote was the actual will of God, and thus reflected the sentiments of Jesus himself. You really don't know much about the Bible do you?

Where at any point did Jesus tell or share with Paul anything about homosexuality? Paul takes of celibacy, Jesus did not. Paul teaching women not to have sex with their husbands, Jesus did not.
Just because paul taught or spoke on it does not mean it was anything Jesus suggested to his followers or to Paul.
Paul did not like women, but Jesus and the early followers not only included women but were often lead by women.
Most of the apostles were married and had children. The fact that jewish followers called Jesus rabbi suggests that they believed Jesus was married.
No, just because Paul said or wrote it does not make it anything to do with Jesus or christianity. Even the apostles and the head of the Jerusalem temple, Jesus' brother James, were at odd with what paul was saying. Why should Paul be the 'authority' on Jesus or what Jesus meant in his teachings. Paul spoke on Paul's version of what he believed a church/faith should be, not what Jesus said it should be. Paul used the image of Jesus to preach his own religion. Paul used, or in some cases misused, the growing Jesus movement for his own ends. He basically cut the other apostles out of the picture and made himself the main figure and authority. Much of what Paul was saying and doing was in part responsible for the roman persecution of christians for next few hundred years.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Paul was not a disciple and did not follow Jesus till after his death. A lot of what Paul taught had nothing to do with Jesus or what he said.

That's the thing, he still followed Jesus. Jesus appeared to him (as Saul) on his way to Damascus. Paul the Apostle was originally Saul of Tarsus, who made it his then life's work to persecute and kill Christians. In Acts, Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Demascus, and in so doing blinded him for three days, asking "why dost thou persecutest me?" At that point, his conversion to Christianity had been set in motion. For three days he sat in deep meditation, after a visit from the Christian disciple Ananias, he recovered his eyesight and began to preach Jesus' gospel. Jesus hand picked Paul to be one of the most ardent messengers of the gospel. What he was transcended the role of a simple disciple, he effectuated the the rise of the Christian faith throughout the ancient world, and secured its dominance as one of the largest religions on the planet.

Paul is one of the most well known figures in Christianity, aside from Jesus.

So, what he wrote was the actual will of God, and thus reflected the sentiments of Jesus himself. You really don't know much about the Bible do you?

Where at any point did Jesus tell or share with Paul anything about homosexuality? Paul takes of celibacy, Jesus did not. Paul teaching women not to have sex with their husbands, Jesus did not.
Just because paul taught or spoke on it does not mean it was anything Jesus suggested to his followers or to Paul.
Paul did not like women, but Jesus and the early followers not only included women but were often lead by women.
Most of the apostles were married and had children. The fact that jewish followers called Jesus rabbi suggests that they believed Jesus was married.
No, just because Paul said or wrote it does not make it anything to do with Jesus or christianity. Even the apostles and the head of the Jerusalem temple, Jesus' brother James, were at odd with what paul was saying. Why should Paul be the 'authority' on Jesus or what Jesus meant in his teachings. Paul spoke on Paul's version of what he believed a church/faith should be, not what Jesus said it should be. Paul used the image of Jesus to preach his own religion. Paul used, or in some cases misused, the growing Jesus movement for his own ends. He basically cut the other apostles out of the picture and made himself the main figure and authority. Much of what Paul was saying and doing was in part responsible for the roman persecution of christians for next few hundred years.

Er, and I suppose you have evidence backing up this tripe?

 

[aris2chat]

Hate is a greater sin than love.

And you are more deluded than I thought.

An old aphorism I once heard:

"Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works."

I don't believe in hell and I think it should be used to scare people into blind obedience. Understanding and caring are better tool for teaching. The promise of reward not the threat of eternal damnation.
Even in the end of times all those in hell will be forgiven, or so the church teaches. Why is there not acceptance or forgiveness of people before they are condemned to hell fire? Should parents beat their children to make them afraid? Or do we talk and come to an understanding of what is right and why certain things are wrong? Do we accept who are children are or do we throw them away because they are different or 'stray'? What of the example of the prodigal son? What of not judging others? What about forgiving others? What about not understanding were one might go wrong, especially where everything inside the person says this is the way they were created, what what someone else believes everyone should have been created.
What about just learning and understanding about what being gay really is? Other animals, birds and fish exhibit homosexuality. If it is about love not sexual abuse or against the will of the other person, why are so many taking upon themselves to make judgement? Why do people have curly hair? why are some born without pigment or melanin? Why are some born with both sets of sexual organs? Why are some born conjoint twins? Should they all be condemned for being different, out of the norm in some way?

I am sick of people talking of hell and satan instead of what is good and about the love of god for all his children. Parents don't give up on their children or throw them away for what they do, or what they like and don't like.

I didn't throw my children out for helping their LGBT friends, nor did I throw those friends out when they needed help with their parents fitting into society, and didn't have anywhere else to turn to for a safe place and protection. I've had kids with drug problems and abusive homes stay with use as well. I was not afraid of them nor that my chlidren's ages range across 15 yrs. I was not afraid of the older children or their friend that were welcome as part of the family, even for a short time, help with baths and getting the youngest get dressed or put them to bed or read a story to them to go to sleep. They lived under my roof and took on the responsibility of being a member of the family. I treated them as my own and expect them to treat those under my roof as their own siblings.

I was raised between orthodoxy and agnosticism. I allowed my children to choose their own beliefs and religion. I introduced them to a bit of everything, I did not force my beliefs or lack of on them. I studies religions and their history in university. I tried to respect the beliefs of others, for the most part. I have a problem with the dogma and theology that includes hate or intolerance. I grew up in one of the most diverse part of the world with 21 major religions represented and the repeated conflicts and war between them. I've seen the worse and prefer the best.

I've had friends who were not just afraid of their parents not understanding but of being killed for what they were. I've had teaching who I knew were gay but that had to publicly hide their relationship to save their jobs and their lives. I've been the appropriate other for gay friends when they went out to clubs, theater and parties. I've even had other girl tell they were attracted to me. I was not offended, but it was not who I attracted to and they accepted me for that. I've told men who tried to hit on me I was not interested and they had to accept that. They were good people and I did not care to judge them because of who they happened to be attracted to sexually.

Being gay is not a life style choice, it is what their DNA tells them they are. Why should they be condemned for that?

Being cruel and hateful is more harmful to society. Being abusing and hurting people for a thought, feeling, religion or who they happen to be is criminal.

Why can't we live and let live? We forgive, why can't we accept?