"Tolerance Works Both Ways"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
Thankfully, no one gets coffee shops to cater their weddings, so I ought to be pretty safe.

Yea yea. You just wait. Hipsters need to get married eventually.

I'm sure that eventually they'll get around to deciding that they'll have to force the Amish into doing it to. Can't have those evil Christians let alone to their beliefs anywhere.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

To liberals it does. To them it means we think alike and only LOOK different on the outside.

Although ... maybe we ought to have a so-called Diversity Day here. Everyone ought to have completely and wildly different avatars and then no matter what someone posts, everyone who replies ought to instantly and unequivocally agree, no matter what. Let's see how many conversations actually go anywhere.

a reply to: ketsuko

Aw come on did you have to ruin my light hearted joke with your hyperbole?

a reply to: ketsuko

And nowhere in scripture does it say that its a sin to bake a cake and sell it to a gay person FOR WHATEVER REASON.

a reply to: ketsuko

Since Jesus was answering a question regarding divorce, and compared it adultery, isn't the hypothetical florist also participating in "sacrilege" by proving flowers to any wedding where the bride or groom are not virgins?

Or, do some Christians find some justification in dismissing the gist of Jesus' lecture on marriage and adultery? Isn't that hypocritical?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

And there in lies my point. Intolerance isn't going to put a company out of business if the product they sell is good enough. You clearly want to make up for my lost support there. The company doesn't care. The situation could be we both buy a sandwich each or it could be that you buy 2 sandwiches and I buy none; the company makes the same amount regardless.

So? Why should a company be put of out business because some people don't like the personal beliefs of the owner? Sometimes those (not directed at you) who yell the loudest of tolerance are the least tolerant.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm just responding to the general rhetoric that if you don't like the business's refusal to serve gays that you can just boycott them and eventually the business will go out of business. I was trying to show that such ideas don't always work out like you'd hope in practice.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight'

Only if you ask the person to somehow participate in your marriage.

In the florist case, she had been serving the gay customer for years. What she objected to was participating in the wedding by arranging the flowers which she felt was her endorsing the participating in the ceremony which she felt was sacrilegious.

It's not about someone being gay. It's about asking us to take part in something we don't believe in that we feel violated our beliefs and then asking us to accept payment for it. "Here sin for me and then take payment for sinning."

If I was having a 'pretend' celebratory open marriage affair and the same florist was against my choice of lifestyle, that of being an adulterer, and she refused to supply her wares and if she also explained to me her deep religious belief as to her refusal, quite honestly, I really would let it roll off my back and find another florist, because I would know that this deep belief would be beyond my control or influence to change.

You keep bringing up open marriage.






You guys down for a cook out?



(J/K)

a reply to: ketsuko

You don't have to agree with a person to not discriminate against her. I don't have to like redheads to sell a redhead a cake. I don't have to like Presbyterians or agree with the "Presbyterian lifestyle" to sell a Presbyterian flowers. The Presbyterian shouldn't have to leave his Kiss Me I'm Presbyterian shirt at home to avoid discrimination either. Selling somebody a cake or flowers isn't an endorsement and it's not participation.

Laws against discrimination have absolutely nothing to do with forcing people to like one another, respect one another or agree with one another. They're intended to protect the civil liberties of people. One of those liberties is equal access to public accommodations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm just responding to the general rhetoric that if you don't like the business's refusal to serve gays that you can just boycott them and eventually the business will go out of business. I was trying to show that such ideas don't always work out like you'd hope in practice.

They do on the microscale. A multinational company, perhaps not, but in that case there is competition. In my town there is indeed a Chick-fil-a but also a Zaxbys, 2 KFC's, 2 Bojangles, and numerous mom and pop joints. You are not stuck with hate chicken if you don't want it.


I find the rhetoric of "if the government does not force service, people will die and starve" rather ludicrous as well.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Hate chicken. . . . mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

*drool*

(sorry, things were getting too nasty for a bit)

a reply to: NavyDoc

They do on the microscale. A multinational company, perhaps not, but in that case there is competition. In my town there is indeed a Chick-fil-a but also a Zaxbys, 2 KFC's, 2 Bojangles, and numerous mom and pop joints. You are not stuck with hate chicken if you don't want it.

Poor analogy. Chick-fil-a doesn't discriminate when it comes to who they'll sell their hate chickens to and they are therefore not violating anyone's civil rights in regards to equal access to public accommodations.

I find the rhetoric of "if the government does not force service, people will die and starve" rather ludicrous as well.

I don't see people saying that but maybe some do. That is indeed a ludicrous and irrelevant argument but as I said above, the reason behind civil rights laws are not to prevent starvation but rather to prevent groups from becoming second-class citizens.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

If Jesus himself had a business, he wouldn't care if someone was black, brown, green

Well he did have a thing for money changers in a temple...pretty annoyed. In fact they still do money changing in most churches today.

a reply to: rupertg

Did you draw that cartoon yourself? awesome regardless

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

Since Jesus was answering a question regarding divorce, and compared it adultery, isn't the hypothetical florist also participating in "sacrilege" by proving flowers to any wedding where the bride or groom are not virgins?

Or, do some Christians find some justification in dismissing the gist of Jesus' lecture on marriage and adultery? Isn't that hypocritical?

That's different and addresses two different topics - the bride and groom not being virgins and the bride and groom being divorced.

Technically, you shouldn't get divorced unless there are some very specific reasons. Most divorces today do not fall under those reasons. So, yes, most divorcees getting remarried are not getting married in the eyes of God. If you came a told me all about that, you aren't getting married, and I wouldn't want to participate.

For the bride and groom not being virgins, they are moving from a state of sin to a state of not sinning. They ask forgiveness and get married. They are taking steps to correct their sins. This is the correct thing to do.

Of course, all of this, even the poor gay dilemma, could all be avoided by simply asking me to bake a cake and not providing me with all the gory details of the wedding in question. So long as I'm not putting gender specific wedding toppers on the cake, I have no way of knowing what kind of wedding it goes to and no reason to object.

a reply to: ketsuko

Technically, you shouldn't get divorced unless there are some very specific reasons.

Technically? Did Jesus give permission to divorce in some cases?

For the bride and groom not being virgins, they are moving from a state of sin to a state of not sinning. They ask forgiveness and get married.

If either the bride or groom had sexual relations with someone other than their intended spouse, then they're "married in God's eyes" to the other and committing adultery, period. Sex is the act of marriage, according to Jesus, when two come together and all.... Jesus made no concessions for regrets or repentance in his lecture against divorce and adultery.

So how is homosexuality justified by Christians to be more sacrilegious than divorcees or fornicators marrying someone new and committing adultery?

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course, all of this, even the poor gay dilemma, could all be avoided by simply asking me to bake a cake and not providing me with all the gory details of the wedding in question. So long as I'm not putting gender specific wedding toppers on the cake, I have no way of knowing what kind of wedding it goes to and no reason to object.

That's an interesting argument. When did conservatives become concerned with people being offended? If this was a thread about some idiot being called out for saying hateful things about *insert group* then there'd be a bunch of crying about how political correctness is ruining the country one amendment at a time. Yet it's actually some how supposed to be a legitimate issue that people in the Christian Right might be offended simply by knowing a person's sexual orientation?

Yikes.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm just trying to get the point across that it doesn't always work out how you hope. Chic-fil-a isn't hurting despite its religious stance. Clearly, there aren't enough people conflicted by it to make a difference.