It's Starting--> Indiana Christian Pizzeria ATTACKED by gay lobby

This issue is the height of polarity of opinion and will never be solved


It’s a true yin yang dispute where both sides have valid points but there is little if any middle course or yielding I have noticed.


True a person in America should be able to practice any lifestyle within the law.

It is also true that many religious traditions have edicts against Gay sex…
Right or wrong this is a reality therefore their religious precepts come into play on this issue and many have sincere beliefs in this regard


Two incontrovertible facts that the American people have little room to concede


Both sides are unyielding. There’s no solution here but through coercion

…and one side will feel victimized

a reply to: beezzer

Yeah, real amusing. The gays who sued the baker for refusing to make a traditional cake for their wedding verses the guy who tried to get a gay bakery to decorate a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong". Ha ha.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: xuenchen
More madness....

Indiana High School Coach SUSPENDED for Tweeting ARSON THREAT to Pizzeria Over Religious Freedom Act!

I'm sure the gay mafia supports his threat.

sorta like how the christian mafia supported all those beatings and killings of LGBT members.

Yeah I can make stupid generalized statements too

To the general thread I say this...

I am really confused by something and I promise I am asking in the least emotional way I can...save for my above stupid quote in response to another stupid quote

I see two things that really make me go "hmm"

And this set of questions is 100% legit and in search of something...just not sure what

1. SOME (notice I am not saying all...please notice because I know ATS folk on all sides LOVE to not use context)

SOME christians use this whole argument of the slippery slope. So take a random made up guy for example. We'll call him John. John is 100% gay. He is in a good and solid relationship with another man and has no interest in women at all.

Ok so we have John. He has done nothing to harm anyone else. Pay's taxes. Call's his mom to check in. I know many, many christian folk who are just as wonderful. The problem is, a lot of people have this issue with John and bring out this "choice" argument. Then the slippery slope argument begins. John was born. John chose to be gay. John chose to have relations with a man. ((now it just gets weird)) Because John and his kind are gay, it's perversion. LGBT will lead to sleeping with animals. That will lead to pedophilia behavior.

THIS is the junk we have to listen to ALL the time. It starts with a guy born gay, and now we are criminals looking to sleep with children. And yet many groups support this argument just fine.

So why then, if this slippery slope is ok to "expose" or rant about is it not ok for us to point out the christian slippery slope with a law like this?

So here it is.

Religious freedom law is passed. I open a bakery. I am christian. I will not serve a gay couple.

Ok that's the start.

Now for the slippery slope argument.

I am not serving gay couples because I believe it is a sin to my religion and I shouldn't be forced to do so.

Ok....so where does it stop? I and my bakery will not serve Jews. I will not serve Muslims. A Klan member opens a store. He will not serve blacks. Why not right? I mean his internal and personal faith and belief explains that black people are dangerous and disgusting. Why does a christian get to not serve LGBT members and I HAVE to serve black people?

See the slope? It works on both sides. So why is it ok for this law to be possible and not apply to everything? What if that Klan member trrly believes it is his holy duty to wipe anyone black off the map? Should he have to serve a black man? A jew? A Hispanic person?

Again...absolutely honest question.

Next...

2. So then I have my second question. This will be much shorter I promise.

Do you REALLY think christians will stand for the same thing if I revert to Satanism and tell them they cannot buy my wares or enter my store? christians talk day and night on blogs about the "attack" on christianity. In "their" country. Yet the attack on LGBT is totally valid.

Which leads to my final question...

3. Why is it such a crime for the so-called "LGBT blogsphere" or "gay mafia" to speak out against the horrific crap done to them daily but when christians get on the blogs and spread their gospel it is totally ok?

you know what? I forgot one more question...and yes this one IS emotionally charged. I am not afraid to admit it

4. When and where exactly did your book give you the right to judge others?

I am almost POSITIVE that I read something quite different...

originally posted by: OpinionatedB

I vote for the freedom of the individual, business owner or not, to say no if they feel they must say no in accordance with their own individual personally held religious beliefs.

((FYI for those of you who love to cherry pick...I don't actually believe this...it's called sarcasm))

Fine. Then I want the return of segregation. Individual rights yes? Maybe members of the Klan believe it is their holy duty to wipe out the black scourge. They are dangerous they say and it is their right to believe that yes? It is their religious belief yes? Then let's close shop as we ALL see fit as owners. Some southern shops can now return to "White's Only" status since they believe that their religion says so.

Now...sarcasm aside...I am serious what I said above ((minus the part that I believe that BS))

If you are going to afford individual rights to religious shop owners than a Klan member MUST be able to discriminate again a black man, a jewish woman and hell if they want, someone in a wheelchair. It's their personal, fast-held, and bonded belief.

Do you not see why everything I wrote above is so foolish?

If you took out the two times I said I was being sarcastic for argument, that would be insanely racist. But who cares right? It's that Klansman's PERSONAL and religious belief

originally posted by: Willtell
It is also true that many religious traditions have edicts against Gay sex…
Right or wrong this is a reality therefore their religious precepts come into play on this issue and many have sincere beliefs in this regard

Isn't America meant to be based on secular values? This religious freedom (well lets face, christian freedom) law doesn't sound like the separation of church and state. More like Christians forcing there own values on to the public.

a reply to: Willtell

the solution is to allow the freedom to say no if someone feels they must... and the freedom to say yes if a person feels it causes no conflict for them...

and life goes on. Certainly not many will ever say no, but the one's who feel they must say no should have that right. others who have no conflict will be saying yes aplenty, no need for coercion or loss of religious freedom.

Both sides want hate because both sides think it works in their favor. The business is a victim of the madness our leaders have stirred up to keep our eyes off of them and what they are really doing. We are so easily led around by our noses it seems.

Death and Arson threats! Carry on with the hate until it destroys any hint of civility left in the US. Many folks seem to get off on that and I'll join in the hate, by hating them.

It's truly sad.

gay lobby shutting down a pizzeria? so, were all these made from former rep. aaron schock's downton abbey office?

a reply to: OpinionatedB

I am all for religious freedom, but that is not what these people are exercising here.

If Jesus had never said "judge not, lest ye be judged", then I could understand their angle, and for sure, he had a fair bit to say on what some Christians might refer to lapses in sexual morality. But the fact is that alongside his admonishments to those who committed various acts which were considered immoral in his day, he also pointed out to followers of the faith, that to judge (ergo to exclude or ostracise, or treat differently those who appear to indulge in wilful sin in any small way) is to err oneself, to invite judgement upon oneself.

Scripturally speaking then, there is the argument to be made that their position on this topic cannot be a product of their religious beliefs, since their judgemental, and discriminatory attitude toward their fellow humans, no matter their sexual preferences, religious background, ethic origin or other minor trifling difference one might focus on, is not clearly supported by scripture.

In the Bible, it is said that to bring a sinner into the light, is a great thing. One cannot seek to bring people into the light, if ones attitude to them is negative, discriminatory. If you show a person love, by treating them as equal to you, by seeing their qualities as an individual, not as part of a demographic (no matter what that demographic might be) then one has a much better chance of engaging with that human being, and a greater chance therefore of bringing them into some sort of light. Judging them will not achieve that, and so I fail to see how it is, that any Christian considers it a mark of their faith, to refuse anyone service of any kind, based on which gender they go to bed with, or any other damn thing.

It is not loving to judge. Given that Jesus message was one of love, anything less than respect toward all persons, a refusal to judge a person based on ones own, flawed, mortal understanding of morality, given also that we are all sinners according to the lore we keep as Christians, is failure. It is simply unbelievable that any genuine argument can be bought for a religious grounding to what is clearly just good old fashioned homophobia, dressed up as a constitutional issue.

a reply to: TrueBrit

the biggest problem with you is that you make what I want to say WAY better

man that was good

a reply to: KyoZero

if a business wants to turn down business in droves, you don't think that a businesses customers will be the one's determining whether or not that decision is supportable with their dollars?

And I wasn't being sarcastic at that.. that is my actual position. No one is asking to change laws and have state mandated segregation, but its the community who will decide soon enough if any given stance is a supportable business decision..

EVERY single businesses doors stay open or closed based on the agreement of that businesses consumers.. are their enough Christians who would agree enough to keep a small catering company in business who chose to follow their religious convictions and say no to catering same sex marriage events?

The communities are the ones who decide, they vote with their dollars. But I think people should have the right to make that decision themselves, and not face jail time or other legal considerations for following something they believe.

We cannot stop westboro from picketing no matter how much we disagree with them, why should we refuse a business owners legitimate religious accommodation?

I see no harm in it at all...when we say a business has to provide any service then you are saying the Muslim caterer MUST by law serve alcohol to you at your event, you are saying the Christian must participate against their will and better judgement at events they disagree with..

you are saying people should not have the right to have their religious convictions protected under the law.. and that is a dangerous road to go down.. you open the door then to dictate a great many things.. it starts with forcing people against their will to perform a service they feel they could not..

Wait! There's a gay mafia????

OMG

originally posted by: Blaine91555

Both sides want hate

I think this is disingenuous, and dishonest.

I do not in any way support or agree with any form of same-sex 'weddings.'

I believe same-sex attraction is an intrinsically disordered condition.

I believe homosexual acts are seriously sinful, as is promoting homosexual agendas.


While lots of people will label this as 'hateful,' it does not mean that it is hateful, or even remotely so.

Nor does it imply that I, or other Christians want hate directed towards them.

Hate destroys a person, in similar ways that sin destroys a person.

The second of Jesus's great commands is to love thy neighbor, and from a Christian perspective, that means not wanting your neighbor to spend eternity in Hell, and not wanting your neighbor to be filled with hate because you don't accept his lifestyle.

a reply to: Seamrog

What about the whole "Judge not" part? You agree with that?

a reply to: Seamrog

No one has ever come into the arms of The Lord, by being ostracised and poorly treated by his followers.

If you really feel love toward homosexuals, and want them to come to the light of God, you must understand that the first step is not treating them as if their sins are any worse than yours.

This is the problem. Labels. How would one know you are gay unless you say so? Why would an establishment be targeted if no one knew they didn't care for a certain group? Why? They put themselves out there. Why not just treat people as, um.... PEOPLE????? Why do gays feel the need to push it? Why do the religious feel the need to push it? IMO leave that crap alone. Treat people as people, not labels.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

In many posts I will back up til the day ends, the right to believe AND speak what you want. If the KKK wants to operate their website/forum...well there you have it

Look. The WBS IS protected by law. I think they are the most pathetic creatures ever...but I support that. If they want to, with respectful distance, picket my funeral when I die (veteran) then I even support that and would hope my family would just scoff and turn away and be bigger

But I see differences. I see what the ideas of equality aim for.

If a christian wants to go online, to church or to their homes, friend's homes or wherever and talk all day about the terrible gay mafia then have at it.

But I do not believe anyone should be allowed to discriminate in business (again unless it is illegal or dangerous such as a minor entering a bar or someone belligerent and harassing employees)

Otherwise, I again say that if that IS the case, then we should immediately make ALL discrimination ok if it is a personal belief or religiously held ideal.

So...honest question

Do you think if I open a store today I should be allowed to say white's only?

If not, why not? If that pizzeria can tell me (a pan) that I am not allowed to cater there, then why can my store not exclude anyone who isn't white? What if I (actually...legitimately)) believed that was the reality due to my faith?

Should I be able to say white's only on my shop door?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Willtell
It is also true that many religious traditions have edicts against Gay sex…
Right or wrong this is a reality therefore their religious precepts come into play on this issue and many have sincere beliefs in this regard

Isn't America meant to be based on secular values? This religious freedom (well lets face, christian freedom) law doesn't sound like the separation of church and state. More like Christians forcing there own values on to the public.

America is also based in individual liberty where the individual should make such decisions for themselves.

Christ also said your sins are forgiven go and sin no more.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I am all for religious freedom, but that is not what these people are exercising here.

If Jesus had never said "judge not, lest ye be judged", then I could understand their angle, and for sure, he had a fair bit to say on what some Christians might refer to lapses in sexual morality. But the fact is that alongside his admonishments to those who committed various acts which were considered immoral in his day, he also pointed out to followers of the faith, that to judge (ergo to exclude or ostracise, or treat differently those who appear to indulge in wilful sin in any small way) is to err oneself, to invite judgement upon oneself.

Scripturally speaking then, there is the argument to be made that their position on this topic cannot be a product of their religious beliefs, since their judgemental, and discriminatory attitude toward their fellow humans, no matter their sexual preferences, religious background, ethic origin or other minor trifling difference one might focus on, is not clearly supported by scripture.

In the Bible, it is said that to bring a sinner into the light, is a great thing. One cannot seek to bring people into the light, if ones attitude to them is negative, discriminatory. If you show a person love, by treating them as equal to you, by seeing their qualities as an individual, not as part of a demographic (no matter what that demographic might be) then one has a much better chance of engaging with that human being, and a greater chance therefore of bringing them into some sort of light. Judging them will not achieve that, and so I fail to see how it is, that any Christian considers it a mark of their faith, to refuse anyone service of any kind, based on which gender they go to bed with, or any other damn thing.

It is not loving to judge. Given that Jesus message was one of love, anything less than respect toward all persons, a refusal to judge a person based on ones own, flawed, mortal understanding of morality, given also that we are all sinners according to the lore we keep as Christians, is failure. It is simply unbelievable that any genuine argument can be bought for a religious grounding to what is clearly just good old fashioned homophobia, dressed up as a constitutional issue.

Smart money says whomever walks through the open sign on your door is a customer..not black, blue, gay , jew, christian, republican, democrat..etc..etc.