LBGT Against Islamophobia ... o_O Yeah, seems legit.

It makes perfect sense if your common enemy are Christians. Then again, the LGBT will rue the day they pick that side of the fight if they win..

It really has got to the time where we need to stop these people from spreading their idiotic ideas before they get us all killed.

It might sound dramatic, but if they had their way we would be totally disempowered and all of the minorities of the world, you know, the ones who complain about being downtrodden but see violence as acceptable when it suits their own cause - they would take total control and we'd then all be fecked.

These people are idiots and we need to just say enough is enough and shut them up, permanently if necessary.

Make a muhammed porno in a middle east quran era setting. Muhammed : A Force Erections. The untold told story of muhammed's love affair.

Advertise it all over the internet. Watch muslims go ape-sh!t crazy.

originally posted by: RepealTheLaw
It makes perfect sense if your common enemy are Christians. Then again, the LGBT will rue the day they pick that side of the fight if they win..

Let me start by saying that Christianity is not an enemy to me personally.

Some individuals within it might wish it were the case, but I know enough reasonable Christians to know that we can coexist in peace. It's called agree to disagree.

There are Muslims in the gay community and their stories are usually harrowing and heartbreaking.

Every gay Muslim I know that has come out was beaten by his father and often brothers if they were present then cast out into the street being told never to return it they will be killed.

And before the but, but, but Christianity does it too crowd attacks, I know. I experienced it myself. The difference however is that I was not beaten and no death threats were made.

Furthermore the passage of time saw reconciliation between my parents and I. I'm yet to see that happen with any of my gay Muslim friends.

So, in short the people in the OP are brainless shills. They've fallen for some bohemian ideology that is completely out of touch with reality. It does not represent the overall opinion of the gay community. Most are strongly Atheist and hate all religion.

Its one thing to argue, "Oh, hush AlexandrosTheGreat! We can post our opinion all we want!" That is not the case here though. It may get back to actual mature discussion/debate as it goes on but this is the third in five threads I have read today that i cant get through page one because people sure are opinionated but theyre opinions that come from people who obviously dont know a good gosh darn heck about what theyre posting about since the comments cant possibly accompany this article. At least not if written by a thinking functioning below average human being at least. Its really pointless to be on a site as well-respected as ATS used to be when I read opinion after opinion of people definitely asserting opposite sides but neither opinion relates to the topic if discussion. All the "move to ___,, they'll kill you!" comments are so dumb. This isnt an article about traveling gay people. Not about gays wanting welcome into immigrant communities. Not about gays wanting to marry at mosques. If anyone other than i read it ("read" the "article" in this case) youd see this group advocates spreading its message and starting local chapters to assert that all people must participate in defending civil rights so they have a duty to do so now. Hell, same people saying theyre asking to be killed post the cliché oldie trite little they came for Jews then blacks then gypsies, then Christians, then ginuea pig breeders but when they came for you nobody was left to make a sound in your defense. So which is it!?!

FACEBOOK is what the net gave you people who like seeing your opinion in words on a screen posted in the comments under an article titled something just informative enough to draw an opinion. Keep it at FB.

ATS requires editorializing, challenging, questioning, requesting explanation of things not understood, anecdotal evidence, pattern hunting, etc. For example...

ARTICLE- RUSSIA KILLS 6 IN UKRAINE.
ATS Post- Yikes!! Am I right guys!?!?

TRUE OR FALSE- The above example is appropriate to post both on Facebook and ATS.

Then you also have the posts that just dont quite fit at all. Example 2...

ARTICLE- RUSSIA KILLS 6 IN UKRAINE.
ATS Post- So sad, when will Russia learn black lives matter :.(

What I don't understand, is why all this "phobia" stuff keeps being used to silence people.

If you disagree with a certain ideology or pattern of behavior you are ultimately labeled a "bigot" and whatever-a-phobic. Instant end to the discussion + no freedom to disagree.

Frankly, I believe it is perfectly possible to care about human beings of all walks without AGREEING with a single one. It is one thing to RESPECT the dignity of others while DISAGREEING with their a) patterns of behavior b) ideology.

I'm sure there were Nazi Germans that weren't all bad, that were just there by the accident of birth in a certain culture, time, and place. There may even have been quite a few that truly believed their actions were for the "good" of humanity.

Nazism is garbage, all the same. I'm not a Nazi-phobic for saying that, it's just politically acceptable to say Nazism is garbage.

I'm sure there are people within every society who are there by the accident of birth into that culture, time, and place who are peaceful people. But, that doesn't make the ideology good or the religion good.

By the same token, there are those of us that believe being a promiscuous person or a drunk is a bad thing for the health of an individual and not something worth promoting. There are others who think eating meat is irresponsible. It doesn't make that person a "bigot" to hold to their own principles. I don't think vegans are bigots or carni-phobes because they shun a particular pattern of behavior.

Personally, as a Christian, I don't agree with homosexuality as being a) good for the health of individuals b) something to be raised up on a pedestal as some sort of achievement or promoted as an ideal state of being. I'm not "phobic", as in afraid of gay people. I don't agree with what they're doing, but I'm pretty sure they don't agree with me, either. It is perfectly possible to live side-by-side and agree to disagree.

It seems like the PC movement is less about manners and more about promoting anything-but-white-European-culture, anything-but-traditional-Western-values, and anything-but-Christian-spirituality. Meaning that everything not-white, not-Western, and not-Christian is automatically superior to anything that is. That's just silly and immature. There are good aspects of white, Western and Christian culture. Are there bad aspects? Of course, that's kind of a no-brainer.

It's not about tolerance, it's about the current "fashion" which is to throw out the "old" and bring in "anything-but-the-old."

If anyone was interested in a peaceful society where people were truly FREE, the focus, I would think, would be on having good manners. That is to say, to foster an atmosphere where a) we can agree to disagree b) we avoid taking offense where none is intended c) allow others to make choices for themselves, even ones we personally disagree with, insofar as they're not harming anyone else d) try to have some humility and humor about our own peculiarities.

Not harassing people because they are Muslim just because you disagree is called: GOOD MANNERS.

You don't have to agree with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, or the guy down the street who worships a stone toad on his lawn. You can freely and openly disagree with all of them! Just live and let live.

That said, there needs to be some kind of push back against people who want to FORCE others to live outside of their own principles. You can't FORCE a Christian to teach atheistic ideals in a Christian school. You can't FORCE Muslim Sharia Laws in a pluralistic society trying to go-along and get-along. You can't FORCE people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle to participate in a celebration of aforementioned lifestyle.

The problem is, there's this whole RAGE culture that's trying to FORCE one thing or another. FORCE and TOLERANCE don't mesh. How can anyone TOLERATE any group that's trying to FORCIBLY change the other?

Part of being American, as I've always understood it, was the FREEDOM to be wrong, to explore ideas, and choose according to one's own heart -- to the extent that those explorations do not PHYSICALLY (not psychologically, because, really, this micro-aggression nonsense needs to just GO) harm others or stomp on their boundary-lines.

I'm all for TOLERANCE insofar is TOLERANCE equates to GOOD MANNERS. Simply don't be a jerk, don't expect your views to be agreed with, and don't try to FORCE others to agree with you (by threats, intimidation, black-balling, etc).

If gays, Muslims, atheists or satanists at least make an effort at having GOOD MANNERS, I, for one, have no intention of causing them any problems in their daily lives or activities. I disagree, as a natural consequence of holding an opposing view of reality, but I see no reason to interfere with people who do not interfere with me. If a guy in a dress insists on using the ladies room, so long as he's not interfering with anyone, who cares? It's probably been happening for a long time, anyway. If the kids at my kid's school want to where traditional Muslim garb in 120 F weather, ok, so long as they're not expecting me to do it anytime soon or planning to hurt my kids because they don't....who cares? I disagree with it, so I don't. They disagree with the way I dress and the religion I follow, too. If we're not harassing each other, the world keeps turning without incident. I believe the guy from Jordan just paid for major restoration on a Christian shrine. There were political aspects, yes, but hey, at least he's being nice. I doubt he agrees with Christianity...but as long as everyone is being CIVIL, there's no issue.

The solution is pretty simple, DON'T EXPECT ANYONE TO AGREE WITH YOUR LIFE CHOICES and DON'T TRY TO FORCE OTHERS TO AGREE WITH YOU.

That's the problem. The minute you have people forcing others to act counter to their principles, physically harming others, or freaking out every time they disagree with something or someone-- that's when it all falls apart.

It's OK to disagree. If (I say if, because obviously some people don't believe in this) God made FREE WILL, then obviously, He understands people have to be FREE to CHOOSE and not COERCED. Any behavior that is a result of COERCION is, by definition, not TRUE. Forcing people to say they believe things they don't is not inherently Christian. I do, however, think it is perfectly fair and reasonable that Christians request reasonable accommodation in not being FORCED to participate in activities that run counter to their deeply held beliefs. I mean, I wouldn't force-feed a vegan a steak just to prove some point about how much better an omnivorous diet is... that's just rude. At the same time, I'd think it kind of odd if a vegan decided to work at a slaughterhouse and then refused to do any of the duties assigned.

In my mind it is very Christian to disagree with someone while respecting their freedom to choose that which I disagree with--so long as I'm not forced to take part in whatever that action may be.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
You do know some muslims are gay right, you do understand that not all muslims hate gay people.

Yeah, and most of them are dead. Droped off of buildings. Heads chopped of. Or maybe just buggered to death.

SMH.

Really most are dead, i dont think so but hey dont stop there, make up more stuff.

Not hating all muslims does not equate to behing pro fanatic.

Now stop watching faux news and educate yourself

Well then not wanting to embrace LBGT in every way conceivable ALSO does not equate to hating them.....but that just will NOT compute for you

a reply to: SisterDelirium

It is perfectly possible to live side-by-side and agree to disagree.

Indeed. Is it acceptable though, to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Is it acceptable to disallow Muslims to enter the country because they are Muslims?

Meaning that everything not-white, not-Western, and not-Christian is automatically superior to anything that is. That's just silly and immature.

Yes. As is claiming that homosexuals should not have the same rights as anyone else. As is claiming that Muslims should not be allowed to enter the country because they are Muslims.

It's not about tolerance, it's about the current "fashion" which is to throw out the "old" and bring in "anything-but-the-old."

No. It's about doing away with the notion that old is good simply because it's old.

You can't FORCE a Christian to teach atheistic ideals in a Christian school.

Correct. You can't, private schools determine their curricula. But what are "atheistic ideals?"

You can't FORCE Muslim Sharia Laws in a pluralistic society trying to go-along and get-along.

Correct. Religion based laws are prohibited in this country.

You can't FORCE people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle to participate in a celebration of aforementioned lifestyle.

Correct, sort of. It depends on what you mean by "celebrate." No one can force someone to attend any wedding, same sex or otherwise. It is, however, unlawful use one's personal prejudices to the deny the right to marry to anyone.

The problem is, there's this whole RAGE culture that's trying to FORCE one thing or another.

You mean like attempting to craft laws which deny rights from others because they are part of a different "culture" than the majority?

In my mind it is very Christian to disagree with someone while respecting their freedom to choose that which I disagree with--so long as I'm not forced to take part in whatever that action may be.

Who is forcing you to do what? Exactly?

a reply to: Phage

Indeed. Is it acceptable though, to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Is it acceptable to disallow Muslims to enter the country because they are Muslims?

Is it acceptable for the STATE to deny a binding contract between two consenting adults? NO

Is it acceptable for the STATE to FORCE religious groups opposed to same-sex matrimonial ceremonies? NO

As for marriage, however, you have to understand that to more traditional Christian ears, homosexuals cannot be married in the sense that a man and woman can be married. It is not a concept that is compatible with the Christian faith. That doesn't give anyone license to be rude or unkind, but the LGBTQ, etc. will never have the blessing of certain traditional/orthodox communities. They shouldn't even try. By the same token, while Christians can and do disagree with the LGBTQ, etc., there's no need to bother them where they live, either.

As for Muslims entering the country, they should be thoroughly vetted before entering. The same is true of anyone entering a country. Everyone entering should also agree to abide by the laws and customs of the land--that is to say, they should respect the US "melting pot" and not demand things that don't fit in a pluralistic society. If they (or anyone foreign) fails to follow the rules and causes trouble, they should be politely, but forcibly, shown the door and not let back in.

Yes. As is claiming that homosexuals should not have the same rights as anyone else. As is claiming that Muslims should not be allowed to enter the country because they are Muslims.

Homosexuals should be allowed to enter into whatever legally binding arrangement they see fit. If they want to adopt, put each other on insurance, write wills...that's their prerogative. They're adults, they've made their choices.

Where this gets tricky is where homosexuals might demand to rent a hall owned by a church for the reception, or adopt from a Christian agency.

In my mind, the tactful response would be for the homosexuals to have the good sense to know they'd just be stirring up trouble by doing either of those things and simply rent from or adopt from a welcoming secular provider. As for cake baking, a white, tiered cake from an otherwise secular business is a asinine thing to fight about--on both sides. The baker gets sued out the wazoo over a trifling thing, and the gay couple only proves they're kind of bullies.

No one should be allowed to enter ANY country without some sort of check to make sure they're not a troublemaker. I'm sure all countries have trouble enough without inviting it in the door. Just as anyone who knocks should not immediately be granted entry to a person's home, immigrants and travelers should not immediately be granted entry to a country. No system is perfect, but surely this is just common sense in terms of sovereignty and the safety of citizens.

No. It's about doing away with the notion that old is good simply because it's old.

Sometimes, yes. And that's not a bad thing because old doesn't equal good. But scrapping everything old without careful consideration is just asking for trouble in the long run.

Correct. You can't, private schools determine their curricula. But what are "atheistic ideals?"

This, I have actually seen. Atheist parent has an ax to grind with Catholicism, said atheist parent decides to put Little Atheist Johnny in a parochial school and then tantrums about the school's religious teachings. This could be anything from not agreeing with gays to talking about Noah. It's kind of like watching someone running head down, full force at a wall and then cursing the builder for putting it there when they hurt their head.

Or someone who goes to a Catholic/Christian university and then does roughly the same. If you know you won't like it and you don't agree...why upset yourself and everyone else?

Correct. Religion based laws are prohibited in this country.

That's fine by me. For what it's worth, I wouldn't want to live under Catholic marriage laws or pay the Pope in the event of a divorce, etc. The Vatican and Sharia can happily not rule the US. Religion is healthier without the state. And the only version of religion a state ever really adopts is a perverted/corrupt one that somehow manages to break religious laws while simultaneously breaking the backs of people.

Correct, sort of. It depends on what you mean by "celebrate." No one can force someone to attend any wedding, same sex or otherwise. It is, however, unlawful use one's personal prejudices to the deny the right to marry to anyone.

Endorse or bless, I guess is the idea...or go to a party, parade, wedding, etc. because they're required to by an employer, or the state. Just because you're thrilled about something, doesn't mean everyone else is. A person may just love their slave-liea crossplay costume, but that doesn't mean everyone in the office will appreciate the pictures... point being: do your thing, but respect that your thing is YOUR thing. Don't go places and do things just to make others uncomfortable or stir the pot. It's rude. Too often people who have an ax to grind with others do this sort of thing. It really doesn't lead to progress and is very, very annoying.

You mean like attempting to craft laws which deny rights from others because they are part of a different "culture" than the majority?

Actually, yes, that, too. It wastes time that should be devoted to things that benefit all of us. Elected officials do this garbage on both sides... start a controversy over something stupid and then waste tax dollars arguing over it so their side can know they're "really committed to the cause".

Frankly, I just think they should BE committed.

There should be some kind of law against crafting laws just for the sake of rubbing a group of people the wrong way and wasting legislative time.

It makes perfect sense. Sometimes the best way to shatter stereotypes is to deal directly with members of the stereotyped group.

There was a time when I was a bigoted douchebag against LGBT people. But many years of actually interacting with LGBT people showed me that the stereotypes were false and that I was completely in the wrong. So I believe others can also learn from these interactions and see that any stereotypes and negativity between the groups are wrong.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Is it acceptable for the STATE to FORCE religious groups opposed to same-sex matrimonial ceremonies?

To force religious groups to do what?

As for marriage, however, you have to understand that to more traditional Christian ears, homosexuals cannot be married in the sense that a man and woman can be married.

I do understand that. What I don't understand is how it harms traditional Christians. I don't understand why they give a damn.

Everyone entering should also agree to abide by the laws and customs of the land--that is to say, they should respect the US "melting pot" and not demand things that don't fit in a pluralistic society. If they (or anyone foreign) fails to follow the rules and causes trouble, they should be politely, but forcibly, shown the door and not let back in.

"Customs of the land?" I guess that would include native American customs? Do you follow those? The Chinese have been here for a while, how about Chinese customs? Irish? Various African cultures?

Atheist parent has an ax to grind with Catholicism, said atheist parent decides to put Little Atheist Johnny in a parochial school and then tantrums about the school's religious teachings.

Sort of an expensive way to prove a point. A point which holds no legal basis.

Endorse or bless, I guess is the idea...or go to a party, parade, wedding, etc. because they're required to by an employer, or the state.

I know of no state laws requiring anyone to attend a parade or wedding.

It's rude. Too often people who have an ax to grind with others do this sort of thing. It really doesn't lead to progress and is very, very annoying.

Yes. Rude people are annoying. Lots of things are annoying.

There should be some kind of law against crafting laws just for the sake of rubbing a group of people the wrong way and wasting legislative time.

Like laws prohibiting same sex marriage? There is. It's called the US Constitution.

a reply to: Phage

To force religious groups to do what?

Sorry, left off the "officiate" a ceremony part. There are welcoming churches who will, but the ones that don't want to shouldn't have to. As long as that stays in place...I really don't see it as a concern. If a Christian was forced to provide a sacramental marriage in their own church, that's just obviously not ok.

I've heard there might be stirrings on that point. My thought is, "oh for pity's sake"...

. I do understand that. What I don't understand is how it harms traditional Christians. I don't understand why they give a damn.

It only does IF churches are forced to provide reception space, officiate, have their adoption agencies or schools closed etc. I can tell you, Christian people who are willing to live and let live honestly worry someone will try this.

Aside from that, there's a certain sadness that people are doing these things...because it's just not viewed as healthy in a Christian mindset....but I think most are just worried about being forced to endorse something they're morally opposed to or face legal action.

Personally, I'll live peacefully with anyone willing to do the same with me...whether I agree or not with their life choices doesn't matter. I'm too busy trying to get the plank out of my own eye to worry about what's stuck in someone else's. They could be doing lots of things better than I am on a thousand other points. Figuring out who is the biggest sinner is not any Christian's jurisdiction and we're supposed to be kind. We don't have to agree, but one can kindly disagree.

. "Customs of the land?" I guess that would include native American customs? Do you follow those? The Chinese have been here for a while, how about Chinese customs? Irish? Various African cultures?

By that I meant that, in the US, the general arrangement is that we're a pluralistic society that expects everyone to try to peaceably respect each others differences (or at least the mythological US I grew up being told about). That means, whether you're a Native, Martian, Muslim, Irishman or Chinese, you understand that people here will have freedom of speech, affiliation and religion...and no matter how much you love being what you are, you can't force that way of being on anyone else while you're here.

. Sort of an expensive way to prove a point. A point which holds no legal basis.

People do it, though. Trolls gonna troll, I guess. Parents can be some of the biggest trolls...at soccer games, schools, clubs... I have no idea why. I have some theories involving insanity brought on by sleep deprivation and the utter terror of realizing you're responsible for the survival of a small, helpless human.

. I know of no state laws requiring anyone to attend a parade or wedding.

I read about a fire and rescue team that was required to take part in a gay pride parade (as a float or something, not to put out a fire or resuscitate anyone) as part of their job with their city or potential face consequences with their employer. As I recall, they weren't all happy and many felt harassed. Point being, no one should feel pressured to take part in activities they're morally opposed to...don't try to force an atheist to pray or a Christian to go on a pride float. That's all I'm getting at.

. Like laws prohibiting same sex marriage? There is. It's called the US Constitution.

How did you get there from what I said? I'm saying the legislative branch shouldn't spend time trying to rally their base by crafting nonsensical and unconstitutional laws.

Marriage, by and in a church, is a sacrament requiring religious faith and a following a specific set of rules.
Marriage for the state is a contractual agreement.
Therefore, gay marriage by the state, as a contract between adults that does not apparent harm to anyone, really can't be prohibited. It wouldn't be in keeping with the separation of church and state. That's kind of obvious and whatever previous situation has been corrected for as a result.

The bathroom thing is more the sort of nonsensical stuff I was referring to. It's impossible to enforce and exists only to stir the pot/create trouble.

There was a huge to-do and long hours wasted by a local city regarding Satan. There was an ornery group who wanted to invoke Satan with a "prayer" at a city meeting. Much hand wringing ensued...how to legally block them? Could they really be penciled in the date book? In the end, the city decided to get rid of prayer before city council meetings. The Satanist left happy.

Oddly, the same group tried the same thing with another local city. The city penciled them in for their shot at invocations, because, well, the city allows "prayers" of any kind...why not?

The Satanists suddenly realized they were too busy to pray in that city, but, thanks anyway.

Now, I think invoking Satan's blessing on a council meeting is a horrible idea...but I also think the city was stupid to get so worked up over it...and waste time/money over it. The Satanists were obviously trolling. So much stupidity on both sides...minus the group that called the bluff. So much wasted energy.

As far as my faith goes, I'm not afraid of some idiot standing at a lecturn in a public square chanting hail Satan...in fact it'd probably be more honest as a politician's prayer (sorry, couldn't help it...there are good politicians too...I'm sure...statistics and large numbers allow for outliers all the time...OK...sorry again...no more snark).

I know God's in charge...so why would I fear anyone at all--outside my own self and failings? Matter of fact, believing in a God that allows free will, made the universe from scratch and yet still cares about even the one lamb that wanders off... I'm seriously more interested in a million other things...in particular awed by the vastness of that Eternal Being and boundless love/creativity...and I can only feel sorry for the "hail Satan" crowd. Because they're very childish and very sad.

Back to the point:
I just wish there was a way to make them work on things that benefit everyone...straight, gay, black, white, orange or periwinkle...rather than allowing them to keep sowing division.

I long for a day when people can agree on practical matters enough that both a gay atheist and a straight Christian can walk in together and call foul on ANY politician who pulls that crap.

The government exists to keep the place we live running and relatively "in order" for the people who live here. If they're not doing that, we the people need to hold them accountable.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Agree to disagree simply means that we accept we have different and valid opinions based on our life and our beliefs.

It doesn't mean that it is an excuse for any group to deny others basic secular rights.

In practical, real world terms it means things like gay marriage should be allowed because relationships are a basic human need. Gay relationships should have the same secular rights as heterosexual ones. From a religious viewpoint you are free to disagree and even say that gay marriage is not part of your religion and therefore refuse a religious ceremony . However if you are the position where you run a marriage business that goes beyond the role of only marrying Christians in church or represent the government in a marriage license dept, you have to do your job. And that does mean marrying same sex couples in a secular ceremony.

The same principle applies to things like Sharia law. It has no place in secular society because it denies people basic freedoms guaranteed under state law. We cannot agree to disagree on this because it is enslaving people in a brutal archaic system of corporal punishment.

a reply to: markosity1973

Agree to disagree simply means that we accept we have different and valid opinions based on our life and our beliefs.

I'd argue that we just accept we're different. How valid we feel the other's choices are doesn't really matter. I don't have to think someone else's way of life is valid to understand I'm not supposed to spend my time interfering with them -- and vice versa.

It doesn't mean that it is an excuse for any group to deny others basic secular rights. In practical, real world terms it means things like gay marriage should be allowed because relationships are a basic human need. Gay relationships should have the same secular rights as heterosexual ones.

No, the government can't reasonably deny a legally binding contract regarding the relationship between adults. Basic human need or not really doesn't even need to be brought up.

A state marriage is a formal, legally binding arrangement between individuals. If the state is in the business of handling legally binding arrangements of this kind, then it's bound to serve everyone.

This includes poly-amorous couples and even incestuous situations where those engaging in the relationship have reached the age of majority. The state isn't in the position of assessing the moral uprightness of it all. It's just in charge of the paperwork. How a Christian feels about or views the actions doesn't even factor--beyond leaving Christians alone and not forcing them to pretend to agree.

(Conversely, the state can get out of the business of legislating human relationships--that's another option. Drop both homosexual and heterosexual marriage from the government to-do list. At this point, that's probably the easiest option.)

From a religious viewpoint you are free to disagree and even say that gay marriage is not part of your religion and therefore refuse a religious ceremony . However if you are the position where you run a marriage business that goes beyond the role of only marrying Christians in church or represent the government in a marriage license dept, you have to do your job. And that does mean marrying same sex couples in a secular ceremony.

I just don't think businesses should be compelled to take clients or churches who rent their halls to be forced to rent to people for purposes they disagree with--it's their property and/or their business, isn't it? Who really wants a photographer that doesn't want to do the job or to rent a hall from a place that opposes your views? Freedom of association. If Christians don't want to interact in a certain way, is it really right to force them out of business just to prove a point? I don't think it is.

By the same token, I don't think an atheist who really abhors religious ceremonies should be sued if they don't want to photograph one as part of their business. That's their right as a private individual, owning a private company.

HOWEVER regarding marriage license departments or other secular positions, that is what it is. If you know the job will violate your principles as a matter of routine...well, vegans shouldn't apply for work at slaughterhouses.

The same principle applies to things like Sharia law. It has no place in secular society because it denies people basic freedoms guaranteed under state law. We cannot agree to disagree on this because it is enslaving people in a brutal archaic system of corporal punishment.

Of course not. The line of "let bygones be bygones" goes out the window the moment physical harm is taking place. On that point, there's no room for negotiation. If you want to beat your wife (or God forbid throw acid on her...or WORSE) -- forget it, you're out, game over. The concept that "your rights end where the rest of my body begins" can't be violated for a functioning secular society. "Do no harm" is a noble and good thing to strive toward.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Firstly, on a personal level people are free to think what they want.

Secondly, as far as on a professional level goes, one has to follow the secular codes and laws that their business is bound by. Your point on Vegans in slaughterhouses illustrates what I mean perfectly.

As for buildings and churches; if they rent out the buildings to Atheists, or persons of another religion then why not same sex couples?

If a church can genuinely, hand on heart say that it has never hired it's building out for profit or to non Christians , then I am fine with them turning away same sex couples. The Catholic Church in my home town would fall in this category and I'm cool with that.

The part that makes things a little difficult is for those caught up by the law change as it happened. I do have tolerance toward sympathy to them because they did not necessarily see the change coming with same sex marriage. Or they believed it wouldn't be legalized. These people have to make a tough choice, either accept everyone, walk away from being a marriage celebrant / business or run the risk of legal action should they turn someone away. Life is full of choices and these people are faced with making one.

I would expect however that any new marriage celebrant that comes on board post law change to not discriminate and marry anyone that fits within the current scope of the definition.

a reply to: markosity1973

Firstly, on a personal level people are free to think what they want.

Yes.

Secondly, as far as on a professional level goes, one has to follow the secular codes and laws that their business is bound by. Your point on Vegans in slaughterhouses illustrates what I mean perfectly.

Exactly. Thank you. There are plenty of cultures and subcultures within the free society of the US (and many other free places). There's no reason for a person not to find their tribe and the way of life that suits them best. If you know a job won't fit your moral code and has the potential to deeply offend your most cherished values--find something else to do.

As for buildings and churches; if they rent out the buildings to Atheists, or persons of another religion then why not same sex couples?

I don't know how many churches might rent to atheists or same sex people--or if they ask. I would think it would really depend upon the use. And there are those people who would troll a church just because it's a church and rent a place for something obviously offensive to the church just to cause controversy. That's the kind of thing I find irksome. Why do that? Why go needle people? Surely there are other venues... it's not a major inconvenience and it really isn't the same thing as "not serving a black person at a restaurant" or some other civil rights mash-up. This is about behavior and lifestyle, not discrimination based on some physical trait trait or nationality or something else that really has no bearing on how a person behaves. If a gay couple wants to do things that would offend the church whose hall they plan to rent, that's really just obnoxious. It's the same thing as the vegan in the slaughterhouse. Don't actively seek out controversy, there's controversy enough all over the place.

I would expect however that any new marriage celebrant that comes on board post law change to not discriminate and marry anyone that fits within the current scope of the definition.

By celebrant, I guess you mean party planners, decorators, photographers, etc. Maybe, assuming that person isn't going to be harassed in their own right. Customers shouldn't be the only ones with rights in any case. I'm just arguing for civility.

originally posted by: SisterDelirium
a reply to: markosity1973


I don't know how many churches might rent to atheists or same sex people--or if they ask. I would think it would really depend upon the use. And there are those people who would troll a church just because it's a church and rent a place for something obviously offensive to the church just to cause controversy. That's the kind of thing I find irksome. Why do that? Why go needle people? Surely there are other venues... it's not a major inconvenience and it really isn't the same thing as "not serving a black person at a restaurant" or some other civil rights mash-up. This is about behavior and lifestyle, not discrimination based on some physical trait trait or nationality or something else that really has no bearing on how a person behaves. If a gay couple wants to do things that would offend the church whose hall they plan to rent, that's really just obnoxious. It's the same thing as the vegan in the slaughterhouse. Don't actively seek out controversy, there's controversy enough all over the place.

I hear you. There are sue happy trolls lurking everywhere just looking for an opportunity for a payout. These are bad people and yes, we in the gay community have them too.

I believe what you are trying to say can be summed up like this;

Live and let live, do so unselfishly and in humility.

By celebrant, I guess you mean party planners, decorators, photographers, etc. Maybe, assuming that person isn't going to be harassed in their own right. Customers shouldn't be the only ones with rights in any case. I'm just arguing for civility.

I'm a retailer, so this this one is close to my heart.

A business cannot willy nilly discriminate who it will deliver it's goods and services to. There is reason and limits to this statement naturally

ie A customer who is threatening the team of the business can be asked to leave
A women's gym does not have to admit men as it clearly states that it is a women's gym.

Joe's photograhpy cannot discriminate against gay weddings if he does weddings because his business is photography and that is a service that everyone accesses.

Marg's bakery cannot refuse to bake a cake for gay weddings because everyone eats cakes. She no doubt unknowingly sells bakery items to gay customers every week.

Sophie's weddding planning service falls in the same category because weddings now include gay marriages.

I can't refuse to sell shoes to a Muslim man because I am offended by the fact his wife is in a burka and not allowed to talk to me directly even though the shoes are for her.

All of these things are secular services that everyone accesses and therefore one cannot discriminate based upon sexuality, race, or religion.

a reply to: markosity1973

hear you. There are sue happy trolls lurking everywhere just looking for an opportunity for a payout. These are bad people and yes, we in the gay community have them too.

I believe what you are trying to say can be summed up like this;

Live and let live, do so unselfishly and in humility.

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes. Thank you for understanding.

All of these things are secular services that everyone accesses and therefore one cannot discriminate based upon sexuality, race, or religion.

True. My main concern revolves around trolls who just want to cause others discomfort. Civilized people who are just looking for a cake without any graphic sexual images or something else chosen just to shock or annoy the provider...yes, of course, why not? It's just business.

I just don't want any group to have the ability to force anyone out of business or engage in legally sanctioned bullying.

Trolling = bad.

Treating others respectfully and with the same care and concern as one would ask for oneself = good.