Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial 'religious freedom' bill

originally posted by: Monger
a reply to: ketsuko

Nobody is going to force you to get gay married, attend a gay marriage, or participate in gay sex acts. Stop it with the panic.

So if I am a photographer, I won't have to go to the wedding and take pictures of it? That is participating.

a reply to: ketsuko

I remember this little saying from the bible
"Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"

If one must absolutely be steadfast and remain a bigot, do so without letting the whole world know.

Perhaps.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
your reply was pointless.

originally posted by: ketsuko
An unintended consequence of the gay rights agenda toward "equality" however is that Christians such as myself that do not identify overly strongly with one or another of the organized sects but still like to have a minister officiate at the major ceremonies in our lives are going to be pushed into finding and identifying with organized religion.

I know I must be reading this wrong. If not, then this is the most selfish thing I've ever heard.

There have already been a number of churches who have taken their facilities and time off the table to the general public over fear of "equality" lawsuits should they be asked to service functions that do not fit within their tenants. That means that in order for me and mine to have a minister officiate, we will have to become members of a church.

Let me get this straight. So churches are no longer providing services to the "general public" because of equality laws. Well, since they are in fact NOT for the General Public that part does seem to the correct action to take. This however is an inconvenience to "You and Yours" as a result. Also since you still want to have these services available you then have to be members of this church to take part in the services. But a members only service is exactly what they provide, how do you not see that???

Maybe "You and Yours" aren't the center of the universe. Maybe you should learn the difference between "general public" and "membership" services. You have no idea how unbelievably selfish and inconsiderate you are by making such a statement I realize this. But I guess I should have expected as much.

I didn't think that was what the left as a whole wanted. Basically, we are being pushed into a corner and forced to circle our wagons because while everyone else wants "equality" there is not latitude for the idea that some people have differing points of view and belief on some things. We aren't trying to stop it. We are asking not to be forced to participate ourselves.

Oh no. Everyone wants to be equal except for the Christians who obviously are better than everyone else and can never be equal to all us lesser humans. Those poor Christians what ever will happen to them once they are no longer allowed to be superior to everyone else??? Lord have mercy!!

If you don't want to participate in being equal with others then don't. Admit you're part of a members only class all to yourselves and go there. Stop trying to fake being like the rest of us and go off with the rest of the members only club and stop trying to mix in with the rest of us then. Nobody else wants to be part of your little mental club or we would have joined it already.

a reply to: zazzafrazz
nice try. It doesn't make you a biggot to stand up for yourself and state that that you do not want to be a part of homosexuality in any way. If it did then both sides would be exercising biggotry. Homosexuals are not the only ones with rights. Anyone has the right to refuse participating in a homosexual event, just as much as homosexuals have the right to have said events. I would never demean a person for their beliefs, whether it is the homosexuals or the people choosing to not be comfortable with it.

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: zazzafrazz
nice try. It doesn't make you a biggot to stand up for yourself and state that that you do not want to be a part of homosexuality in any way. If it did then both sides would be exercising biggotry. Homosexuals are not the only ones with rights. Anyone has the right to refuse participating in a homosexual event, just as much as homosexuals have the right to have said events. I would never demean a person for their beliefs, whether it is the homosexuals or the people choosing to not be comfortable with it.

So, let me get this straight, so to speak.

I'm homosexual. Let's say you own a grocery store, or you're a doctor, or you're a firefighter.

Based on what you just said, you don't intend to sell me food if I'm hungry, provide medical care if I'm ill, or rescue me if my house is on fire?

Because of your Christian religious beliefs?

I just want to make sure I understand you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

that's silly. christians faught in the war of independence, the civil war, marched with martin luther, voted for fair and equitable laws, fixed your boo boos, swept the streets, cleaned the sewers, rescued pets, saved drowning swimmers, operated on your ruptured appendix, delivered your babies, cured your infections, served you food in countless restaurants, worked for you, farmed for you, made clothes for you to wear and so the flip on.

i can't believe you're trying to marginalize "christians" (cause you never add any qualifiers before you use the word) now because some dominionists are making waves.

oy. stop it already

p.s. and where did you get that incredible avatar???

a reply to: undo

Are you representing Turkenstein?

I posed a question to them.

I didn't say and haven't said and haven't done a single thing in your rant against me.

I am not the topic of this discussion.

If you have a claim to make about something I've said, quote me.

Or ... leave your opinions about me out of it and play the ball.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Monger
a reply to: ketsuko

Nobody is going to force you to get gay married, attend a gay marriage, or participate in gay sex acts. Stop it with the panic.

So if I am a photographer, I won't have to go to the wedding and take pictures of it? That is participating.

No, that's called doing your job, you know, the thing you take money for? The thing you KNEW you were expected to do before you started that career?

No one, regardless of religious belief, should have the right to complain about having to do their damned job, they have the choice to not do that job, do something else if what two people do in their bedroom is so desperately important to you!

a reply to: Gryphon66

you said:

Because of your Christian religious beliefs?

i submit your honor, that there is no evidence that his beliefs on the topic of homosexuality, are christian. they seem more societal norm-based. since you aren't qualifying or rather, more precisely, are adding in the word christian when there's no evidence that it is a christian construct, i believe you are attempting to white wash all "christians" with the same brush, such as that silly sign that says "no christians allowed" in retaliation. notice it doesn't say "anti-homosexuals" or something more definitive? nope it goes right for "christian" as if all christians are of the same beliefs as a dominionist politician or an old lady who didn't want to bring her baked goods to a gay wedding.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Gryphon66

that's silly. christians faught in the war of independence, the civil war, marched with martin luther, voted for fair and equitable laws, fixed your boo boos, swept the streets, cleaned the sewers, rescued pets, saved drowning swimmers, operated on your ruptured appendix, delivered your babies, cured your infections, served you food in countless restaurants, worked for you, farmed for you, made clothes for you to wear and so the flip on.

i can't believe you're trying to marginalize "christians" (cause you never add any qualifiers before you use the word) now because some dominionists are making waves.

oy. stop it already

p.s. and where did you get that incredible avatar???

The same applies to LGBT people too.

So, why does one group get to dictate that the private relationships of others are grounds to refuse service, while quoting their "religious convictions" and while also ignoring the many, many other demands their Bible makes of them?

Here's the deal, unless you have hair down to your backside, refuse service to divorced people, believe that daughters can be sold, believe in slavery, don't eat shellfish... all while you pick out the one vague homophobic suggestion from that very same book, you are a hypocrite.

If you want to claim that your religious convictions are so important, follow all the other demands with equal vigor or STFU.

This is how it should be in court, if someone comes in claiming their Bible tells them so, they should be forced to pick out that Bible and then show that they adhere to all the other very specific demands in that book. If they cannot show that, they lose their case.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Looks like the free market is starting to speak:

$4 BILLION Software Company preparing to leave Indiana over RFRA

Large Convention Will Not Patronize Indiana

These PUBLIC businesses that choose not to do business except with those that match their religious profiles should be required to inform the PUBLIC of that fact ... on their business fronts, in all advertising, etc.

"We will not serve homosexuals."

Of course, if they really wanted to follow their religious convictions, they also wouldn't serve divorcees, adulterers, fornicators, liars, etc., but these folks are well-known for using their religion and their Bible as they see fit.

a reply to: ketsuko

So if I am a photographer, I won't have to go to the wedding and take pictures of it? That is participating.

Chin up ketsuko - and take heart - the world is changing

This law is for you. If you don't live in Indiana, be patient - because there are many people working hard on this exact thing for people just like you - everywhere. If you're lucky you might also soon live in a state where people will be free to put signs in their windows that say: Homosexuals Not Welcome Here

You must feel pretty good about all this - right?

a reply to: Rocker2013

it's not a group in the sense of "christians". the term is very broad and covers a wide range of beliefs, who vary dramatically on what they think about homosexuality. these are isolated cases.

a reply to: undo

Who cares what you "think I am doing"?

I was responding to another member's statement with a question.

You are trying to hang your own agenda on my words.

Why not let Turkenstein respond to my question, and why don't you stop trying to tell me what I think and believe in your continuing off-topic posts?

Or quote something I've said here about Christians and Dominionist politicians and we'll go from there.

I have no interest in what you have rolling around inside your head that you're projecting onto me, honestly.

The topic is Indiana's RFRA. Do you have something about that to discuss with me?

Of course, if they really wanted to follow their religious convictions, they also wouldn't serve divorcees, adulterers, fornicators, liars, etc

a reply to: Gryphon66

precisely. i've made that point myself, several times. they don't refuse service to atheists lol i'm sure the little granny who didn't want to bring her cake services to a gay wedding, would've had no problem delivering to an atheist wedding. what can you say but "doh"

a reply to: Gryphon66

mmkay, that was abusive.

originally posted by: undo

Of course, if they really wanted to follow their religious convictions, they also wouldn't serve divorcees, adulterers, fornicators, liars, etc

a reply to: Gryphon66

precisely. i've made that point myself, several times. they don't refuse service to atheists lol i'm sure the little granny who didn't want to bring her cake services to a gay wedding, would've had no problem delivering to an atheist wedding. what can you say but "doh"

On the contrary ...

One can hold merchants to the laws of public accommodation.

One can avoid creating laws that elevate a special religious class of citizens that are above the laws of the land.

One can require that those businesses that wish to take advantage of their superior class status should post what members of the public they will and will not do business with.

That's a start.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Gryphon66

mmkay, that was abusive.

What was abusive?

Requests that you stay on topic? Requests that you provide evidence for your claims?

My statement that I'm uninterested in your thoughts about me personally?

Report it, or stop trolling the thread please.

a reply to: Gryphon66

i submit that his beliefs regarding the treatment of homosexuals, are not evidence of his christianity, they are in spite of it. i'm reserving the right to say the guy is not representative of christianity, on the topic of the treatment of homosexuals. how is that off topic?