Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
(03-04-2015 08:22 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  But those won't pass any level of scrutiny. The bible doesn't say anything about blacks being inferior. Mormons, as far as I know, don't have any writings that declare non-mormons to be devil spawn, etc. But the bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. And that's the difference.
The bible?
It wasn't a bible freedom law, it was a religious freedom law.
So, if a religion did have a problem with serving blacks, that would be just as valid as Christians not serving homosexuals.
Unless, you're going to say that the law only applies to Christians....

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 08:43 PM
RE: Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
(03-04-2015 08:39 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 08:37 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  And I do agree with you. But we must balance everything within the constitution. People also have the right to free speech. With that, the government should never tell you what to speak for. By forcing a christian that is against homosexuality to support it, they are forcing speech.

I don’t think that follows. That doesn’t make any sense.
Maybe not for the wedding cake situation. For example, a christian shirt printing company refuses to make shirts for a gay pride parade. Should the government force them to print words that goes against their religion?

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 08:43 PM
RE: Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
I had a debate with my older brother on this on Facebook, which was my first mistake....to comment on anything on Facebook. Anyway, he basically posted some article about how the federal "Religious Freedom" law was actually helping people. I countered with an article that explained how the federal law and Indiana law were different, and how the Indiana law could be used to discriminate. His answer was basically that all the Indiana law would do was to give people the right to take their dispute to court and that if their dispute is not valid, a judge will decide that. I said...they can do that now. Why do we need an extra law?

Then the wonder of Facebook kicked in, and some guy I don't even know (but my brother apparently knows) addressed me personally to tell me a) He really hasn't looked at the law himself, so knows nothing about it. BUT b) All his Christian friends think the law is fine and c) He lives in Indiana, and nobody he talked to plans to discriminate, so there.

I then posted the story of the Pizza place who plans to discriminate, and this guy went on a rant about how the horrible, horrible people that are opposing this law are harassing the pizza place and he would never, ever support a group of people who would do something like that, and how he was not going to further discuss this issue with people who "don't know what they're talking about."

I really wanted to post: "Dude, you stated above that you don't have any clue about this law...so....who doesn't know what they're talking about?" Plus, maybe a mention that one reason I don't support Christians is the Westboro Baptist Church, But I restrained myself.

Then another post directed at me by a long time friend of my brothers who I know well, who thinks forcing people to service those they are religiously opposed to is tyranny and pulled out the "what if the government forced a Jewish owned hotel to host a Neo-Nazi convention" and "what if the government forced a Catholic contractor to do construction work on an abortion clinic?"

Well...I don't know...if I were the Jewish hotel, I'd charge a premium and laugh all the way to the bank, but, that's just me. I did comment that I felt it was basically unfair to compare gays to neo-nazis, but after that, I was out. Just not worth it to me to continue the conversation.

AJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
(03-04-2015 08:43 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 08:39 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I don’t think that follows. That doesn’t make any sense.
Maybe not for the wedding cake situation. For example, a christian shirt printing company refuses to make shirts for a gay pride parade. Should the government force them to print words that goes against their religion?

A couple make a full price offer on a house. The sellers accept but then reject the offer when they find out the couple is a same-sex couple. Is that discrimination?

The logo of the shirt for the gay pride parade says, “Dorothy is my best friend”, or “We are the Colors of the Rainbow”. Do you think this goes against their religion? Are they within the law to refuse to print the shirts?

A man and woman walk into a store owned by deeply religious Christians. They are about to pay for their merchandise when the owner realizes they are Jewish. The owners hold the Jews accountabe for Jesus’ death and refuse to sell them the wares. Is that allowed in your view? Are they not discriminating? Should the law support their decision?

A woman walks into a convinience store (US) to buy bread. The owners are Muslim and are appaled that she hasn’t covered her head, arms and legs. They shoo her out refusing to let her come back into the store much less sell her anything. Is that within their religious rights?

I can come up with a thousand scenarios like these, this is what I meant when I said “Our secular government cannot allow religious beliefs to dictate what laws will or won’t be followed” and now I shall add, “or under what auspices discrimation can be allowed”.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
03-04-2015, 09:22 PM
RE: Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
(03-04-2015 07:11 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I think a law like this could be useful if they met somewhere in the middle. Say a christian family owns a catering company. They shouldn't be able to outright refuse to make food for a gay wedding, but I think they should be able to refuse to attend the wedding or conduct the full catering service. Same with a bakery or flower shop. If the gay wedding needs flowers, make them the flowers, but they have to pick them up themselves and set them up. Make the damn gay wedding cake for them but they have to pick it up themselves. No delivery or catering, as that would force them to be a participant.

Let's see how well that fly overs whenever dogmatic Catholic caterers start this shit for anyone getting re-married, because of that anti-divorce shit Jesus said. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-04-2015, 09:31 PM
RE: Guess what everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of Indiana's new law were right.
(03-04-2015 09:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 07:11 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I think a law like this could be useful if they met somewhere in the middle. Say a christian family owns a catering company. They shouldn't be able to outright refuse to make food for a gay wedding, but I think they should be able to refuse to attend the wedding or conduct the full catering service. Same with a bakery or flower shop. If the gay wedding needs flowers, make them the flowers, but they have to pick them up themselves and set them up. Make the damn gay wedding cake for them but they have to pick it up themselves. No delivery or catering, as that would force them to be a participant.

Let's see how well that fly overs whenever dogmatic Catholic caterers start this shit for anyone getting re-married, because of that anti-divorce shit Jesus said. Dodgy

This is the part I don't get about this whole thing. For example, just recently the florist who refused to supply flowers to a gay wedding was on some Fox news show, and she was talking about how she had supplied flowers to the gay couple for years...about how much she loved them...what great people they were...and what good customers they were. But as soon as they get married she's like "uh, no." Huh

Also, the Indiana pizza place that was interviewed recently who said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding said they were perfectly fine serving gays who order pizzas from them any other time. Huh

I would almost understand it if they flat out refused to serve gays at all...I wouldn't agree, but I would understand...they don't approve of the gay lifestyle. Ok, I get that. But these people who are perfectly fine (apparently) with the gay lifestyle UNTIL a couple of "the gays" wants to get married and suddenly they're all offended? That I don't get.

AJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: