"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 737
#211
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Snoopy
You might be making a logical error here.  That is, what you are referring to as marriage may not be what English speakers (Christians) referred to since the origins of the word till around the 21st century.  Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.
for whatever reason some seem oddly confused between a marriage granted by the government, legal contract, and a religious ceremony which includes a marriage recognized by the government as a legal contract.
you can have a ceremony without being legally married or be legally married without a ceremony, they can be exclusive.

#212
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.
So you're basically saying we agree.

Marriage is thought to originate from God, and the Christian chapter is viewed as circumstantially distinct but on continuum.  It isn't invented by the people who founded the church.  In practice it was refined institutionally with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.   Through Christ salvation is realized.

Lord's Prayer, Mathew
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Topic's author
#213
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
And there is also an equally long history of objecting to eating bacon-cheeseburgers and marrying a divorcee.
lol you are really trying hard here I see that but come on LOL
you don't ask to enter into a mutual contract to have a person eat bacon-cheeseburgers do you?
The cake doesn't cause them or allow them to commit homo stuff.  They're going to do that anyway.

(IFF) the "objection" is based on the idea that "I don't want to endorse sin" (THEN) there should be a reason to single out that one sin.

so only your interpretation matters then, because you believe theirs is incorrect?
They've offered no attempt to explain why they refuse to make a cake for homos (a sin) and yet have no problem making a cake for divorcees (also a sin).

because, as you claim, they allow for other sins or things you think are prohibited in the bible that they can't object to homosexuality, it's all or nothing for you, correct?
All of the sins that have the same penalties are the same priority.

(IFF) homo marriage is claimed to be a higher priority than other sins (THEN) there must be some supporting evidence for this claim.

For example, if you suppose The Seven Deadly Sins are "the worst of the worst", then pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth should all be treated equally, (OR) perhaps in order of appearance with Pride being the Worst.
Topic's author
#214
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
...with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.
Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.
Topic's author
#215
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you can have a ceremony without being legally married or be legally married without a ceremony, they can be exclusive.
Good point.
#216
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
...with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.
Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.
Yeah, there could still be Jewish arguments on that subject.  In Christianity something like that is considered as a consequence of the fall and/or policy of specific historical context, and no longer institutionally valid in any circumstance.

#217
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
we are going in circles here, how can I explain the difference between a ceremony,event,act (verbs) and skin color (noun) in any more of a plain way than I already have?
No the difference between skin color and sexual orientation. If one can object to a ceremony/act/verb based on sexual orientation then one could also object based on skin color. What is the difference?

Topic's author
#218
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.
Yeah, there could still be Jewish arguments on that subject.  In Christianity something like that is considered as a consequence of the fall and/or policy of specific historical context, and no longer institutionally valid in any circumstance.
So, pure post-hoc apologetics.

Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".
#219
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL

Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".
The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.  I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.

#220
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
Are you aware of any formal heresies denoting something like "bible worship"?
#221
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Snoopy
Bibliolatry is definitely a mistake. A very protestant thing.
#222
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Snoopy
I should clarify, a particular brand of protestantism.



Topic's author
#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
...they could have purchased a cake from the case, his creativity, skill, artistic interpretation, his physical labor for which someone wishes to enter into a contract with him for is at his discretion.
First of all, the cake guy does this all day long, this is not "forced labor".  He even has a sign that says "custom cakes made upon request".

The cake guy can quit at any time.

Second of all, in court hearings, the cake designer said that he refused to discuss any design of any cake for the gay wedding.  So his objection was not about "the design of the cake".  The objection was based on their sexual orientation alone, not that they were asking for a ridiculous cake.

Thirdly, what gets buried under the "compelled free speech" defense is the REASON the cake designer refused.

Can we force a restaurant employee to make a milkshake or a cappuccino for a minority they hate?  Yes.

Is a milkshake or a cappuccino a customizable item that takes some level of skill to create?  Yes.

Is making a fancy milkshake or cappuccino significantly or materially different than a simple wedding cake with two boy names on it?

It wouldn't seem to be.
#224
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Snoopy
Interestingly enough, the way Muslims treat the Koran might be a form of bibliolatry. 

The church does not teach that the bible was dictated by God, but inspired. Some call the bible "the word of God", and sure, in a sense you could ssy that... but the bible itself says Jesus Christ is The Word of God.


#225
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the "objection" is based on the idea that "I don't want to endorse sin" (THEN) there should be a reason to single out that one sin.
ok, I believe in that case that was part of it.  Really though I don't think he should have even given a reason because he didn't have to being a free person who isn't a slave.

They've offered no attempt to explain why they refuse to make a cake for homos (a sin) and yet have no problem making a cake for divorcees (also a sin).
people and their opinions/beliefs can be inconsistent, that's human nature.

All of the sins that have the same penalties are the same priority.

(IFF) homo marriage is claimed to be a higher priority than other sins (THEN) there must be some supporting evidence for this claim.

For example, if you suppose The Seven Deadly Sins are "the worst of the worst", then pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth should all be treated equally, (OR) perhaps in order of appearance with Pride being the Worst.
that does seem logical when discussing something you don't believe in and is illogical.  I don't know enough about religion to discuss the context you have presented.

though I will say you are demanding them to prove their religion/religious belief which doesn't seem to be compatible with a freedom of religion




Topic's author
#226
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".
The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.  I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.
Even so, you still have to show the rule.

If your flavor of religion prioritizes certain documents over others, that's fine.

Pick whatever document you wish, but you still need to show the text that says something interpret-able as "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners".
#227
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
No the difference between skin color and sexual orientation. If one can object to a ceremony/act/verb based on sexual orientation then one could also object based on skin color. What is the difference?

quite simply you don't have to do an action, the verbs I listed, you can not change your skin color.  There are very religious gay people who believe gay sex is a sin so they don't have it (action/verb)
you also don't have to get married, totally voluntary and optional, skin color, not so much.
I hope that explains the difference that I see.
#228
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
First of all, the cake guy does this all day long, this is not "forced labor".
lol dude come on, it's forced labor if he doesn't want to do it isn't it?  I mean that IS the definition.

The objection was based on their sexual orientation alone, not that they were asking for a ridiculous cake.
the objection was based on a gay marriage as they were able to pick a cake from the case, so it was not actually based on their sexual orientation because he would have still provided a product to them.

Can we force a restaurant employee to make a milkshake or a cappuccino for a minority they hate?  Yes.
correct as I have been explaining to secularmerlin it's about an action/verb and not a noun, please read those posts I don't feel like typing it out all again.



#229
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.
How does this prevent one from claiming religious objection to serving other races or disabled persons? Is there any way to prevent abuse of a "religious freedom" bill which is worded to protect one from being prosecuted for discrimination based on whatever post hoc religious justifications are offered?

#230
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,189
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Use some common sense guys. 
God doesn't like it when you do stuff for gay people FULL STOP
Picture god making 300 billion stars, the universe and everything in it.
Take six seconds Picture it 
6
And a 5
and a 4
3
And a 2
And 1.
Amazing right?
Oh and boys ain't allowed to kiss boys.
It's ludicrous. 


When you die there will be a bloke with a list. 
#141 your interactions with gay people. 


#231
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,189
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Discrimination ain't nothing compared to risking heaven entrance. 





#232
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Even so, you still have to show the rule.
but again I believe many of these things are open to interpretation are they not?  If they are, does the individual have the right to their interpretation?  Who decides if the individual's interpretation is wrong and who's is correct?  If you think they are wrong do you think it's ok to make them accept yours?

#233
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".
The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.  I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.
Even so, you still have to show the rule.

If your flavor of religion prioritizes certain documents over others, that's fine.

Pick whatever document you wish, but you still need to show the text that says something interpret-able as "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners".
There is no such rule in Christianity, and the ethic is not really reducible to a list of rules so much as an ordered liberty.  Even believing in a sin irrationally and acting upon it runs contrary to a state of grace.  Last time I suggested the presumption of people's motivations you said something like "they say its based on religion" but what you are actually doing here is saying that their conscience can be assumed to align with your own presumptions like "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners" without proof.
#234
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,189
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
What if gay people are jeopardizing religious peoples afterlife.  Unfortunately this has to be considered right?


Topic's author
#235
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
There is no such rule in Christianity. 
As far as I can tell.

Last time I told you that you were presuming people's beliefs you said something like "they say its based on religion" but what you are actually doing is saying that their conscience can be assumed to align with your own presumptions like "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners" without proof.
They call it "religious freedom" and they say their "conscience" is "evidence" of their specific god.

If you de-couple individual conscience from religion, then you may as well throw "The Bible" out of the nearest window.

The first thing these people ALWAYS say is, "homosexuality is a sin".  Well, certainly, but there's a truck-load of other (equally horrifying) sins you seem to whimsically ignore (like divorce).

If your objection doesn't have anything to do with "The Bible" then just say "homos creep me out".

And don't try and blame it on your religion.

They're making Christians look bad.
Topic's author
#236
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Even so, you still have to show the rule.
but again I believe many of these things are open to interpretation are they not?  If they are, does the individual have the right to their interpretation?  Who decides if the individual's interpretation is wrong and who's is correct?  If you think they are wrong do you think it's ok to make them accept yours?
Show me the text.

I'll be extremely generous.

I'll even accept your choice of non-canonical scholarly "authoritative" biblical analysis.

You're making a naked appeal to ignorance.
Topic's author
#237
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What if gay people are jeopardizing religious peoples afterlife.  Unfortunately this has to be considered right?
Show me the holy text that suggests such a thing.
#238
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
quite simply you don't have to do an action, the verbs I listed, you can not change your skin color.  There are very religious gay people who believe gay sex is a sin so they don't have it (action/verb)
you also don't have to get married, totally voluntary and optional, skin color, not so much.
I hope that explains the difference that I see.
By that rational getting married need not involve sex (though like being homosexual it generally does) so the bakers objection to a non sex act is still quite puzzling.

#239
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Show me the text.

I'll be extremely generous.

I'll even accept your choice of non-canonical scholarly "authoritative" biblical analysis.

You're making a naked appeal to ignorance.
why do you think I could do that based on the countless times I have told you about my level of knowledge on the subject?
I assume something must exist for this issue to even arise, historical stories and the like.  Hasn't there been a long tradition and teaching on the subject of homosexuality?  Those who interpret it differently broke away and formed their own.  Is it within the government's power to pick a winner and a loser in any religious debate?

here lets even take it a step further, let's make them prove their religion is real, how about that?  If they can't then it's all null and void.  Problem solved, fascism at it's finest.


#240
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
By that rational getting married need not involve sex (though like being homosexual it generally does) so the bakers objection to a non sex act is still quite puzzling.
that's true, it's funny because I was think of something very similar, what if 2 men who somehow lost or didn't have sex organs wanted to get married, interesting question to be sure.