Ali#1, you were right about Arizona.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

I'm horribly conflicted when it comes to things like this. I really do feel that people should be able to decline servicing someone they're not comfortable with (I'd be a hypocrite otherwise), but at the same time I loathe the thought of someone being rejected based on racial, religious, gender, or other protected issues.

I absolutely get that. I often grapple with that sort of thing as well. Sometimes both sides have a valid point and government or the courts just have to decide and make a ruling.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by whammy

It was written to serve the Christian church who have generally kept their views on homosexuality (from old testament laws) very close to their core beliefs while ignoring other laws from the same teachings.

It is my understanding that there are three types of laws in the old testament. Ceremonial, judicial and moral. Ceremonial and judicial were for jews in ancient Israel, while the moral laws are still applicable today. I'm sure it's much more complex than this, but I think this is the gist of it..

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4854003.html

Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062

WASHINGTON -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) announced her decision to veto legislation on Wednesday that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to anyone on "religious freedom" grounds, effectively allowing them to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Can't believe I just saw this thread.

[Winch101]

The lamest excuse against homosexuality is that the book of myths is against it . The political correctness B S is what prohibits normal people from saying
What they believe . This moronic expedition into lala land is societies undoing .

This gay thing parallels the radical Muslim threat , a religious war is on the horizon , if your not religious ,do you think you will be able to stand back and spectate ...not bloody likely . I see a lot of parallels between our predicament
And 1938 Nazi Germany...the apathetic and the silent majority stand back and
Allow the scourge to be spread .
Though atheist myself I encourage the religious right to March on ..there is no middle ground . 47,000 members ,5 participants ,someone feed the sheeples

Ali have you been napping

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by Winch101

The lamest excuse against homosexuality is that the book of myths is against it . The political correctness B S is what prohibits normal people from saying
What they believe . This moronic expedition into lala land is societies undoing .

This gay thing parallels the radical Muslim threat , a religious war is on the horizon , if your not religious ,do you think you will be able to stand back and spectate ...not bloody likely . I see a lot of parallels between our predicament
And 1938 Nazi Germany...the apathetic and the silent majority stand back and
Allow the scourge to be spread .
Though atheist myself I encourage the religious right to March on ..there is no middle ground . 47,000 members ,5 participants ,someone feed the sheeples

Ali have you been napping

You may think it's a book of myths, but many, including me, do not. Maybe you are just afraid to have to be accountable for your actions to a higher power?

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Bad thread title though; being as Ali#1 doesn't bother to apologize when he's been both insulting & incorrect, don't go reinforcing when he actually is correct.

It's nice to be called correct once and a while caber

for the record I thought the law would never pass because of all the media pressure on it, It wouldn't stand up to the civil rights act either and I believe Obama and co were going to make an example out of it.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Winch101

Ali have you been napping

I guess so.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I think would be the closest thing.


Mathew 19:2-9

And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Obviously, it doesn't talk of homosexuality, but I suppose He wouldn't have mentioned a man and woman exclusively, if He actually meant any two people. It seems He is reaffirming the original old testament model of marriage.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. According to scripture, Jesus never dealt with homosexuality.

I agree that if the biblical Jesus is to be the authority on marriage, Jesus did affirm the Old Testament in that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. According to scripture, Jesus never dealt with homosexuality.

I agree that if the biblical Jesus is to be the authority on marriage, Jesus did affirm the Old Testament in that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

Lots of people never had a chance to vote for Jesus.

[Winch101]

It's just that kind of BS you use to scare little children into being good .
It makes me puke to hear it from an otherwise ( perhaps ) sane adult.

Watch Hitchens video ,you may be in it.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by whammy

My comment still applies. Take one religious law, take 'em all.

I think my choice would be to take none of the so called religious laws.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Winch101

It's just that kind of BS you use to scare little children into being good .
It makes me puke to hear it from an otherwise ( perhaps ) sane adult.

Watch Hitchens video ,you may be in it.

Put the video up again.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I was more referring to the one crying bigot

Sorry if I misunderstood

[NEWB]

There is an excellent book out there by Tomas Paine Titled "The Age of Reason". It was published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807.

It can be downloaded for free as it is out in the public domain.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Lots of people never had a chance to vote for Jesus.

All of the people that followed him did

BTW the gist of the Bible never has God saying "Lets make a deal"

God usually says, THIS IS THE DEAL!

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

All of the people that followed him did

BTW the gist of the Bible never has God saying "Lets make a deal"

God usually says, THIS IS THE DEAL!

He supposedly lived 2000 years ago I haven't been alive nearly that long.

Keep your bible out of my government and face and we will get along better.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by ali#1

He supposedly lived 2000 years ago I haven't been alive nearly that long.

Keep your bible out of my government and face and we will get along better.

If the biblical Jesus existed it would have been about 2000 years ago! I agree!

I agree that the Bible should not be in our government!

I agree that the Bible should not be in your face

Referring to the Bible or any other religious text to validate or not validate certain things is quite appropriate to discussion especially since religion seems to be the heart of all these discussions. That is not in your face.

For the record, I do not think there is anything in Christian text that is binding on the way I conduct my life. I do know that some people believe certain religious teachings are absolute truth. For those people who believe, I do not think they should be forced to submit to doing anything that they firmly believe they have a right to not do.

For me choosing not to bake a cake is not something I would choose to go to battle over and I would never choose to make another human being serve me in a way that he does not willingly wish to. On the other hand a surgeon or doctor should not be allowed to refuse life saving treatment because the other chooses a different life style or is of a different race. I know of no religious people who would refuse such a service.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

If the biblical Jesus existed it would have been about 2000 years ago! I agree!

I agree that the Bible should not be in our government!

I agree that the Bible should not be in your face

Referring to the Bible or any other religious text to validate or not validate certain things is quite appropriate to discussion especially since religion seems to be the heart of all these discussions. That is not in your face.

For the record, I do not think there is anything in Christian text that is binding on the way I conduct my life. I do know that some people believe certain religious teachings are absolute truth. For those people who believe, I do not think they should be forced to submit to doing anything that they firmly believe they have a right to.

For me choosing not to bake a cake is not something I would choose to go to battle over and I would never choose to make another human being serve me in a way that he does not willingly wish to. On the other hand a surgeon or doctor should not be allowed to refuse life saving treatment because the other chooses a different life style or is of a different race. I know of no religious people who would refuse such a service.

I agree mostly.

This country is a secular country and if let Christians live under certain religious laws then we have to for everybody else and that just becomes a mess. Look at Kansas I believe with the 10 commandments in front if their legislature and not other groups are doing the same. I believe religion is fine in ones church and home but it shouldn't have any influence in the public sphere.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Bad thread title though; being as Ali#1 doesn't bother to apologize when he's been both insulting & incorrect, don't go reinforcing when he actually is correct.

Perhaps, but I'm not him. I can concede when someone is correct, and he was correct that the law would not pass. It was vetoed by their Governor, so in reality, it is not a true indication of the people's desire or wishes. So it didn't pass because the populous felt it was unjust, but because their governor felt it was unjust, and in my opinion, this is not democracy.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Perhaps, but I'm not him. I can concede when someone is correct, and he was correct that the law would not pass. It was vetoed by their Governor, so in reality, it is not a true indication of the people's desire or wishes. So it didn't pass because the populous felt it was unjust, but because their governor felt it was unjust, and in my opinion, this is not democracy.

Who elected the governor ?

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by whammy

To be perfectly clear, this is not a debate about forcing the church to perform gay marriage.

Why not? It could very well be.

Originally Posted by whammy

We are talking about people choosing whether or not to serve homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.

You are talking about this, but it could also include many other scenarios.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Who elected the governor ?

The people voted for her to do their bidding, not to veto things she chooses without their approval.

Lots of dictators get elected and then become a dictator. Was the people's position to elect a dictator, or is it an outcome of someone who just abuses their power?

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by ali#1

I agree mostly.

This country is a secular country and if let Christians live under certain religious laws then we have to for everybody else and that just becomes a mess. Look at Kansas I believe with the 10 commandments in front if their legislature and not other groups are doing the same. I believe religion is fine in ones church and home but it shouldn't have any influence in the public sphere.

I have no problem letting religious people or non religious people live under whatever moral laws they choose as long as they do not interfere with the well being of others. I am not sure why any one would want to force someone to bake them a cake if their heart was not into it?

I think that being an atheist is fine in ones home but shouldn't have any influence in the public sphere.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

Once again...the mere act of baking a cake in exchange for money is not an endorsement of homosexuality any more than a Ukrainian baker baking a cake that said something about Christmas being on 25 Dec would be an endorsement of that belief.

Its a simple exchange of services for money... no different than any other.

Besides... there are plenty of ways to avoid customers that you do not wish to have without running to the goivernment looking for someone else to cover your play.

What kills me here is that most here that supported the proposal would be the same who lost their minds if it happened to be (for instance) Muslims trying to do the same thing.

I also think its pretty funny that a certain group complains about too much government and too much regulation but sees no problem in supporting government for their petty little gripe.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I have no problem letting religious people or non religious people live under whatever moral laws they choose as long as they do not interfere with the well being of others. I am not sure why any one would want to force someone to bake them a cake if their heart was not into it?

I think that being an atheist is fine in ones home but shouldn't have any influence in the public sphere.

In my opinion, it is because the gay couple had an agenda to push.

My parents are in Arizona right now, and they have said that there was a fair amount of discussion about this, and it was not so much about a return to segregation, but more to protect those who don't want to be pushed into providing services they felt were against their beliefs.

But of course there was many who felt it was also a through back to segregation. I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you sit.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The people voted for her to do their bidding, not to veto things she chooses without their approval.

Lots of dictators get elected and then become a dictator. Was the people's position to elect a dictator, or is it an outcome of someone who just abuses their power?

Do you think a governor in the USA is going to declare herself a dictator ?

Sure elected officials are there to represent its people, that doesn't mean that every issue gets to have a referendum. We elect people to do that for us and if they do a poor job we elect them out next time.

You also touched on the tyranny of the majority. Because a majority of people may want something doesn't mean it should be approved, slavery for example shouldn't be brought back because black people don't have enough votes to out vote it, rights are there for the minority tha majority does not need protection.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Once again...the mere act of baking a cake in exchange for money is not an endorsement of homosexuality any more than a Ukrainian baker baking a cake that said something about Christmas being on 25 Dec would be an endorsement of that belief.

Its a simple exchange of services for money... no different than any other.

Besides... there are plenty of ways to avoid customers that you do not wish to have without running to the goivernment looking for someone else to cover your play.

What kills me here is that most here that supported the proposal would be the same who lost their minds if it happened to be (for instance) Muslims trying to do the same thing.

I also think its pretty funny that a certain group complains about too much government and too much regulation but sees no problem in supporting government for their petty little gripe.

I think a Muslim baker should be permitted to refuse to bake a cake for a christening as much as a christian baker has a right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

And I don't see why the government should get involved and force either baker to bake a cake for a person or group that violates their moral convictions.

[hal53]

you are having a good discussion with yourself right now Ali, you can argue both sides, just separate them by a paragraph

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Do you think a governor in the USA is going to declare herself a dictator ?

Sure elected officials are there to represent its people, that doesn't mean that every issue gets to have a referendum. We elect people to do that for us and if they do a poor job we elect them out next time.

You also touched on the tyranny of the majority. Because a majority of people may want something doesn't mean it should be approved, slavery for example shouldn't be brought back because black people don't have enough votes to out vote it, rights are there for the minority tha majority does not need protection.

In this case, she did. It should have been voted on.

I think you don't give the public enough credibility to do the right thing. You clearly think that the government should dictate to the public right from wrong, and you don't seem to have any ability to see things from a different point of view. This is why it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people like you.

I don't think had this law passed that there would have been a big influx of segregation issues. Most people have grown accustomed to be tolerant. What I saw this law doing, and based on discussions with my parents who are currently in Arizona, this law was more about giving people who have religious views back some rights to not be forced to do something that violates their moral convictions.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by hal53

you are having a good discussion with yourself right now Ali, you can argue both sides, just separate them by a paragraph