S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Slartibartfast]

Source for your legitimate, current religion practicing racial discrimination based on the scriptures as a religious practice?   We have the Methodists, the Catholics, and the "I hate Hindus" religious faith?   You have to establish and defend your case before you can ask someone else to respond to it.  No one has done that, that I saw, but there are over 100 responses I can't get to now.  I just keep hearing, "Well...what about THIS (unrelated thing to religious freedom in cake cases)?"

 

I'm out.  I have things to do today.  Race is not at issue here and is already completely protected,  though you may argue that someone SOMEWHERE doesn't like interracial marriages.  ?  There is no scriptural precedent prohibiting men and women of various melanin levels marrying - just so long as it is one man and one woman, who forsake all others. 

 

Every single thing you said was asked and answered along the way.  I'm just not going back to find it. The thread is too large. 

 

Southern Baptists opposed interracial marriage for decades. Southern Baptist is the worlds largest denomination of Baptists. It is the second LARGEST Christian church in the US following the Catholic church.

 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2011/june/opposition-to-interracial-marriage-lingers-among.html?paging=off

  

Bob Jones University removed its rule against interracial dating in 2000; the university

apologized for this and other racist policies in 2005.

  

Today, the issue of interracial marriage is most likely to be breached during debates over same-sex marriage. Ted Olson and David Boies released a video this month for the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER). The video features the two lawyers (who argued successfully against California's Proposition 8) discussing Loving v. Virginia as the foundation for the argument for same-sex marriage.

 

http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/22/the-changing-face-of-the-southern-baptist-convention/

 

Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Pike County, KY recently voted nine to six in favor of denying church membership to interracial couples

http://sbcvoices.com/are-interracial-relationships-forbidden-in-scripture-a-response-to-gulnare-freewill-baptist-church/

 

They later reversed that position because

 

 

Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1205/All-white-Kentucky-church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-couples

 

It was illegal.

 

Those rules were only changed within the past ten-twenty years. Just because they waved a magic wand saying I am suddenly ok now doesn't mean I want to hang out with the people who believed I wasn't all that time. It's pretty easy to forget about things when some jerk isn't preaching against you from the pulpit. I had to go to school with people listening to that, of course it had an impact.

[*Lulu*]

So, bringing it back around to the FRC, if the religious exemptions some have suggested were to be made, what would keep groups like the FRC from working to expand the exemptions to include non-business entities?

 

The hobby lobby connection being in the forefront of my mind, of course.

[albeto.]

So, bringing it back around to the FRC, if the religious exemptions some have suggested were to be made, what would keep groups like the FRC from working to expand the exemptions to include non-business entities?

 

The hobby lobby connection being in the forefront of my mind, of course.

 

Muslim groups successfully lobbying for the same rights. 

 

Just a guess. 

[kiana]

Muslim groups successfully lobbying for the same rights. 

 

Just a guess. 

 

That's not a legitimate religious belief, isn't it obvious? It's nowhere in the Bible!

 

:)

[Mrs Mungo]

Muslim groups successfully lobbying for the same rights. 

 

Just a guess.

Well, if we are to give exemptions for religious groups, then these are the types of things that happen because the state DOES NOT get to pick and choose which religions are "legitimate" or "orthodox":

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/1417612/first-look-for-satanic-statue-to-accompany-ten-commandments-at-oklahoma-capitol-release/

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/texas-pastafarian-license-photo_n_3816839.html

[LizItaly]

That is irrelevant since FRC is a POLITICAL LOBBYING GROUP. They ARE NOT registered as a RELIGIOUS group. POLITICAL LOBBYING groups are NOT protected under the law.

 

You wrote, "I would say that the FRC's political beliefs are the reason I might refuse to host them. I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs."

 

Your Christian status would not protect you from being accused of discriminating against the FRC for their Christian beliefs.  

 

In the article I linked (did you take a look?), a gay bar, the Denver Wrangler, was cited by Colorado's Division of Civil Rights for refusing to allow entry to a gay man in drag.  In other words, the gay bar was accused of discriminating against a gay man, and has thus violated this gay man's right to public accommodation based on his appearance.

 

The article goes on to note that the gay bar, which caters to "bears," a particular gay subculture, has a dress code "forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes."  The report from the Division of Civil Rights determined that the gay bar used its dress code to "exclude overly feminine women or transgender people."

 

As Scott Shackford, a gay man and the author of the article, writes, "This case is a good demonstration as to why it's so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association.  The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar.  And if the community finds it significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push for change..."

[Slartibartfast]

Well, if we are to give exemptions for religious groups, then these are the types of things that happen because the state DOES NOT get to pick and choose which religions are "legitimate" or "orthodox":

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/1417612/first-look-for-satanic-statue-to-accompany-ten-commandments-at-oklahoma-capitol-release/

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/texas-pastafarian-license-photo_n_3816839.html

I really hope they don't put the Ten Commandments back. I am not fond of Satan statue

[Slartibartfast]

ARG! Formatting!

[Mrs Mungo]

Again, you are mixing a separate issue into the mix in an attempt to bolster your case.  I am discussing ONLY the right of the cake baker (or wedding service providers) to decline an event that violates the meaning of "marriage" under the tenets of his faith and clear biblical proscription. That's it.  Other issues are not relevant here.

 

No, it isn't mixing issues, no matter what you claim. It is the SAME issue. Some people have a deeply held religious belief that interracial marriage is wrong. You can't make exceptions for SOME beliefs and not others. That is just is not how it works from a LEGAL standpoint. You have YET to explain how you would get around that. You just keeping claiming it is different when it is decidedly, demonstrably, legally NOT different.

 

 

The way you stated that makes clear your incredible bias and inability to look at both sides.

 

Instead, he could call it, "Traditional Marriage Cake Club", if he liked.   In fact, every single wedding-related business owned by a Christian could be forced to go private or out of business instead of doing "weddings" - but why?  Why the targeting of traditional Christian beliefs, while opposing views remain sacrosanct?     Why can't this baker and other bakers who still adhere to a scriptural basis of marriage be permitted to operate their business according to their faith, and others operate their businesses according to their own standards (religious, secular, Jehovah's Witness...whatever) ? 

 

That is as bigoted as anything I have read here.

My bias against WHAT? Bigots? I AM a Christian. I would NEVER use the term "traditional" because there is no such thing as one type of traditional marriage. People have ALREADY pointed out to you that gay marriage has and does exist is some "traditional" societies. The word "traditional" has a specific meaning from an anthropological standpoint when talking about societal constructs, and it isn't the use you are attempting to apply. People can *believe* whatever they please. But, when they use those beliefs to discriminate against groups of people, then they are a bigot. That is what it IS to be a bigot: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." I can't be bigoted against Christians because I AM one. I do NOT treat members of a racial, ethnical, religious or other *group* with hatred or intolerance. I judge people based upon their *actions*. If someone is *actively discriminating* against a group of people, then they are definitively a bigot. That's just a fact.

[Mrs Mungo]

I really hope they don't put the Ten Commandments back. I am not fond of Satan statue

ITA. Maybe I should contact my ex-boyfriend in the state legislature. Think he would listen to me on why it's a bad idea to put it back?

[Slartibartfast]

You wrote, "I would say that the FRC's political beliefs are the reason I might refuse to host them. I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs."

 

Your Christian status would not protect you from being accused of discriminating against the FRC for their Christian beliefs.  

 

In the article I linked (did you take a look?), a gay bar, the Denver Wrangler, was cited by Colorado's Division of Civil Rights for refusing to allow entry to a gay man in drag.  In other words, the gay bar was accused of discriminating against a gay man, and has thus violated this gay man's right to public accommodation based on his appearance.

 

The article goes on to note that the gay bar, which caters to "bears," a particular gay subculture, has a dress code "forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes."  The report from the Division of Civil Rights determined that the gay bar used its dress code to "exclude overly feminine women or transgender people."

 

As Scott Shackford, a gay man and the author of the article, writes, "This case is a good demonstration as to why it's so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association.  The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar.  And if the community finds it significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push for change..."

A PAC is not the same as a 501©3

 

They don't count as a religious group because it is a PAC. One cannot be both.

 

Herm...board insists that if I put a c in parenthesis that it means I want to copyright it. I don't mean copyrighted. :lol: 501 ( c ) 3

 

It isn't a privately owned business, it is a PAC. It is not a charity, it is a PAC. It is not a church, it is a PAC.

 

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1559#.VIoTsSvF-HM

 

A church is a 501( c )3 a PAC is a 501( c ) 4 The FRC is a 501( c ) 4. A 501( c )4 doesn't have the same protections that a religious organization does.

[Caroline]

 

 

 

 

My bias against WHAT? Bigots? I AM a Christian. I would NEVER use the term "traditional" because there is no such thing as one type of traditional marriage. People have ALREADY pointed out to you that gay marriage has and does exist is some "traditional" societies. The word "traditional" has a specific meaning from an anthropological standpoint when talking about societal constructs, and it isn't the use you are attempting to apply. People can *believe* whatever they please. But, when they use those beliefs to discriminate against groups of people, then they are a bigot. That is what it IS to be a bigot: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." I can't be bigoted against Christians because I AM one. I do NOT treat members of a racial, ethnical, religious or other *group* with hatred or intolerance. I judge people based upon their *actions*. If someone is *actively discriminating* against a group of people, then they are definitively a bigot. That's just a fact.

She found you out--you are biased against bigots. Me, too.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would say that the FRC's political beliefs are the reason I might refuse to host them. I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs."

 

Your Christian status would not protect you from being accused of discriminating against the FRC for their Christian beliefs.

 

In the article I linked (did you take a look?), a gay bar, the Denver Wrangler, was cited by Colorado's Division of Civil Rights for refusing to allow entry to a gay man in drag.  In other words, the gay bar was accused of discriminating against a gay man, and has thus violated this gay man's right to public accommodation based on his appearance.

 

The article goes on to note that the gay bar, which caters to "bears," a particular gay subculture, has a dress code "forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes."  The report from the Division of Civil Rights determined that the gay bar used its dress code to "exclude overly feminine women or transgender people."

 

As Scott Shackford, a gay man and the author of the article, writes, "This case is a good demonstration as to why it's so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association.  The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar.  And if the community finds it significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push for change..."

Except my point was two-fold, the first being that the FRC is a political organization.

 

A gay bar is not a political organization.

 

The gay bar COULD get around the rule by becoming a private club with a membership fee and dress code. Then, they would be perfectly legal. I'm just saying.

[Slartibartfast]

ITA. Maybe I should contact my ex-boyfriend in the state legislature. Think he would listen to me on why it's a bad idea to put it back?

I don't think the Oklahoma state legislature has much interest in common sense with some of the things they have been doing of late.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think the Oklahoma state legislature has much interest in common sense with some of the things they have been doing of late.

For the record, young repressed republicans are EXCELLENT kissers...even if they do have lots of guilt after the fact. But, agreed, they do seem to not have the best interests of Oklahomans at heart in some things that they do.

[LizItaly]

Tranquil Mind, I feel like you deserve a new pair of tap shoes. You are really quite amazing at dancing between and around the questions people have asked.

 

Why the need for sarcasm and ad hominem attacks?  TranquilMind has been patiently arguing a side of this discussion almost on her own while being attacked repeatedly and personally over and over again.  Most of the commenters on this thread do not agree with her, but she has been courageous enough to stand up for her principles regardless.

 

Even if you do not agree with her, she deserves your respect, or, at the very least, respectful treatment.

 

For the record, not everyone in the gay community agrees with you on the subject of public accommodation.  II can tell you that my two closest gay friends do not.  Some of them know that once 1st Amendments freedoms are eroded, life for them, and for all Americans, will be very bleak indeed.  I have been to countries where there is no freedom of speech, religion, association, etc..  It is not pretty.  Can you guess who suffers the most?  

[Slartibartfast]

For the record, young repressed republicans are EXCELLENT kissers...even if they do have lots of guilt after the fact. But, agreed, they do seem to not have the best interests of Oklahomans at heart in some things that they do.

Herm..this is true now that I am thinking about it.

 

Dh was Baptist at one point. :lol:

[LizItaly]

Except my point was two-fold, the first being that the FRC is a political organization.

 

A gay bar is not a political organization.

 

The gay bar COULD get around the rule by becoming a private club with a membership fee and dress code. Then, they would be perfectly legal. I'm just saying.

 

Or, we could just acknowledge the absurdity of a protected group accusing an establishment run by the identical protected group of discrimination against the self-same protected group.

 

In the analogy, you the Christian Mrs Mungo are analogous to the gay bar.  The Christian FRC is analogous to the gay man in drag.  I never suggested that a gay bar was a political organization; you are understanding the analogy backwards.

 

And while you can try to discriminate against the FRC as political group, that would not necessarily stop them from accusing you of discriminating against them for religious reasons.  Even if they lost, the lawyers' fees you would have to pay to get yourself through the ordeal could be crippling, as could the press, and the damage to your business caused by time away from it.

 

Just sayin'.

[Slartibartfast]

Or, we could just acknowledge the absurdity of a protected group accusing an establishment run by the identical protected group of discrimination against the self-same protected group.

 

In the analogy, you the Christian Mrs Mungo are analogous to the gay bar.  The Christian FRC is analogous to the gay man in drag.  I never suggested that a gay bar was a political organization; you are understanding the analogy backwards.

 

And while you can try to discriminate against the FRC as political group, that would not necessarily stop them from accusing you of discriminating against them for religious reasons.  Even if they lost, the lawyers' fees you would have to pay to get yourself through the ordeal could be crippling, as could the press, and the damage to your business caused by time away from it.

 

Just sayin'.

I am pretty sure a few organizations would help her out with that lawyer bill.

 

Our grandmother went to the Supreme Court, our family would be thrilled if another member did. She might even pull ahead of our younger sister as "mom's favorite" :lol:

[*Lulu*]

Why the need for sarcasm and ad hominem attacks?  TranquilMind has been patiently arguing a side of this discussion almost on her own while being attacked repeatedly and personally over and over again.  Most of the commenters on this thread do not agree with her, but she has been courageous enough to stand up for her principles regardless.

 

Even if you do not agree with her, she deserves your respect, or, at the very least, respectful treatment.

 

For the record, not everyone in the gay community agrees with you on the subject of public accommodation.  II can tell you that my two closest gay friends do not.  Some of them know that once 1st Amendments freedoms are eroded, life for them, and for all Americans, will be very bleak indeed.  I have been to countries where there is no freedom of speech, religion, association, etc..  It is not pretty.  Can you guess who suffers the most?  

 

Beyond the one post you quoted (which appeared after hundreds of well reasoned and polite posts to the poster in question) where did anyone personally attack her?

 

And unless you count disagreement as attack, I don't see where that has taken place.

[LizItaly]

Beyond the one post you quoted (which appeared after hundreds of well reasoned and polite posts to the poster in question) where did anyone personally attack her?

 

And unless you count disagreement as attack, I don't see where that has taken place.

 

How about the countless times she was asked why she was trying to force people to live by her religious views, even though she never once said that, and refuted it time and time again?

 

The general tone has been suspicious of and hostile to anyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint currently in vogue.  The intent, I believe, is to shut down debate.  Have you no interest in hearing the other side? Is an echo-chamber so terribly satisfying? I am genuinely curious about the other side, myself.  And even if I do not agree with you, I care about your point of view because I think a vigorous, civil debate is the healthiest way to tackle difficult problems.  Accusations of bigotry and racism are another way of saying "shut up."  I am willing to bet that there are many on the WTM forums who have something to say, but don't wish to be accused of bigotry.  We are poorer for having less diversity of thought.  Tranquil is arguing in good faith but it appears to all on her side.

 

Also, though I don't think you will sway me to your side, your opinion is vitally important to me and (I hope) to everyone else as an expression of free speech, a freedom without which no other freedoms could long exist.

[Mrs Mungo]

Or, we could just acknowledge the absurdity of a protected group accusing an establishment run by the identical protected group of discrimination against the self-same protected group.

 

In the analogy, you the Christian Mrs Mungo are analogous to the gay bar.  The Christian FRC is analogous to the gay man in drag.  I never suggested that a gay bar was a political organization; you are understanding the analogy backwards.

 

And while you can try to discriminate against the FRC as political group, that would not necessarily stop them from accusing you of discriminating against them for religious reasons.  Even if they lost, the lawyers' fees you would have to pay to get yourself through the ordeal could be crippling, as could the press, and the damage to your business caused by time away from it.

 

Just sayin'.

Except the gay man in question is not a political organization. Political lobbying organizations are not a protected group under the law. Your analogy is hopelessly flawed unless they become legally protected in some way.

 

ETA: I have multiple lawyers in my family who have sued the US government and won. So, I think I would be fine. ;)

[Tanaqui]

The intent, I believe, is to shut down debate.  Have you no interest in hearing the other side?

 

We have tried to debate and to hear the other side. TranquilMind, who has been the most prolific commenter with that viewpoint, has continually dodged all the more interesting questions.

[zoobie]

For the record, young repressed republicans are EXCELLENT kissers...even if they do have lots of guilt after the fact. But, agreed, they do seem to not have the best interests of Oklahomans at heart in some things that they do.

 

I agree! I converted mine (who had campaigned for Newt Gingrich FFS) and married him. Now he's more liberal than I am. His mother was right--I'd ruin him! :D

[Mrs Mungo]

The general tone has been suspicious of and hostile to anyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint currently in vogue.  The intent, I believe, is to shut down debate.  Have you no interest in hearing the other side?

It seems hostile because people are having to repeat and rephrase their questions over and over because she is deflecting, not directly answering the questions asked.

[LizItaly]

Except the gay man in question is not a political organization. Political lobbying organizations are not a protected group under the law. Your analogy is hopelessly flawed unless they become legally protected in some way.

 

ETA: I have multiple lawyers in my family who have sued the US government and won. So, I think I would be fine. ;)

 

"I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs."

 

These are your words.  I was responding with an analogy to those very words.  The point is that, because of public accommodation laws, your Christianity would not protect you from being accused of anti-Christian discrimination by other Christians.  Even the (protected) gay owner of a gay bar was not protected from being accused of discrimination based on sexual orientation by a (protected) gay man.

 

This is not absurd?  Come on.

[QueenCat]

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Reminds me of how Southern Baptists (perhaps others? I only have personal knowledge of SBC churches) suddenly backpedaled on LDS being a cult once Mitt Romney was a serious Presidential candidate. 

 

 

 

That was pretty interesting to see that stance change.

[Mrs Mungo]

"I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs."

 

These are your words.  I was responding with an analogy to those very words.  The point is that, because of public accommodation laws, your Christianity would not protect you from being accused of anti-Christian discrimination by other Christians.  Even the (protected) gay owner of a gay bar was not protected from being accused of discrimination based on sexual orientation by a (protected) gay man.

 

This is not absurd?  Come on.

 

It is not the entirety of my words. That is only a partial quote. My main point in my post that they are a POLITICAL group. I would say that it would not be legal to prevent the church that the Duggars attended (if, in theory, they attended church, which they don't) from holding a conference there.

[LizItaly]

We have tried to debate and to hear the other side. TranquilMind, who has been the most prolific commenter with that viewpoint, has continually dodged all the more interesting questions.

 

For example?

 

What I see is an avalanche of comments representing one side and a lone poster, occasionally joined by one other person, who is somehow required to answer everything you ask her, regardless the relevance or repetition.  Go back and take a look at the number of commenters on your side, and the number of posts Tranquil wrote in response.  What is she dodging?  I think she was damn thorough (excuse my French).

 

That you don't care for her answers is an entirely different issue.

[Mrs Mungo]

For example?

 

What I see is an avalanche of comments representing one side and a lone poster, occasionally joined by one other person, who is somehow required to answer everything you ask her, regardless the relevance or repetition.  Go back and take a look at the number of commenters on your side, and the number of posts Tranquil wrote in response.  What is she dodging?  I think she was damn thorough (excuse my French).

 

That you don't care for her answers is an entirely different issue.

No, the actual questions asked were not answered. Just as an example, people said, "what about someone who doesn't want to serve interracial couples based upon their religious beliefs," but she answered, "that isn't Biblical." But, that is only according to her personal beliefs, so it's not a real answer. I already demonstrated that the government doesn't pick and choose which religions are legit.

 

This is a good summary, I thought.

 

Actually it is religious in nature, in the exact same way that discrimination against gay couples is religious. Whether you agree with them or not, there are people who believe that there is a scriptural prohibition against interracial marriage.  So the question, which you keep refusing to answer, is how do you pass a law that says its OK to discriminate against gay couples for religious reasons, but its not OK to discriminate against interracial couples, if you hold an equally sincere religious belief that this is wrong?

 

You keep providing "solutions" but when people point out the actual legal implications of your solution, you say "oh, no, I never said that, no one wants that."

 

You say: everyone should be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs

People point out: this would apply to ALL religious beliefs, including those against blacks, Muslims, Jews, etc.

 

So you respond: oh, no, skin color and religion are inborn, those don't count

So people point out: religion isn't inborn, it's a choice, and so is interracial marriage

 

You: well skin color isn't a choice, and it's already protected so it's totally irrelevant

Others: Some people do have a "sincerely held religious belief" that interracial marriage is wrong, so if religious belief is a legitimate basis for discrimination, then they would be allowed to discriminate too

 

You: No, they can't, because that's not in the Bible. The prohibition against homosexuality is clearly in the Bible.

Others: And yet fellow Christians on both sides (anti-interracial-marriage and pro-gay-rights) disagree with you. So you get to be the arbiter of the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? 

 

You: No of course not.

Others: So who gets to decide what's the "right" way to read the Bible? What about other religious scriptures/beliefs.

 

You: Well, only orthodox, legitimate religions should count

Others: Who gets to decide what's orthodox or legitimate???? Government? 

 

You: Well, somebody's already deciding that — only currently popular religious beliefs are protected by the 1st amendment. That's so unfair and scary! 

 

Which is not only totally untrue, it doesn't answer the question of who should get to decide which religious beliefs are "legitimate" and which aren't. Because to me that's waaaay more scary than expecting that business owners simply follow the laws they agree to when they open a business.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, if we are to give exemptions for religious groups, then these are the types of things that happen because the state DOES NOT get to pick and choose which religions are "legitimate" or "orthodox":

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/1417612/first-look-for-satanic-statue-to-accompany-ten-commandments-at-oklahoma-capitol-release/

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/texas-pastafarian-license-photo_n_3816839.html

Quoting to point out that these are only two of many possible examples of unorthodox (at the least) religions being recognized by government.

[LizItaly]

No, the actual questions asked were not answered. Just as an example, people said, "what about someone who doesn't want to serve interracial couples based upon their religious beliefs," but she answered, "that isn't Biblical." But, that is only according to her personal beliefs, so it's not a real answer. I already demonstrated that the government doesn't pick and choose which religions are legit.

 

This is a good summary, I thought.

 

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

[*Lulu*]

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

Except it isn't irrelevant in the opinion of many of us.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For example?

 

What I see is an avalanche of comments representing one side and a lone poster, occasionally joined by one other person, who is somehow required to answer everything you ask her, regardless the relevance or repetition. Go back and take a look at the number of commenters on your side, and the number of posts Tranquil wrote in response. What is she dodging? I think she was damn thorough (excuse my French).

 

That you don't care for her answers is an entirely different issue.

She has dodged/deflected the racial discrimination question repeatedly, as she knows that doing so will either a.) reveal that believes racial discrimination should be legal in at least some circumstances, or b.) reveal a flaw in her logic about how far religious beliefs can be protected. Which explains why she keeps saying the question is nonsensical. Deflection.

[LizItaly]

Except it isn't irrelevant in the opinion of many of us.

 

You disagree with her.  Fine.  But don't accuse her of dodging when she didn't.

[Tanaqui]

For example?

 

We brought up interracial marriage. She said "that's not scriptural". We asked "what about people who interpret scripture differently?" She said "that's not scriptural". We said "what about people who don't share your religion or scriptures at all, but still have a sincere religious belief?" She said nothing in response, even though I know I *personally* asked that question at least five times. She continues to assert simply "it's not scriptural because Moses" rather than addressing the actual scriptures that have been used to justify that sort of bigotry in the past. That's not an answer. That's like us answering "gay marriage isn't scriptural" with only "Jesus said there will be no male and female".

 

She stated that the argument against same-sex marriage is clear in scripture. Several people pointed out that not all Christians agree on that, a few pointing out what they see are flaws in her argument. I personally linked two at least two different sites that offer liberal Christian views on those same verses and on same sex relationships in general. She didn't reply. She continued to assert simply that it's clear and obvious.

 

She stated, when pressed, that of course only "orthodox" views from "legitimate" religions would be considered valid in determining who can discriminate against whom. When asked what constitutes an "orthodox" view or a "legitimate" religion, and who gets to decide those things, the response was silence. Now, we know she wasn't ignoring those comments because when one person suggested that she thinks she is the one who gets to decide she responded - but she never answered the question of who DOES get to decide these things, if not her.

 

She repeatedly referred to marriages that are not recognized as "illegal" or "against the law", even when corrected. The terms are not synonymous. She does seem to have stopped, but she has not acknowledged her mistake. In a similar vein, she said several times that homosexuality was not a protected class when the baker case occurred, even after multiple people pointed out that, in fact, it WAS a protected class at the time. She then backtracked and claimed she meant something else.

 

At one point she claimed that if she was told Christians can't shop at a store, she'd just go somewhere else. When I said that I'd report the store owner, she turned that into me using force to require conformity. Not a full page later, she said outright that that sort of prejudice was illegal. When I asked which belief she held, she didn't answer my question.

 

She has repeatedly stated that the solution to not being served is to "go to the nearest competitor". When asked what to do if NONE of the stores in the area will sell to you, she gave no response.

 

She challenged us to "name any other instances where Christians do not follow the law". At least two people answered her, and never got a response.

 

She has repeatedly stated that gays deliberately "target" Christian businesses. When asked for a citation of this opinion, she did not reply.

 

She has repeatedly stated, contrary to any common sense, that religion is an immutable trait. At first I thought she was simply being careless, to be honest, but then she said it's immutable because you inherit it from your parents. You're right, she did answer that and I don't like that answer, because that answer is quite simply incorrect. People change their religion all the time.

 

We asked why, if this baker's religious views are so important, they don't make a habit of ensuring they never sell to divorcees. We did not get a reply.

 

There's more, but I'll save it.

[Tanaqui]

You disagree with her.  Fine.  But don't accuse her of dodging when she didn't.

 

She did dodge the question of "what about people who aren't Christians". She continues to dodge that. The only response she ever gives - without any evidence, I might add - is "it's not scriptural", a completely irrelevant answer when you're talking about non-Christians.

 

[LizItaly]

She has dodged/deflected the racial discrimination question repeatedly, as she knows that doing so will either a.) reveal that believes racial discrimination should be legal in at least some circumstances, or b.) reveal a flaw in her logic about how far religious beliefs can be protected. Which explains why she keeps saying the question is nonsensical. Deflection.

Here is her answer to Corraleno's comment:

 

Source for your legitimate, current religion practicing racial discrimination based on the scriptures as a religious practice?   We have the Methodists, the Catholics, and the "I hate Hindus" religious faith?   You have to establish and defend your case before you can ask someone else to respond to it.  No one has done that, that I saw, but there are over 100 responses I can't get to now.  I just keep hearing, "Well...what about THIS (unrelated thing to religious freedom in cake cases)?"

 

I'm out.  I have things to do today.  Race is not at issue here and is already completely protected,  though you may argue that someone SOMEWHERE doesn't like interracial marriages.  ?  There is no scriptural precedent prohibiting men and women of various melanin levels marrying - just so long as it is one man and one woman, who forsake all others. 

 

Every single thing you said was asked and answered along the way.  I'm just not going back to find it. The thread is too large. 

 

(Bolding mine.)

 

You don't care for the answer, and you don't agree with it.  Understood.  But she answered your question, and this was not the first time. 

[Mrs Mungo]

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

Sexual orientation is also legitimately and legally protected. It is therefore not irrelevant.

 

If one has religious exemptions, then why wouldn't the other?

[Corraleno]

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

 

This is EXACTLY the tautology in her argument, though. The only reason race is a protected class is because public accommodation laws protect it!

 

Sexual orientation is also protected class because public accommodation laws protect it.

 

TM believes that there should be an exemption to those laws for people who feel that homosexuality is against their religious beliefs.

 

If that exemption were to be granted, then race, religion, and the other protected categories would also no longer be protected, as long as the person discriminating cited religious beliefs.

 

When asked how it would be possible to pass a law that would allow Christians to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, without letting them use the same excuse for other categories, her answer was that the other forms of discrimination aren't supported by the Bible, and that only "orthodox" interpretations of "legitimate" religions should be allowed to be used as the basis for religious exemptions.

 

You don't see the difficulty there???  :confused1:

[QueenCat]

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

 

 

Except that race is NOT irrelevant as Christians used the Bible for eons to discriminate. And our laws actually catered to that for quite some time. So extremely relevant, even to us Christians who know that it was wrong to use the Bible is such a way and are so glad that most don't anymore.

[Mrs Mungo]

When asked how it would be possible to pass a law that would allow Christians to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, without letting them use the same excuse for other categories, her answer was that the other forms of discrimination aren't supported by the Bible, and that only "orthodox" interpretations of "legitimate" religions should be allowed to be used as the basis for religious exemptions.

 

You don't see the difficulty there??? :confused1:

And I provided examples in which states have been legally forced to recognize "unorthodox" religions like pastafarianism.

[Tanaqui]

 

Source for your legitimate, current religion practicing racial discrimination based on the scriptures as a religious practice?   We have the Methodists, the Catholics, and the "I hate Hindus" religious faith?   You have to establish and defend your case before you can ask someone else to respond to it.  No one has done that, that I saw, but there are over 100 responses I can't get to now.  I just keep hearing, "Well...what about THIS (unrelated thing to religious freedom in cake cases)?"

 

I'm out.  I have things to do today.  Race is not at issue here and is already completely protected,  though you may argue that someone SOMEWHERE doesn't like interracial marriages.  ?  There is no scriptural precedent prohibiting men and women of various melanin levels marrying - just so long as it is one man and one woman, who forsake all others. 

 

Every single thing you said was asked and answered along the way.  I'm just not going back to find it. The thread is too large.

 

 

That is not an answer to the question asked. It is an answer to "TranquilMind, do you believe interracial marriage is scripturally wrong?", a question nobody asked.

 

The question is "What about people whose sincere religious belief says that interracial marriage is wrong? Why do they have to violate their beliefs, but the guy who is against same sex marriage doesn't? Who decides whose beliefs should be respected? What valid reason, that applies to everybody, can be used to distinguish religious prejudice against gays and religious prejudice against interracial couples?"

 

[Corraleno]

You don't care for the answer, and you don't agree with it.  Understood.  But she answered your question, and this was not the first time. 

 

No, in fact she has NEVER answered the question of how it's possible to allow certain Christians to discriminate against homosexuals on religious grounds without also allowing other Christians, and member of other religions, to use the same grounds to discriminate against other groups.

 

That question has been asked over and over and no one has been able to answer it. It's not that people don't "like" her answers, it's that they are illogical and self-contradictory, and they do not actually answer the question that is being asked.

[Slartibartfast]

I already posted this but this is AFER's co-counsel in the Prop. 8 case. In this video they discuss the Loving case setting precedent for the Prop 8 case.

 

 

 

 

 

If the Loving case and the issue of Interracial marriage was good enough for the courts I am not sure why people aren't interested in considering that as an issue in the discussion.

[Firefly]

I'm trying to imagine how it would work if any person who had a "sincerely held religious belief"-- whether a "legitimate/approved" Christian one or not-- could opt out of following the law.   :huh:

[Tanaqui]

Ah, here's another one. She told me "scripture has not changed" and that same sex marriages are disallowed by Leviticus, I brought up bacon cheeseburgers as something she probably thinks of as okay but which is definitely not allowed in Leviticus, and she has not responded.

 

Indeed, her exact words that I replied to were:

 

If EVERYONE changes his mind tomorrow, and we declare some other biblically-proscribed behavior (of any kind - pick one) to now be acceptable though it is clearly biblically-proscribed behavior, does that make it so?  That is the question.

 

I posted my question about bcbs, and... silence. Are bacon cheeseburgers unacceptable to her? Even I can point to scripture which might make them okay for Christians, though I don't know of any that make mixed fibers okay....

 

[LizItaly]

She did dodge the question of "what about people who aren't Christians". She continues to dodge that. The only response she ever gives - without any evidence, I might add - is "it's not scriptural", a completely irrelevant answer when you're talking about non-Christians.

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't know how many other ways she can say race is legitimately protected. 

 

For the record, American anti-miscegenation laws were a historical anomaly.  There were no such laws across the English-speaking, Christian world of the British commonwealth, and mixed-race marriages were, in fact, very common in places like India and in the Caribbean islands.  When SCOTOS ruled the laws unconstitutional in Loving, they were not acting in some new, modern, and progressive way.  The laws were clearly unconstitutional, totally ridiculous, and completely out of the bounds of our own legal, common law traditions.

[Tanaqui]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't know how many other ways she can say race is legitimately protected.

 

She can explain why some religious biases are valid and others are not. If a Christian baker can discriminate against gay couples based on sincere religious belief, why not against interracial couples? What makes that belief less valid? Other than "scripture", which is not admissible in a court of law - that's another one. When asked if she really wants the government determining which interpretations of scripture are or are not valid, she didn't answer.

 

And it's not just Christians. She asked about "hypothetical" "Kill all Christians" religions and I brought up, again, religiously motivated prejudice among Hindus. If a Christian can discriminate against gays, can't a Brahmin discriminate against Dalits? After all, that's "legitimate" - isn't it?

 

Again, no response. What is the difference between one prejudice and another, legally speaking? No reply.

 

When SCOTOS ruled the laws unconstitutional in Loving, they were not acting in some new, modern, and progressive way.

 

Are you suggesting that it is the antiquity of the law which is the most important thing?

 

[Tanaqui]

Also, even if I accept that she answered that one - which she really didn't - there's still all the other unaddressed questions and comments.