S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[hornblower]

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store  and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes.

 

respectfully, part of your blase attitude to that might be a) it doesn't happen & b ) you're the privileged population. As has been stated above, while religious adherence is down, the majority of people in the US apply the loose Christian label whether they practice it or were raised in it or just culturally identify with it. People who are in a majority privileged population either don't face discrimination or persecution, or if they do experience it, have a multitude of alternative options. When you're a minority facing discrimination, it's quite a different perspective.

 

In Pakistan, minorities are persecuted & I've read reports that shop keepers have signs saying 'no service for non Muslims' & that food sellers won't sell to an "unclean Christian". While Pakistan has a much larger problem because it has legislated blasphemy laws & minority discrimination, can you not see the flip side: that the state has a powerful role to play in demarcating the acceptable, tolerant actions of its citizens?

 

Civil rights do not just mean right to vote; they mean the right to participate in all commercial and social transactions that other members of the public can participate in, and yes, that does include commercial transactions eta: like buying a cake.

 

 

edit #2 to capitalize Muslim. Sorry, I'm a random capitalizer because I'm too lazy to press the shift key consistently but I was capping Christian & it struck me as potentially offensive to not treat the word Muslim equally.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

So, you are fine if a business owner won't engage with a married woman because according to the business owner's religion, the man is head of the house?

 

You are fine if the business owner won't serve couples in interracial marriages, based on the owner's religion?

 

You are fine if I refuse to treat a conservative religious couple based on my spirituality?

In reference to your first example, I will straighten him out - or do business with someone else. My husband can barely identify a steering wheel (exaggerating, only a little).  I research, negotiate, and purchase all the vehicles in this family. 

 

Still, back in the days when we went in dealerships, they would often talk to him.  I don't care.  Underestimate me all you like; you will be negotiating with me, even if you think you are negotiating with him.  I found it amusing, actually.

In reference to my business, I hire seriously macho types all the time.   I'm not marrying them - I simply need them to repair a plumbing issue, or put a roof on.  We get along great.  If one told me, he cannot put a roof on for me, because I am female, but must deal with my husband, that would be silly, as it is not scripturally proscribed to do business with women.  Psalms 31 woman, anyone?  At any rate, I would straighten out the situation or move on to someone else. But if he had the best price, I'd tell my husband to sign the bid and get the price.  I'm pretty goal-oriented, and will do what I need to do to accomplish my goal, instead of go around getting offended all the time by men who can't deal with me. 

 

Your second example is not religious in nature - it is about discrimination on the basis of skin color.  Asked and answered.  Not at issue.  Not scriptural, and already covered as a legitimate protected class.

 

Your third example is perfect.  You've got nothing for the conservatively religious couple anyway if you cannot in good conscience treat a conservative couple because of your religious beliefs.  Why would such a couple want to go to you?   

 

 I respect your right to hold those views and act in accordance with them, based on your own religious tenets, under the First Amendment.      I would imagine a troubled couple would want someone of similar values especially for something so values-laden as counseling, for goodness sakes. 

[Joanne]

 

Your third example is perfect.  You've got nothing for the conservatively religious couple anyway if you cannot in good conscience treat a conservative couple because of your religious beliefs.  Why would such a couple want to go to you?   

 

 

 

You are wrong on several levels. First, my own ethics, through which I am licensed, disallows me from refusing to accept such a client. It's the same ethics involved for a relatively recent student that was asked to leave a Master's level counseling program when she indicated she'd not treat a homosexual couple and that she'd recommend therapy to treat homosexuality.

 

Second, I *am* qualified and trained to treat them. I've "got plenty" for the conservative religious couple. Some, particularly Christians, would seek my services out because 1) my office is IN a church and 2) I was trained in a seminary.

[TranquilMind]

So a sign that says "No Jews served" would be fine with you, and should be legal?  Or "No Catholics"? Cause both those have happened in the past, and would again, in a heartbeat. Not to mention how many businesses would be "No Muslims Allowed".

In general commerce?  No, of course not.  Already covered under anti-discrimination laws as a protected class. 

 

However, if said Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, is requesting specific services (say -and I'm making this up here, some Catholic cake that says, "Worship Mary -and yes, I KNOW that Catholics do not worship Mary,but let's just say someone orders that) that violate the religious tenets of the business owner, then, yes, business owner should be able to decline that cake on the basis of his religious beliefs and on the basis of free speech.  Similarly, if a fringe group believer shows up and says that he wants a cake that says, "All Catholics (or Jews or Muslims) are going to hell", yes, the business owner should be able to say that he will not take that business on the same two bases.  .   

[LucyStoner]

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.

[ktgrok]

In general commerce?  No, of course not.  Already covered under anti-discrimination laws as a protected class. 

 

However, if said Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, is requesting specific services (say -and I'm making this up here, some Catholic cake that says, "Worship Mary -and yes, I KNOW that Catholics do not worship Mary,but let's just say someone orders that) that violate the religious tenets of the business owner, then, yes, business owner should be able to decline that cake on the basis of his religious beliefs and on the basis of free speech.  Similarly, if a fringe group believer shows up and says that he wants a cake that says, "All Catholics (or Jews or Muslims) are going to hell", yes, the business owner should be able to say that he will not take that business on the same two bases.  .   

 

 

It's amazing how you managed to quote out of context to avoid the real question. You must be a politician. If not, you'd be fabulous at it. 

 

I VERY SPECIFICALLY asked if it was ok for a business to refuse to serve an interracial couple, based on religious belief, given that although being black is an inborn trait, CHOOSING to marry a white woman is not. It's a behavior. Like gay marriage. 

 

SEcondly, I gave the specific example of a wedding cake for a Catholic couple, if the baker feels that by supporting a Catholic sacrament he would be violating his own beliefs. 

 

You answered neither of these, and came up with your own bizzare example. 

[Tanaqui]

In general commerce?  No, of course not.  Already covered under anti-discrimination laws as a protected class.

 

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store  and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes.

 

Well, which is it? Religion is a protected class, OR any attempts to treat it as such are... "demanding conformity in practice"?

 

Your second example is not religious in nature - it is about discrimination on the basis of skin color.  Asked and answered.  Not at issue.  Not scriptural, and already covered as a legitimate protected class.

 

 

Well, I deleted my comment, but I feel I deserve an ice cream for accurately predicting what you would say. You have not yet answered the question of "what about people who feel it IS a valid scriptural subject" nor the question of "what about people who aren't Christian but whose religious beliefs are just as sincere".

 

And if you're going to answer the first with "well, it's not", then you need, again, to explain why your views are the right ones.

[fraidycat]

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.

Out if likes, but this had to be liked.

 

The mental gymnastics reminds me of a Cirque show.

[Mrs Mungo]

So a sign that says "No Jews served" would be fine with you, and should be legal? Or "No Catholics"? Cause both those have happened in the past, and would again, in a heartbeat. Not to mention how many businesses would be "No Muslims Allowed".

I agree with lots of what has been posted today, but especially the last line here. There would be areas of the country where a Muslim would have nowhere to go.

[Vera]

I agree with lots of what has been posted today, but especially the last line here. There would be areas of the country where a Muslim would have nowhere to go.

Or a gay person.

[TranquilMind]

You are wrong on several levels. First, my own ethics, through which I am licensed, disallows me from refusing to accept such a client. It's the same ethics involved for a relatively recent student that was asked to leave a Master's level counseling program when she indicated she'd not treat a homosexual couple and that she'd recommend therapy to treat homosexuality.

 

Second, I *am* qualified and trained to treat them. I've "got plenty" for the conservative religious couple. Some, particularly Christians, would seek my services out because 1) my office is IN a church and 2) I was trained in a seminary.

Well, we agree on one thing - that we each believe the other is inaccurate on some views, and I'm fine with that.

The legal demands of your practice aside, from the perspective of the conservative couple, you've got nothing to offer them if you do not support or understand the faith they share, and indeed, despise that which holds them together, having a totally opposite perspective (if you do- I don't know what you believe).   I'm sure you have some behavioral techniques, however.    Whether that is sufficient in itself would be the call of the couple, I suppose.  It would be incumbent upon any couples to investigate what was important to them (I don't know much about counseling, but I know how I personally would approach it).   

 

I sure as heck wouldn't want you to take MY case if I knew you were vehemently opposed to everything I believe, so I would indeed question you carefully, and I would get my answer, even from your silence or your wording (but then I read between the lines very well, having been a long time landlord).  I would find it disingenous if you did not support my conservative faith and were not forthcoming about that,  but maintained an office in my conservative, traditional church.  I doubt you are located inside a conservative church, with the opinions you have expressed here, but I guess it could happen today. 

[LucyStoner]

And just think Craigslist would have to have a section of job listings open to each religion. Quaint!

[Tanaqui]

TranquilMind, why do you reply to some statements and not others? You frequently repeat points you made earlier - as you yourself have noted - but there are many questions left unaddressed, and often you repeat something that other people have already refuted, sometimes TO the person who has refuted it. For example, you've yet to explain why people who are against interracial marriage are not acting scripturally (even when they can cite chapter and verse to back themselves up) but people who disagree with your interpretation of passages you view as condemning gay marriage are ALSO not acting scripturally. You just assert those without justifying them. Several people have asked this.

 

Are you having trouble following the thread? I know that can happen when there are many comments. If so, perhaps later, after we're done with school, I or somebody else can track down the unanswered comments and PM them to you. It'd be easy for me - it's like my secret aspie superpower!

 

[SemiSweet]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/gay-man-opposes-equal-rights-gay-people-fayetteville-arkansas

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/duggar-effect-conservative-reality-stars-help-sink-civil-rights

 

This just happened yesterday. This is an excellent example of the damage done by these people and their hate organizations. LGBT people can now be fired and evicted for being who they are. They market isn't going to correct that. Just going and getting a new job isn't as easy as people like to pretend. These people took their hateful message (including publicly lying about transgender people being pedophiles) and spread it enough for the town to vote to repeal anti-discrimination laws. When things like this happen, it truly makes me hate religion so much. It doesn't nothing for the right wing cause.

[Corraleno]

Your second example is not religious in nature - it is about discrimination on the basis of skin color.  Asked and answered.  Not at issue.  Not scriptural, and already covered as a legitimate protected class.

 

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.

[TranquilMind]

Well, which is it? Religion is a protected class, OR any attempts to treat it as such are... "demanding conformity in practice"?

 

 

Well, I deleted my comment, but I feel I deserve an ice cream for accurately predicting what you would say. You have not yet answered the question of "what about people who feel it IS a valid scriptural subject" nor the question of "what about people who aren't Christian but whose religious beliefs are just as sincere".

 

And if you're going to answer the first with "well, it's not", then you need, again, to explain why your views are the right ones.

Your question in the first line is nonsensical.  Religion is a protected class, and its adherents are (or should be) able to operate according to their own beliefs in their own business lives.  The demand to conformity to the customer's value system is inappropriate.  Customer, find a business with the same wedding practices as you, rather than force that business owner to create something for your wedding that cannot be a wedding to him.    

 

It either is a scripturally sound belief or it is not.  Do you really want me to get into posting hundreds of scriptural passages and supporting evidence?   Because I can do that.  I've done it before.  I could just link to some threads, but mostly those are on Sonlight, from a few years back.  I've stated at least three times that Moses married a black woman and that race is not at issue here, merely the limited right to adhere to religious faith in reference to what are religious practices in one's faith. 

 

 

The protected class issue is covered already and I'm not going to continue to respond to race or other inapposite comparisons.  There is only one of me, and dozens of you throwing the same tired and inapposite comparisons out. 

[*Lulu*]

I feel like I should print out a few of the recent threads to use for logic instruction.

[CaffeineDiary]

I think this whole side discussion is basically a distraction from the original topic, and propose that it would be better to ignore the side show of "Tranquil Mind's understanding of religious freedom is flawed" completely.  Maybe we split that off to another thread if people really want to pursue it.

 

 

[Btervet]

Your question in the first line is nonsensical.  Religion is a protected class, and its adherents are (or should be) able to operate according to their own beliefs in their own business lives.  The demand to conformity to the customer's value system is inappropriate.  Customer, find a business with the same wedding practices as you, rather than force that business owner to create something for your wedding that cannot be a wedding to him.    

 

It either is a scripturally sound belief or it is not.  Do you really want me to get into posting hundreds of scriptural passages and supporting evidence?   Because I can do that.  I've done it before.  I could just link to some threads, but mostly those are on Sonlight, from a few years back.  I've stated at least three times that Moses married a black woman and that race is not at issue here, merely the limited right to adhere to religious faith in reference to what are religious practices in one's faith. 

 

 

The protected class issue is covered already and I'm not going to continue to respond to race or other inapposite comparisons.  There is only one of me, and dozens of you throwing the same tired and inapposite comparisons out. 

 

Do you understand that not everyone has the same scriptures?

 

Some people follow religions that don't have scriptures at all.

 

Do their religious convictions not matter to you?

[Tanaqui]

I've stated at least three times that Moses married a black woman and that race is not at issue here, merely the limited right to adhere to religious faith in reference to what are religious practices in one's faith.

 

That's one citation, which you've cited... repeatedly. However, you haven't shown that their arguments are NOT valid. You haven't even acknowledged what those arguments ARE. Oftentimes, the Bible is contradictory. For example, the verse about how one should "answer a fool according to his folly" comes immediately before the one about how you should NOT do that.

 

Furthermore, you've yet to address any of the arguments against your interpretation on the scriptures you view as being about homosexuality.

 

Finally, you have not answered the question I gave to you, which is what about people who are not Christians? Does a non-Christian whose religion is against interracial marriage have the right to deny service to an interracial couple? If their religion prohibits serving women, do they have the right to turn away a widow with no family who cannot, then, just get her husband to "do the negotiating" for her? If they deeply and sincerely believe some classes of people are ritually impure, can they deny service to those people?

 

Please answer the question that was asked. We would not keep bringing up this comparison if you would answer it. What about people who are not Christian and do not have your scriptures? Are they entitled to your view of religious freedom?

 

It either is a scripturally sound belief or it is not.

 

If that were true, all Christians would agree. Clearly, you don't all agree.

 

Are you asserting that all your interpretations are the scripturally sound ones? That seems like a risky move. How do you know?

[*Lulu*]

I think this whole side discussion is basically a distraction from the original topic, and propose that it would be better to ignore the side show of "Tranquil Mind's understanding of religious freedom is flawed" completely. Maybe we split that off to another thread if people really want to pursue it.

Except it is an excellent example of the sort of logic that is employed by the FRC and groups of its ilk.

[zoobie]

I think this whole side discussion is basically a distraction from the original topic, and propose that it would be better to ignore the side show of "Tranquil Mind's understanding of religious freedom is flawed" completely. Maybe we split that off to another thread if people really want to pursue it.

The cows can program the VCR by now! ;)

[Vera]

 

It either is a scripturally sound belief or it is not.

Who gets to decide if it is a scripturally sound belief or not? Christians do not all agree about that.

[TranquilMind]

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 (a) totally untrue, and (b) 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.

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. 

[Tanaqui]

Your question in the first line is nonsensical.

 

It is not. You first said that if somebody denied service to Christians, you would just laugh and go somewhere else.

 

When I said that I would contact the authorities on you behalf, you made a comment stating basically that I was wrong to do so.

 

But then when another person commented, you said that no, putting up a sign that says "no Jews allowed" or "No Muslims allowed" or "No Christians" allowed is illegal.

 

Which is it?

 

[Tanaqui]

Source for your legitimate religion practicing racial discrimination based on the scriptures as a religious practice? 

 

Hindus. Prejudice against the so called "dalits" is an ongoing issue in India.

 

Discrimination based on caste is close enough to racial discrimination as to make no nevermind.

 

though you may argue that someone SOMEWHERE doesn't like interracial marriages.  ?

 

You mean somebody somewhere like Bob Jones, Sr? A nice summation of verses used to justify this belief can be found, as always, at ReligiousTolerance.

 

 

[LizItaly]

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.

 

You'd think that but you'd be wrong.

[Vera]

I still don't know what legitimate religion means.

[justasque]

And just think Craigslist would have to have a section of job listings open to each religion. Quaint!

 

Interestingly, Ken Ham has run into trouble with anti-discrimination laws, as he wanted to take public money to create a Noah's Ark themed amusement park.  From the Slate article:

 

It turns out Ham only wanted to hire Christians—in particular, politically conservative young earth creationists. Job applications for the park instructed applicants to submit “alvation testimony,†a “[c]reation belief statement,†and a “[c]onfirmation of your agreement with the AiG statement of faith.†(AiG is Answers in Genesis, Ark Encounter’s parent company and Ham’s ministry.) ... this statement of faith mandated that applicants believe in Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan (as “the personal spiritual adversary of both God and mankindâ€), Adam and Eve, “the Great Flood of Genesis,†a 6,000-year-old Earth, and the eternal damnation of “those who do not believe in Christ.†All employees must follow “the duty of Christians†and attend “a local Bible believing church.† And, for good measure, the park required that all employees oppose abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, and trans rights.  This was too much for Kentucky's government, which informed Ham that state law forbids companies receiving tax incentives to discriminate on the basis of religion.

[*Lulu*]

Hindus. Prejudice against the so called "dalits" is an ongoing issue in India.

 

Discrimination based on caste is close enough to racial discrimination as to make no nevermind.

 

 

You mean somebody somewhere like Bob Jones, Sr? A nice summation of verses used to justify this belief can be found, as always, at ReligiousTolerance.

OMG yes!

 

I attended a school a stone's throw from BJU in the late 90's. They had only in the past few years before I moved there lifted the gender segregated sidewalks. Interracial dating was still banned and when some students from my school went to visit the art gallery the girls had to wear skirts and hose and the interracial couple in our class was warned not to hold hands.

 

Every time someone tosses racial segregation as defended by scripture into the pile of "things that are outdated" or worse, "things that never REALLY were" I want to beat my head against a wall.

 

We do not live in a post racial society.

 

We do not live in a gender neutral society. (See the rape thread if you doubt it.)

 

We might like to ignore the bits of history and reality that are not comfortable or won't neatly fit into our personal narrative but it doesn't make them go away.

 

I can call a wolf a member of the canine family and make nice fluffy comparisons to domesticated dogs all day long but it doesn't change the fact that the wolf is wild and if I turn my back on it and its pack I may end up in the wrong end of its fangs.

 

 

Edited- I wish I could give autocorrect a grammar lesson on the difference between its and it's.

[Matryoshka]

 

Please reread.  Nowhere do I suggest that only my interpretation of the Bible is valid.  I do plainly say that a clear proscription against sexual behavior outside of marriage (defined by Jesus) in contained in the Bible, which is indeed true. 

 

You do realize that could be actually read as an argument for gay marriage (and you admit that your interpretation of the Bible is not the only valid one, right in the sentence before).  Jesus said nobody should have sex outside marriage (straight or gay).  He did not specifically say 'two men (or women) should not get married'.  So if they are going to express sexual behavior, isn't it better if it's in a marriage than outside it, according to this proscription? 

 

I mean, you can wish gay people out of existence, or imagine they should all be celibate their whole lives, or marry some poor person they don't love or desire (and often have same-sex affairs on the side but keep up the charade, as even some high-profile Fundie preachers have been caught doing), or just go lalalalala, or just figure they'll all burn in hell so what's it to ya, but in reality-land if they, as adults who do exist and are not going to go away just because you wish they didn't exist, want intimate relationships, isn't inside a committed, married relationship closer to what Jesus taught than outside it?

 

[Pawz4me]

This thread has gone around and around and made more laps than are in a typical Nascar race. ;)

[*Lulu*]

This thread has gone around and around and made more laps than are in a typical Nascar race. ;)

I'm just impressed no one has smacked into the wall yet.

[Corraleno]

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. 

 

You don't think there are Christians who believe there is biblical justification for discriminating against other races (including interracial marriages) and religions? Do you believe that anti-discrimination laws have magically eliminated racist beliefs, or anti-Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/etc. beliefs, in this country?  :confused1:

 

Whether YOU think there is biblical precedent for those beliefs or not, there are people who believe them. So how do you pass a law so that their beliefs don't qualify for a religious exemption to public accommodation laws, but your beliefs against homosexuality do?

 

Because that leads us right back to the idea that there would have to be a way to distinguish whose interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one. You want everyone to just accept the "obvious" fact that yours is the correct one — how can you possibly legislate that, and exclude not only all other Christian beliefs but also those of other religions?

[FaithManor]

So, if we want to go back to the FRC, then one thing that can be said that certain aspects of the debate in this thread illustrate HOW the FRC thinks and operates.

 

There are several notable employees, ie spokepersons, for FRC that hail from the ATI movement. ATI does believe absolutely in "taking back the culture", in setting up a theocracy, and if you were to read the directives of the ATI in their Basic Principles and Advanced Principles as well as curriculum and their educational newsletters, you'd be rather afraid UNLESS you want the theocracy they seek to install.

 

As a Christian that scares the tar out of me. Just like the "interpretations of scripture" and who gets to choose who has legitimate religious belief and who does not, ANY theocracy is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad! A theocracy seeks to subjugate all who do not believe exactly as the government of that theocracy proscribes. Period. I like other humans too much to force by law, hardship, or pain of imprisonment, even death, religious belief of any kind upon them. God help us all!

 

But, I do believe there are extremists in every religion who would seek to shove their belief down everyone else's throats by any means necessary and call it "holy". This should never, ever, ever be allowed. This is why a PAC like the FRC is dangerous. This is why hearing that a community repealed anti-discrimination laws due to religious zealot activism is scary. This is why Westboro Baptist is a scourge and the KKK an abomination.

 

However, if religious liberty is extended to allow discrimination than there will be parts of America that just simply step back into the dark ages of human rights. I know enough bigots to understand how that would work. In my area, there would be very, very few businesses that would allow a Hispanic person to purchase from them or would require such a person to carry proof of citizenship in order to do business, and I know a couple of school teachers that would refuse to teach their children as well. This culture is not as nice or benevolent as a mob whole as one would like to think. That's an uncomfortable thought, but very, very true. Using the free market as some sort of referee of decency would be like handing the prison's keys to the inmates and just hoping they are nice enough to serve their sentences anyway! Fat chance!

 

The FRC and other organizations like it exist because there are so many people who really would relish the chance to be inhuman to others and are perfectly happy to use religion as the excuse to do so. That is not a group of people anyone should hope to see come to power.

[Tanaqui]

I thought of something else. All this talk is about people and their "sincere religious beliefs". We've talked about who determines which beliefs are sufficiently orthodox and which religions are legitimate. But here's another - who determines sincerity?

 

Maybe dude really just hates f*****s, but says it's religion in order to cover his hatred. How do we decide if he's just a homophobe or if it's a "sincere religious belief"? Do we require him to attend a certain number of services? Quiz him on his religion? Ask for an affidavit from his pastor?

[albeto.]

I thought of something else. All this talk is about people and their "sincere religious beliefs". We've talked about who determines which beliefs are sufficiently orthodox and which religions are legitimate. But here's another - who determines sincerity?

 

The group with the largest, most effective lobby in Washington. Sheesh, where you been?   ;)

 

The number of organizations engaged in religious lobbying or religion-related advocacy in Washington, D.C., has increased roughly fivefold in the past four decades, from fewer than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 today. These groups collectively employ at least 1,000 people in the greater Washington area and spend at least $350 million a year on efforts to influence national public policy.

Pew Research

[Tanaqui]

The group with the largest, most effective lobby in Washington. Sheesh, where you been?   ;)

 

Banging my head against a brick wall, didn't you notice?

 

TranquilMind, that's exactly what we're concerned about. Religious groups - primarily branches of ONE religious group with ONE view of the world - have undue influence in government as it is. And yet they act like the sky is falling every time other people try to get a few more crumbs.

[FaithManor]

I thought of something else. All this talk is about people and their "sincere religious beliefs". We've talked about who determines which beliefs are sufficiently orthodox and which religions are legitimate. But here's another - who determines sincerity?

 

Maybe dude really just hates f*****s, but says it's religion in order to cover his hatred. How do we decide if he's just a homophobe or if it's a "sincere religious belief"? Do we require him to attend a certain number of services? Quiz him on his religion? Ask for an affidavit from his pastor?

 

That's another hornet's nest. I can't imagine what a reasonable litmus test would be. I suppose, for those religious organizations that have membership, possibly that is where it would start. Are they actually members of the organization? Attendance at meetings, IF the organization doesn't just count heads?

 

But, that also has enough loopholes to make it nothing more than a bad swiss cheese. And of course those seeking exemptions from decency laws are going to scream "you have no right to question me".

[BrookValley.]

I'm just impressed no one has smacked into the wall yet.

 

 

That's debatable.

[Mrs Mungo]

You'd think that but you'd be wrong.

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.

[*Lulu*]

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 keep saying this.

 

But, since SCOTUS says a business can have religious views, who are we to say that the FRC can't as well?

 

:P

 

 

Whoa.

 

I wrote the above to be total sarcasm and light hearted then read it again and scared the crap out of myself.

[FaithManor]

It's okay BLA, sometimes we all have a little accident on ourselves and have to go clean up! :biggrinjester:

[*Lulu*]

It's okay BLA, sometimes we all have a little accident on ourselves and have to go clean up! :biggrinjester:

But this makes twice for me this week!

 

Monday school came to a standstill when Bug made a baby Jesus out of Legos, gave him a DJ booth, and made him rap. I was holding it together until Sister came unhinged calling him, in fourth grade terms, a heretic.

 

DH is going to get concerned about me!

[Mrs Mungo]

You keep saying this.

 

But, since SCOTUS says a business can have religious views, who are we to say that the FRC can't as well?

 

:p

 

 

Whoa.

 

I wrote the above to be total sarcasm and light hearted then read it again and scared the crap out of myself.

Like or sad face, like or sad face? I can't decide.

[*Lulu*]

I heart Bug.

Me too. For a lot of reasons! :)

 

He is a constant source of entertainment; I can honestly say DJ JC is not even close to the funniest thing he's ever done. Or the strangest. Or the most irreverent......

[Tanaqui]

But this makes twice for me this week!

 

Monday school came to a standstill when Bug made a baby Jesus out of Legos, gave him a DJ booth, and made him rap. I was holding it together until Sister came unhinged calling him, in fourth grade terms, a heretic.

 

DH is going to get concerned about me!

 

Wasn't his very first miracle turning water into wine? Not curing the sick, not raising the dead, not walking on water, but helping to keep the party going?

 

Jesus would totally DJ*. That's not sacrilegious at all.

 

* I'm an atheist, and I approve this message.

[*Lulu*]

Wasn't his very first miracle turning water into wine? Not curing the sick, not raising the dead, not walking on water, but helping to keep the party going?

 

Jesus would totally DJ*. That's not sacrilegious at all.

 

* I'm an atheist, and I approve this message.

This past Lent Bug's most beloved stuffed animal "died". We made him a coffin and everything.

 

Then, after a week, the stuffed animal was back among us.

 

Bug said, "it's a miracle! Jesus raised him from the dead!"

[fraidycat]

I feel like I should print out a few of the recent threads to use for logic instruction.

Already on my "to do" list, along with this poster.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

[Slartibartfast]

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. 

 

 

She is a Christian, you cannot call her a bigot.