Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[Tanaqui]

Have you ever signed a petition to take a show off the air because it promotes ideas you find repugnant? Told Amazon to remove certain parenting books from its shelves because you find them harmful? Boycotted a restaurant or store because of its owner's views or policies? Supported legislation to require parents to follow certain child safety standards? What motivated you to take those actions? Would you say those activities are motivated by a desire to dictate how others live? Then why does your opening question ascribe a negative intent to conservative Christians when they take political and non-political action?

 

1. No, though I support the rights of others to do so

2. No - though let's be careful with the word "harmful" here, I'll get back to that

3. Yes, and I support the right of others to do so as well

4. Yes, because I believe in protecting the weak against the strong

5. A consistent and coherent belief that the well-being of others is important

6. No, I would not say anything of the sort. Somebody who beats their child is harming a child. Somebody who marries another man is not harming anybody. The two situations have nothing to do with each other, and you know that. You are being dishonest by conflating being activist against things that are harmful and the sort of things mentioned in the OP.

[Crimson Wife]

 

It is not. Well, perhaps the day after pill, but normal BC prevents you from ovulating. If you do not ovulate, you cannot conceive. Period. (Or, uh, not.)

 

Some methods of birth control work not by preventing the sperm from reaching the egg but by preventing implantation. IUD's, the progesterone-only minipill, etc. For political reasons the ACOG defines "pregnancy" not at the moment of conception but rather after successful implantation, so that they can claim that the IUD "prevents pregnancy". Totally Orwellian use of language.

 

[FO4UR]

You know, this statement in particular has been stewing in my head since I read your post, and I need to say more. How dare you take your twisted, I'm-so-persecuted perspective and turn it on me? My husband is a Christian, my mother is a Christian, my saintly mother-in-law is a Christian, my beloved sister-in-law and niece are Christians, my grandmothers are Christians. I buy my grandmother Christian gifts every single Christmas and birthday she has. I read my children books about the religious meaning of Christmas and Easter every damn year. I spent two hours at a Christian ceremony memorializing my brother-in-law a month ago, kneeling, bowing my head, murmuring responses, shaking hands and saying "peace be with you" and Amen. 

 

How dare you be so self-unaware as to put your baggage on me like that? You don't know me, and you didn't read my post for what it actually said. You just laid your own issues right down over top of me. I'm going to suggest that you take a look at YOUR OWN biases right now before you go accusing anyone else of stoking any kind of hatred today, OK? 

 

I didn't read this before my previous post.  Now that I have...I will let the spewed hate land where it will.

[Tanaqui]

For political reasons the ACOG defines "pregnancy" not at the moment of conception but rather after successful implantation, so that they can claim that the IUD "prevents pregnancy".

 

Perhaps it's defined that way because the majority of conceptions never reach implantation, even without any form of BC.

 

[Crimson Wife]

Benefit packages are part of the compensation structure. In essence, excluding certain medical care is the company spending MY income. In many millions of cases, the employee pay ALSO goes to medical benefits.

 

What if I wanted some of my compensation to be made in alcohol rather than cash and my Mormon or Muslim employer refused? Would I garner any sympathy from the public when I could simply go out and take the cash I earned and purchase my own alcohol?

[Joanne]

What if I wanted some of my compensation to be made in alcohol rather than cash and my Mormon or Muslim employer refused? Would I garner any sympathy from the public when I could simply go out and take the cash I earned and purchase my own alcohol?

 

Not a logical argument based in reality of how employees in the USA are compensated.

[*Lulu*]

Have you ever signed a petition to take a show off the air because it promotes ideas you find repugnant?

 

**No**

 

Told Amazon to remove certain parenting books from its shelves because you find them harmful?

 

**No**

 

Boycotted a restaurant or store because of its owner's views or policies?

 

**Yes**

 

Supported legislation to require parents to follow certain child safety standards?

 

**Yes**

 

What motivated you to take those actions?

 

**The first because I get to choose where I spend my money. Just like I try to buy from the neighborhood hardware store over Lowe's or the farmers' market over the grocery store. The second because as a member of society I have a vested interest in the safety and well being of all children.**

 

Would you say those activities are motivated by a desire to dictate how others live?

 

**No**

 

Then why does your opening question ascribe a negative intent to conservative Christians when they take political and non-political action?

 

**Quite frankly, (and speaking only for myself), I ascribe negative intent because thier actions are hostile. That the intention behind those actions is benign or malignant, well thought out or poorly considered, born of a desire to bring near God's kingdom or bring down God's wrath does not matter one bit. When actions are causing hurt the intentions are of secondary importance. If you're smacking me with a bat I don't really care if you're swinging at the spider on my back.**

**to note my answers.**

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I didn't read this before my previous post.  Now that I have...I will let the spewed hate land where it will.

 

And thank you for proving my point yet again--that you only hear what you want to hear and see what supports your own viewpoints. Anger does not equal hate, my friend. Try and understand that. 

 

I accept your apology for deliberately misinterpreting my words and for maligning me as well. And you're so welcome for my efforts as an atheist who supports the Christians in her life and for teaching my kids religious diversity instead of my own single perspective. I do try. 

[Anne in CA]

I didn't conflate all Christians and I think it is important to maintain the distinction.  There is a certain...brand of Christianity that is much more in favor of legislating morality for the rest of the nation.  Yes, the 700 Club is a good example.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that only conservative Christians do it.  We see it with extremists in other religions as well.  The question is...why does it happen.  I don't agree that "it is the human condition."  I have no desire to change the religion of anyone I know and most people I know would fall into that category.  My questions is, what is it in the faith of conservative Christians that makes it important to that group to impose their morality on the rest of society? 

But I would still answer your question with a question. What is it that makes some Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Secular Humanists, impose their morality on the rest of society? All of those groups have countries in which they have legislated their own morality. I have been to some of them. I just don't see how some conservative Christians are different from those groups?

 

I am countering your question with another question: Are you trying to define a part of Christianity that you really don't like but are not sure how to define? Because I just don't see how Christianity is any different from any of the groups I mentioned above in regard to wanting to make laws enforcing their own morality?

[foxbridgeacademy]

What strikes me is that so many answers say it is out of love that conservative Christians try to control the behavior of others.  But it sure doesn't feel loving to the one who is the target.  Interesting.

I think I started that and I was applying it to my father only, but I do think that in a familial situation it applies.  I also said that some people (not all) do it to validate their beliefs.  If they have to live by the rules then everyone should.  Also many people truly believe that their way is the only way and EVERYONE else is wrong just to different degrees(this applies to all humanity).  I also think that people who feel they have the right to tell other adults how to live their lives (outside of murder/theft/physical harm) have a narcissistic personality disorder. 

[FO4UR]

And thank you for proving my point yet again--that you only hear what you want to hear and see what supports your own viewpoints. Anger does not equal hate, my friend. Try and understand that. 

 

I accept your apology for deliberately misinterpreting my words and for maligning me as well. And you're so welcome for my efforts as an atheist who supports the Christians in her life and for teaching my kids religious diversity instead of my own single perspective. I do try. 

 

Correction:  I did not apologize as I have done nothing wrong. I did not malign you and your posts are all right there for everyone to interpret for themselves as are mine.

[Anne in CA]

It's also a slippery slope to theocracy when people work to have the laws of a country based on their particular religious beliefs.

I would ask what system of beliefs would you like to base laws on? I am not trying to be flip, I am trying to understand. 

 

I lived in a city where Secular Humanists make the laws, and they are actually quite religious and inflexible in their beliefs most of the time. They would tell you they are not "religious" but that is not true, they are actually extremely dogmatic in many of their beliefs. I would be very concerned if they were allowed to make laws for the whole country because they do not feel they are religious.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Correction:  I did not apologize as I have done nothing wrong. I did not malign you and your posts are all right there for everyone to interpret for themselves as are mine.

 

I know you think you've done nothing wrong. That's the problem, see? I offend you, and it's hate. You offend me, and you've done nothing wrong. Please, please, for the love of pete, think about what that means about your perspective on the world. 

 

Yes, they are. I hope you're comfortable with that. 

[PeacefulChaos]

I would love to hear the reason why conservative Christians feel the need to direct how other people who do not identify with that group live their lives.

 

I wouldn't have asked the question if I didn't want an answer.

 

Just like I am sure that people really wanted to know why Atheists feel they can speak to the teachings of Christ.

Simple.

I don't feel that way at all.

 

Your OP is pretty confrontational. But I'll admit that I have a bit of a 'soft spot' of sorts when 'conservative Christians' lumps everyone else in with a minority that takes an extreme stance...

But whatever. I can honestly say I don't really care about displays at the courthouse that encompass many different religions or whatever. Who cares about that? Why care?

[hornblower]

I would ask what system of beliefs would you like to base laws on? I am not trying to be flip, I am trying to understand. 

 

I lived in a city where Secular Humanists make the laws, and they are actually quite religious and inflexible in their beliefs most of the time. They would tell you they are not "religious" but that is not true, they are actually extremely dogmatic in many of their beliefs. I would be very concerned if they were allowed to make laws for the whole country because they do not feel they are religious.

 

secular humanism and atheism are not religions.  I know evangelical christians like to keep repeating that they are but they're not, not any more than capitalism or paleodiet are. (eta, took out yoga & meditation as it was muddying waters lol)

 

Being dogmatic is not sole exclusive criteria for a religion.

 

"Because it lacks any reliance on (or acceptance of) the transcendent, secular humanism is not—and cannot be—a religion."

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/13

[flyingiguana]

So are the people who are trying to legislate morality to a strict Biblical code (well, the ones they pick, anyway) the same ones who are hoping for the end times?

 

Because if one wanted to hasten the end of the world, according to Biblical prophecy, it would seem that keeping people from their sin would be the last thing you'd want to do.

[Corraleno]

To some, baking a cake for  homosexual couple is condoning sin.  I don't necessarily hold that view, but I stand by the rights of bakers to go about their business in freedom.  Maybe a better example would be legislating a Jewish family business to butcher & sell pork, even if they do not eat it themselves.  They deserve freedom.

 

Why should a wedding photographer or cake baker or other vendor be forced to participate in an event the vendor feels is immoral? Again, the couple can simply find another vendor. Would it be considered acceptable to sue a Jewish caterer who declined to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer who declined to work on Friday nights & Saturdays for religious reasons?

 

Why do people keep using this analogy??? The lack of logic is stunning. A Jewish caterer who does not serve pork, to anyone, as part of his business, and a Jewish photographer who never does business, for anyone, on the Sabbath, is not discriminating against anyone by refusing to provide services that he doesn't provide! A wedding cake baker who refuses to provide a specific customer with the same services that his business provides every other customer, merely because that customer does not agree with or follow the baker's personal religious beliefs is practicing discrimination. Discrimination against specific protected classes is against the law. When you set up a business in this country, you agree to abide by the laws governing businesses. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you feel like following and which you feel like violating, and then complain if you suffer the consequences of breaking the law!

 

 

Just the same, you have the right to choose to not patron those businesses...

 

And those business owners who cannot abide by the laws that govern their businesses have the right to choose another business. They do not have the right to choose which laws they will or won't follow.

 

The inconvenience of one person in having to find a different wedding vendor/adoption agency/employer/etc. should NOT trump the right of the other person to practice his/her religion. Religious liberty should be given precedence as religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution. There is no "right to convenience" in the Constitution.

There is no "right to discriminate against anyone who doesn't ascribe to my personal religious beliefs" in the Constitution, either. Religious liberty includes the right of churches to not marry those they choose not to marry. It does not give commercial businesses the right to use the smokescreen of "religious freedom" to discriminate against entire classes of people because those people do not agree with the business owners' personal religious beliefs.

[GinaPagnato]

At the risk of entering into the fray...

 

I suppose I would call myself a conservative Christian in that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that Jesus came to earth to die as a sacrifice for the sin of mankind, and that the only way to God is through faith in Jesus Christ. I also believe in Christ's teaching on heaven and hell; namely, that without faith in the work of Christ on the cross, an individual faces the punishment for his/her sin, which is eternal separation from God in hell. Conversely, faith in Christ promises eternal life in heaven.

 

Having said that, I'm old enough and have walked with Christ long enough to know that there is no way to legislate faith, nor can you force people to align their lives and choices with a faith that is rooted in the spirit. Hence, I don't bristle when people choose to say Happy Holidays (tame example), or when our government no longer works from a decidedly Christian paradigm. Why should they? If they don't believe, then what's the impetus? Faith in Christ is about following a radical, sacrificial, powerful, full of love God, who desires to love each person He created into an earthly relationship with Him, and culminating in a heavenly relationship. If one doesn't believe in this, then why should I expect them to pretend they do?

 

I believe life begins at conception, I believe marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman. I understand that many don't believe this. I'm less inclined to change their opinions, and more inclined to get to know them, love them, and, if possible, share my faith with them. What God does in their hearts is between Him and them.

 

I do believe the Bible's teaching on heaven and hell, so, yes, I choose to share my faith when I'm able to, because I believe if one dies without having received the gift of forgiveness of sins, they will suffer in hell. That troubles me deeply, and I believe it firmly. It's what makes me want to share my faith. I'm glad someone believed this enough to share with me those many, many years ago.

 

But, sharing my faith with people on an individual basis, in the context of relationship, is not the same thing as protesting outside of abortion clinics.

[Frances]

 

To some, baking a cake for  homosexual couple is condoning sin.  I don't necessarily hold that view, but I stand by the rights of bakers to go about their business in freedom.  Maybe a better example would be legislating a Jewish family business to butcher & sell pork, even if they do not eat it themselves.  They deserve freedom.  Just the same, you have the right to choose to not patron those businesses...and to tell all of your friends the reason why you don't buy from them.

 

The examples above are not the same. No one is forcing the baker to make and sell wedding cakes. They made a business decision to do so. And in states where sexual orientation is a protected class, by law, they can't sell wedding cakes to everyone else but refuse to sell them to gay couples. Otherwise, what's to stop other business owners from using their religious views to not sell their goods to someone of a particular religion, race, gender, etc.

[Word Nerd]

1. No, though I support the rights of others to do so

2. No - though let's be careful with the word "harmful" here, I'll get back to that

3. Yes, and I support the right of others to do so as well

4. Yes, because I believe in protecting the weak against the strong

5. A consistent and coherent belief that the well-being of others is important

6. No, I would not say anything of the sort. Somebody who beats their child is harming a child. Somebody who marries another man is not harming anybody. The two situations have nothing to do with each other, and you know that. You are being dishonest by conflating being activist against things that are harmful and the sort of things mentioned in the OP.

 

I'm not conflating anything, and I didn't say all of these things are equivalent. Those are just examples of issues that people might feel strongly enough about to act on. If you don't like those examples, feel free to substitute something else. I think conservative Christians' motives when they take political or non-political action are based primarily on a desire to protect people or society from something they consider harmful or wrong, or as you put it, to protect the well-being of others. Whether or not you or I agree that the issues that lead them to take action are indeed harmful or wrong is not the point. The OP declared from the outset—even in the thread title—a negative motive for conservative Christians' actions, and I take issue with that.

[bodiesmom]

At the risk of entering into the fray...

 

I suppose I would call myself a conservative Christian in that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that Jesus came to earth to die as a sacrifice for the sin of mankind, and that the only way to God is through faith in Jesus Christ. I also believe in Christ's teaching on heaven and hell; namely, that without faith in the work of Christ on the cross, an individual faces the punishment for his/her sin, which is eternal separation from God in hell. Conversely, faith in Christ promises eternal life in heaven.

 

Having said that, I'm old enough and have walked with Christ long enough to know that there is no way to legislate faith, nor can you force people to align their lives and choices with a faith that is rooted in the spirit. Hence, I don't bristle when people choose to say Happy Holidays (tame example), or when our government no longer works from a decidedly Christian paradigm. Why should they? If they don't believe, then what's the impetus? Faith in Christ is about following a radical, sacrificial, powerful, full of love God, who desires to love each person He created into an earthly relationship with Him, and culminating in a heavenly relationship. If one doesn't believe in this, then why should I expect them to pretend they do?

 

I believe life begins at conception, I believe marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman. I understand that many don't believe this. I'm less inclined to change their opinions, and more inclined to get to know them, love them, and, if possible, share my faith with them. What God does in their hearts is between Him and them.

 

I do believe the Bible's teaching on heaven and hell, so, yes, I choose to share my faith when I'm able to, because I believe if one dies without having received the gift of forgiveness of sins, they will suffer in hell. That troubles me deeply, and I believe it firmly. It's what makes me want to share my faith. I'm glad someone believed this enough to share with me those many, many years ago.

 

But, sharing my faith with people on an individual basis, in the context of relationship, is not the same thing as protesting outside of abortion clinics.

This. Exactly this.

As a "conservative" Christian myself, I will share my faith when invited, with words or without. I will not shove it down your throat, nor will I look down on you for disagreeing with me. I will respect your views and hope you respect mine as well. I will continue to love you, continue to be friends with you, continue to -fill in the blank-. It is possible to be true to your faith AND still love and respect those who don't share it. It really is.

[TranquilMind]

I really, really don't understand.

 

I have no problem with whatever people want to believe.  Your personal, private beliefs are your own business.

 

I have no problem with whatever rules churches want to have for their followers.  Again, freedom of religion and all that.

 

I would LOVE to understand why conservative Christians have decided that their rules apply to ALL OF US??

 

Do conservative Christians no longer believe in separation of Church and State?  It seems to have backfired in Florida where conservative Christians forced their presence in government buildings and now everyone from Satanists to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets to have a presence in government buildings. 

 

You don't believe that same sex couples should marry...fine.  Please do not perform such weddings in your church.  Please do not attend such weddings...don't even send a gift.  But why oh why should you get to determine what the rest of us do in our churches? Or backyards? Or wherever?

 

And, for what it is worth, while you may have been convinced by your church and your pastor that your way is the ONLY TRUE WAY to be a Christian. Please understand that many, many people around the world, for 2000 years have found many other ways to be Christian.  You do NOT have a monopoly on Christ, on Christianity, on what it means to love Jesus or follow his teachings.  Yours is a fairly American centered type of Christianity.  Again, you are certainly free to believe and practice your particular brand of Christianity.  But why does that have to include forcing that brand on everyone else?  And why does it have to argue that every other way of being a Christian is wrong?

Who on earth is determining anything you do in your homes, or churches, or what you should believe?   This is just nonsense.  Believe whatever you want and perform whatever rituals you want.

 

Just because you can do what you want, it doesn't mean that no one else is permitted to address the validity of the concept or idea in the public arena.  That's what you don't get to do: shut down all opposition.  You wouldn't want to be shut down, so don't try to shut down anyone else, and it's all good. 

[creekland]

Very tolerant.  So do you not believe in hell at all or does your belief in hell have no part in how you live your life or your theology?  I'm always curious about how the belief in hell works itself out in people's lives!  It's such an interesting concept. 

 

 

I absolutely believe in Heaven and Hell and all that entails.  I believe God decides who gets in - not me - but I have my beliefs in what I think He will decide.  They may, or may not, be correct.  I don't plan to get to Heaven and ask "Hey God, how did _____ get in here???"   :lol:

 

However, we live in this world and I recognize that not all people agree with me so I allow them the freedom to decide for themselves without it affecting our relationship.  If they wish to know more about how I believe, I'll tell them.  If not, I see no reason to keep telling them.  And if they ask, I see no need to pester afterward.

 

My love for God depends very little upon Hell existing.  I don't choose to believe out of fear of Hell, but rather out of love for my Creator (even if there are things about this life that I would change if I were the Grand Pumba of the Universe).  I'm not a prosperity gospel believer.  I believe that this world is merely a small part of our overall lives and we each get challenges to deal with in it.  We (humans) are to help others through this life.  I can do that whether we agree in our views about God or not.

[Elisabet1]

It's a fair point.  How else to denote that group?  I have seen them referred to as "fundamentalists" or "Pentecostals" or "born agains."  None of those labels seem to work.  What would you call the type of Christian that is working to ensure that their brand of Christian morality becomes the law of the land?  The people that are working to get Christian symbols into government buildings?  The people that are working to use religion as an excuse not to follow federal anti-discrimination legislation?  If there is a better categorization I would be happy to use it.

You can't. That is like saying "what do you call the race that always wins math competitions? Asian doesn't seem to work..etc" It is not something you can group like that. 

 

You can say "bossy people who push their religion on others" but that comes in all religions. Pentecostals is one denomination out of many many. Born again refers to any Christian religion that Baptizes as adults. Fundamentalists is a term used in more than just Christianity referring to following some specific original belief system of whatever religion. 

 

I have known people of all different belief systems to be bossy and try to enforce their way of life on others. Heck, as home schoolers, we can see it plenty in others who simply do not like our choice of education. But you cannot categorize it with a religious term. There simply is not one. And it is not one large group as a whole. 

[texasmama]

I absolutely believe in Heaven and Hell and all that entails.  I believe God decides who gets in - not me - but I have my beliefs in what I think He will decide.  They may, or may not, be correct.  I don't plan to get to Heaven and ask "Hey God, how did _____ get in here???"   :lol:

 

However, we live in this world and I recognize that not all people agree with me so I allow them the freedom to decide for themselves without it affecting our relationship.  If they wish to know more about how I believe, I'll tell them.  If not, I see no reason to keep telling them.  And if they ask, I see no need to pester afterward.

 

My love for God depends very little upon Hell existing.  I don't choose to believe out of fear of Hell, but rather out of love for my Creator (even if there are things about this life that I would change if I were the Grand Pumba of the Universe).  I'm not a prosperity gospel believer.  I believe that this world is merely a small part of our overall lives and we each get challenges to deal with in it.  We (humans) are to help others through this life.  I can do that whether we agree in our views about God or not.

 

Yep.  This.

 

[Ravin]

I really, really don't understand.

 

I have no problem with whatever people want to believe or disbelieve. Your personal, private views on religion are your own business,

 

I have no problem with whatever rules secular organizations want to have. Their organizations, their decision how to run it and all that.

 

I would LOVE to understand why secularists have decided that their rules should apply to religious individuals and organizations?

 

Why should a religious adoption agency be forced to place a child in a home that the agency feels is inappropriate? Homosexuals can just go to another agency if they want to adopt.

 

Why should a wedding photographer or cake baker or other vendor be forced to participate in an event the vendor feels is immoral? Again, the couple can simply find another vendor. Would it be considered acceptable to sue a Jewish caterer who declined to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer who declined to work on Friday nights & Saturdays for religious reasons?

 

Why should religious affiliated employers be forced to pay for contraception? It's not like anyone held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to go work for that organization rather than a secular one. Don't like your benefits package? Quit and go work for someone else.

 

There are many other examples I could give, but you get the point.

 

The inconvenience of one person in having to find a different wedding vendor/adoption agency/employer/etc. should NOT trump the right of the other person to practice his/her religion. Religious liberty should be given precedence as religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution. There is no "right to convenience" in the Constitution.

The adoption agency on declining a gay couple because they are homosexual is doing so because of their sexual orientation status.

 

The caterers declining to put pork on their available menu will still sell beef and chicken dishes to anyone who wants to use their services. Likewise, a business can set their own hours, but they couldn't hire a Christian and a Muslim and then sell to Christians and Muslims but not Jews on Saturday and Jews and Muslims but not Christians on Sunday, etc. When they are open they have to serve everyone.

 

Why should the individual rights of business owners trump those of employees, especially when the business isn't an actual person but a corporation? Why should the business owner's religion be held as more important than the customer's or employee's?

[TranquilMind]

No, both of these statements are wrong. Nobody is having their livelihood "taken away." Nobody is being fined based upon their *belief*. It isn't discrimination to refuse to serve just anyone.

 

You cannot discriminate against protected groups. Those groups have attained protection by the government due to relatively widespread discrimination against them. In *some* (not all) states same sex couples are a protected group. You cannot discriminate against them in those states.

 

 

Except if you are Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, where you can be penalized anyway even though gay marriage itself is illegal.   (Before October 2014). 

Talk about crazy.  Shop owner was penalized by the state for failing to provide a cake for a wedding the state didn't even recognize itself. 

[Corraleno]

Who on earth is determining anything you do in your homes, or churches, or what you should believe?   This is just nonsense.  Believe whatever you want and perform whatever rituals you want.

 

Well, for starters, Christian groups like the FRC who do not believe that gays should have the right to marry are trying to make it illegal for everyone — including other Christian churches who want to be able to perform gay marriages. One subgroup of Christians is trying to make it illegal for other Christians to perform the religious rituals that they want to perform in their own churches. Apparently they believe that "religious freedom" only applies to them, not even to other branches of their own faith.

[Ravin]

Yes, this has happened and why Catholic Charities has had to stop running adoption agencies in many places: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx

An entirely private operation might be free to discriminate, but an agency with a state contract isn't in that category. My health insurance is run by a Catholic nonprofit, but they cover the birth control services their contract requires them to.

[Ravin]

No. Many Christians only perceive it that way because they're in the process of losing the default power that has accrued to them by being in the majority for so many years. Do some people hate Christians? I'm sure some do, the same way some people hate blacks and some hate Muslims and some hate Jews and so on. Take a pass by the Stormfront site some day and then talk to me about who hates who.

 

People who work to reduce the effect of the overpowering Christian viewpoint on our society as a whole do it not because they hate Christians but because they don't want Christianity to be the overarching perspective, either because they aren't Christian or because they want other religions represented fairly or because they believe that Christianity shouldn't be the single religion represented in a government space, or...

 

When I say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, it's not because I hate Christians. It's because I can recognize the fact that the person I'm talking to may not even BE Christian, or may be but may not celebrate Christmas, or may not be religious at all. In fact, the main reason I say it is because to me, it encompasses Thanksgiving if it's just passed, Hannukah (if the person may celebrate it), Christmas (if the person may celebrate it), and New Year's, which most people celebrate no matter what religion they are. Yet I can't tell you how many people rave about how the trend toward saying Happy Holidays is a specific slam toward Christians, and Christ is the reason for the season, and that we should be keeping Christ in Christmas. Those are the people who believe that there's hate being stoked toward Christians in this country.

In short, it comes down to entitled people whining about the loss of privilege.

[TranquilMind]

Well, for starters, Christian groups like the FRC who do not believe that gays should have the right to marry are trying to make it illegal for everyone — including other Christian churches who want to be able to perform gay marriages. One subgroup of Christians is trying to make it illegal for other Christians to perform the religious rituals that they want to perform in their own churches. Apparently they believe that "religious freedom" only applies to them, not even to other branches of their own faith.

It is ONE not-particularly-well-funded lobbyist organization among what, 12,000??  So what?  You have thousands of groups advocating ideas that are completely incompatible with Christian beliefs, and no one is freaking out about that and screaming persecution. 

[*Lulu*]

It is ONE not-particularly-well-funded lobbyist organization among what, 12,000?? So what? You have thousands of groups advocating ideas that are completely incompatible with Christian beliefs, and no one is freaking out about that and screaming persecution.

You are right. Conservative Christian groups never scream persecution over their beliefs not being the default.

 

War on Christmas anyone?

[Ravin]

No, but for those of us who consider abortion murder, requiring employers to pay for chemical abortions is.

Except the birth control hobby lobby objected to isn't actually abortifacient (the supreme court said beliefs about medicine don't need actual scientific evidence) and hobby lobby are hypocrites who engaged in a political stunt.

 

Also they won so why still complain?

[Ravin]

I think this is very true.

 

Where it falls apart for me is this:

 

If conservative groups feel there is a Biblical mandate to bring our government into line with the things that are directives of scripture, where are the conservative Christian organizations pushing for the government to increase social services?

 

Where is the demand that our tax dollars feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, care for the imprisoned and the alien among us?

 

Until I see as much effort to legislate these crystal clear directives of Christ as there is to legislate sexuality I call shenanigans.

The answer is because the framing of what the "religious right" should stand for its dominated by wealthy elites who manipulate religious rhetoric to distract people from carrying about anything that interferes with their bottom line.

[Frances]

Except if you are Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, where you can be penalized anyway even though gay marriage itself is illegal.   (Before October 2014). 

Talk about crazy.  Shop owner was penalized by the state for failing to provide a cake for a wedding the state didn't even recognize itself. 

It doesn't matter that gay marriage was not legal at the time. The shop was breaking the law when it provided wedding cakes to everyone but gays, who are a protected class in Colorado. It's my understanding that the shop has now decided to stop making wedding cakes because they are unwilling to follow the law when it comes to selling wedding cakes. They are still open and still selling lots of other bakery products. It actually seems like a very smart business decision on the part of the owner and a reasonable way to reconcile his business interests and his faith. He sells the products he is willing to sell to everyone and doesn't sell those he is not.

 

If the state doesn't enforce the law in this case, then what should they do when another shop owner says its against their religion to serve blacks? Allow it?

[Corraleno]

Except if you are Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, where you can be penalized anyway even though gay marriage itself is illegal.   (Before October 2014). 

Talk about crazy.  Shop owner was penalized by the state for failing to provide a cake for a wedding the state didn't even recognize itself.

 

Except that the couple in question were in fact married in Massachusetts, where it is legal, and they were ordering a cake for a reception being held in Colorado after they were married. So their marriage was in fact legal, and the baker was in no way being asked to "participate" in their wedding ceremony.

 

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the couple's civil rights were violated because they were discriminated against due to sexual orientation. The bakery (which is still in business) chose to stop selling wedding cakes altogether rather than sell them to gay couples. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Except if you are Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, where you can be penalized anyway even though gay marriage itself is illegal.   (Before October 2014). 

Talk about crazy.  Shop owner was penalized by the state for failing to provide a cake for a wedding the state didn't even recognize itself. 

 

You know, you keep tossing this one around, so I had to go look it up because I just couldn't understand how such a crazy ruling could have been made. It turns out that as of 2008, sexual orientation is a protected criterion in Colorado. Therefore, the fact that the cake was for a commitment ceremony, not a wedding, has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. The cake could have been for the patron's partner's birthday, for all that it mattered. The commission ruled against the baker because he was violating the state's anti-discrimination laws, which had been in place for years at that point. I know you want to drum up as much outrage as possible, but you should probably make sure you have your story straight first. 

 

http://www.one-colorado.org/your-rights/public-accommodations-housing/

 

"In May 2008, Governor Bill Ritter signed the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to add protections for LGBT people in public accommodations (i.e., restaurants and hotels) and housing. A public accommodation is defined as an entity that offers sales or services of any kind to the public: businesses, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, clinics, and health clubs."

[Tanaqui]

Except if you are Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, where you can be penalized anyway even though gay marriage itself is illegal.   (Before October 2014).

 

You've already been corrected on this. A marriage not being recognized by the state is NOT the same as that same marriage being illegal.

 

Gay marriage is not recognized in all states, however, it is legal in all states (you won't get fined or go to jail). Bigamy is illegal.

 

Please stop saying "illegal" when you mean "not recognized".

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Ha! Corraleno and Frances beat me to it. 

 

[TranquilMind]

You are right. Conservative Christian groups never scream persecution over their beliefs not being the default.

 

War on Christmas anyone?

Oh, whatever....that is SUCH a big deal (sarcasm).

 

It's about as culturally important in the scheme of things as the "war" between the cake and pie eaters, the coffee and tea drinkers, and the Mac v. Windows people. 

[Rosie_0801]

There is also the fact that the Jewish service providers are not cooking pork meals or working on Friday or Saturday nights for anyone. Those are not services they provide to anyone. The problem is when a public business owner provides a particular service to everyone except a member of a protected class. Then they are breaking the law. They have the option of not owning a business that has agreed to public accommodation laws, not offering particular services to anyone that they are not willing to offer to everyone, working to change the law, or breaking the law and accepting the consequences.

 

Yep. If Mr and Mrs Conservative don't wish to be subject to the law obliging them to make wedding cakes for gay people, they can easily avoid it by running a bakery that doesn't sell wedding cakes. There's no law obliging bakeries to sell wedding cakes.

[Elisabet1]

Well, for starters, Christian groups like the FRC who do not believe that gays should have the right to marry are trying to make it illegal for everyone — including other Christian churches who want to be able to perform gay marriages. One subgroup of Christians is trying to make it illegal for other Christians to perform the religious rituals that they want to perform in their own churches. Apparently they believe that "religious freedom" only applies to them, not even to other branches of their own faith.

The FRC is not a religious group. It is a PAC. It may be a PAC in the name of religion, but it is till a PAC. It draws people from many religions.

 

On that note, as a conservative Christian myself, I want nothing to do with the FRC. And there are many non-Christians even, and liberal Christians, that are homophobic and anti-gay existence everything. That has never been limited to one religious group.

 

Legally and everything else, the FRC is nothing more than a PAC. And you do not have to belong to a specific church to donate money or otherwise. They are just a bunch of preachy jack....umm....rear ends. That is it. 

[TranquilMind]

 

Except that the couple in question were in fact married in Massachusetts, where it is legal, and they were ordering a cake for a reception being held in Colorado after they were married. So their marriage was in fact legal, and the baker was in no way being asked to "participate" in their wedding ceremony.

 

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the couple's civil rights were violated because they were discriminated against due to sexual orientation. The bakery (which is still in business) chose to stop selling wedding cakes altogether rather than sell them to gay couples. 

I disagree that the distinction is relevant, as to where they were married.   They still wanted a cake to celebrate a wedding in a state that did not recognize it, but required this cake maker to recognize it.   And that is insanity.

 

The baker resolved it in an overly broad way to meet the demands of the state, while still complying with his own conscience in the matter.  It is a shame that he was forced to do that, rather than have the freedom to decline the work openly.  He could have done it covertly, by being "booked", but he was honest about the conflict to him. 

[TranquilMind]

The FRC is not a religious group. It is a PAC. It may be a PAC in the name of religion, but it is till a PAC. It draws people from many religions.

 

On that note, as a conservative Christian myself, I want nothing to do with the FRC. And there are many non-Christians even, and liberal Christians, that are homophobic and anti-gay existence everything. That has never been limited to one religious group.

 

Legally and everything else, the FRC is nothing more than a PAC. And you do not have to belong to a specific church to donate money or otherwise. They are just a bunch of preachy jack....umm....rear ends. That is it. 

I have never supported the FRC, nor even realized what it did, but I defend its right to exist. 

[Elisabet1]

I have never supported the FRC, nor even realized what it did, but I defend its right to exist. 

I completely agree it has the right to exist. I am just saying, not every conservative Christian is in that group or supports what they stand for, and not everyone in that group is a conservative Christian. And it is not even a church or a religion. It is just a PAC.

[TranquilMind]

Yep. If Mr and Mrs Conservative don't wish to be subject to the law obliging them to make wedding cakes for gay people, they can easily avoid it by running a bakery that doesn't sell wedding cakes. There's no law obliging bakeries to sell wedding cakes.

No, but wedding cakes have been a significant portion of bakery business for decades, if not a century, back when "wedding" had a common meaning to all. 

[Scrub Jay]

No, but wedding cakes have been a significant portion of bakery business for decades, if not a century, back when "wedding" had a common meaning to all. 

 

Two adults committing to each other?  I think that meaning still applies.

 

[Elisabet1]

I disagree that the distinction is relevant, as to where they were married.   They still wanted a cake to celebrate a wedding in a state that did not recognize it, but required this cake maker to recognize it.   And that is insanity.

 

The baker resolved it in an overly broad way to meet the demands of the state, while still complying with his own conscience in the matter.  It is a shame that he was forced to do that, rather than have the freedom to decline the work openly.  He could have done it covertly, by being "booked", but he was honest about the conflict to him. 

He should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake. It is a private business, not tax dollar supported. He should not have been forced to do the work, regardless of his reasons. The people who sued could have gone elsewhere and chose not to. 

 

Personally, I would not buy from a place that did not serve gay people. But, I do support the right of someone to decide what they are going to serve.

[Ravin]

Maybe you don't hear it, but this post shows your disdain for Christians...a perceived power that must be taken from them?

 

 

I would never force a Hindu, Jew, etc...to eat of the animals that they view as either sacred or unclean. In much the same way, Christians should not be forced into participating in acts that they view as abhorrent. For that matter, the same RESPECT should apply to vegetarians who come by their ways aside from religion...and to those who come by their passion for saving unborn babies aside from religion.

 

The religious monuments and such should be a reflection of the local people groups and the history of the place. If one feels that a particular religion is not being represented well, go get active on behalf of that religion through peaceful means, but do not tear others down in an attempt to build your own up.

 

The Happy Holidays thing is not even worth discussing, imho. Say what you like. It harms no one. This is nothing on the spectrum of life & death & freedom matters. FTR - I do not rant and rave about Holidays vs Christmas, and I am a person who sees the hatred fires being fanned. Your broad brush doesn't fit my profile.

 

 

I believe in freedom #1 b/c there is no true Faith without freedom anyway. Adults must be free to make their own decisions. Children must be educated and protected until they reach adulthood and can make their own decisions. I think that is a fairly universally agreed upon pov. I'm attempting to point out the ways that, ironically, do the very same things to Christians that Christians are blamed for doing to everyone else.

We are taking about restraints, not affirmative actions, being required. If you operate a business in the wedding industry and weddings of a protected class of people offend your religious sensibilities such that you must refuse to sell to them, you should get out of the wedding business, or change your business model to a private one that doesn't fall under public accommodations law.

[Tanaqui]

No, but wedding cakes have been a significant portion of bakery business for decades, if not a century, back when "wedding" had a common meaning to all. 

 

A century ago in the US, some people believed a wedding meant a union between a man and a woman, and others felt it was necessary for the man and woman to be the same race. People got attacked for being part of mixed race relationships.

 

There was also, at the time, such a thing as the "Boston Marriage" - two women living together instead of getting married in a conventional sense. Those women could've been in a romantic relationship or not.

 

Thats not getting into the fact that, 100 years ago, women were campaigning to preserve some of their rights when married. They didn't all agree on the definition of marriage, which involved women giving up (among other things) rights to their own property.