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

[elegantlion]

 

I don't know, maybe that's opening a giant can of worms. But I'd like to believe that as a society we are diverse and tolerant enough that minority groups would still have plenty of places to shop at and receive services from, even if a small number of people discriminate against them.

 

I live in a town of 10k in the midwest. The default everything here is christian. I had to stop attending a support group that wasn't supposed to be specifically religious but ended up that way every week because the assumption is that everyone in attendance was a particular brand of christianity so it was okay. 

 

Less than 5% of the population in my town is non-white, I imagine there a few gay residents but there are no statistics on that. It's hard to find outlets to do things because I'm not attending church or sending my kid to public school. The services in this town, outside of dentists we have 3-4 or those- are limited. If the baker refuses to sell me a cake because I color my hair (random thing on my to do list) then I'm SOL because I'm not driving 30 minutes to buy a cake. I like to support my community, but I hope, in return, they support me as well - even if I do color my hair. 

[Anne in CA]

But it's a good being sold. The baker does not participate in the event. The only thing relevant to the business transaction is who he is selling to. A wedding cake is a good for sale by a business covered by public accommodation laws.

 I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of argument, and you may never have been to a high dollar wedding, while I have been to more than 300, and you may not know that expensive wedding cakes are set up by the baker on site.

 

A baker is an active participant in a wedding, they do not just swoosh some frosting on the cake and send it out the door. The baker brings the cake to the wedding in pieces, assembles the cake on site and does the touch up decorations and adds any flowers, figurines, ect to the cake while it is on site and gives directions on cutting the cake. Cutting wedding cake is a skill.  I consider a baker to be part of the wedding event.

 

If you were extremely homophobic being at the wedding like that might be creepy. To be honest, if you were a gay couple getting married, would you really want a homophobic person interacting with your family and friends on such a special day?

 

I am not homophobic, and I would happily cater a wedding for gay people, although there are groups of people I would NOT cater a wedding for, no matter what, so I don't offer wedding catering from my restaurant so that I will not have to discriminate.

[Mrs Mungo]

As I read this thread, I too thought of the KKK and other repugnant groups. While the speech of these groups is protected, I am wondering if I would be obligated to perform business transactions with the group itself.

You don't have to decorate a cake with a burning cross or sell to people who enter in white robes. The KKK is not a protected class of people. So, it would be legal to refuse them service. Is that your question?

 

 

I have no idea how to answer your question that is directed to me. Bakeries have names that are Biblical references? Bakers near me have cutesy names or family names. I would assume that the Ephesus bakery is Turkish--or does that strike you as biblical?

 

Bakeries in my part of the country do not have religious based names. Some of my local bakeries: Ted's Bakery (they mostly sell pies), Leonard's Bakery (famous for their malasadas), Liliha Bakery (retro bakery that has being doing things the same way for over 50 years; their chiffon cake is divine), Cake Works, Boulangerie, Watanabe Bakery, Dee Lite Bakery, Hokulani Bake Shop, etc.

[Ravin]

 

Except, again, he was making dog wedding cakes. So, claiming that he's only willing to sell wedding cakes for weddings that are "real" weddings, according to his religion is factually incorrect. This lines up with the rest of your arguments being factually incorrect. Homosexuals were in a protected class when he refused to serve the couple. That means his actions were illegal. This is not just MY opinion; it is the opinion of the courts. There is no Biblical ban on selling cake of any kind to sinners. Gay marriage was NOT illegal in Colorado, it simply was not recognized (BIG difference). The rest of your arguments are pure opinion. Not all Christians agree that homosexuality in a modern sense is banned by The Bible. Not all Christians agree with your assessment that The Bible doesn't prohibit interracial marriage.

 

It is interesting that the Colorado case *proves* MY point that people have options other than shutting down. He didn't want to sell wedding cakes to homosexuals and now he doesn't sell wedding cakes at all. That's a solution that makes him happy, and it is legal.

 

 

Yes, they would. Religious organizations that don't take public funds can restrict who receives their moneys. Some churches only help their own members to try and control where the money is going. Private colleges can remain all male or all female, but they can't have an ROTC program or receiving public money in other forms.

 

 

Personally, I'm offended by the pie link. I assure you that Family Support (now Readiness) Groups were/are a lot more than social clubs. Just this week our group spent hours putting sheets on the beds of soldiers returning home from deployments, putting goodies in their rooms, putting together toiletry bags, etc so that they didn't return home to bare rooms at 10 pm at night. Maybe skippy thinks those things happen by magic?

Or they didn't happen in his command.

[Mrs Mungo]

Or they didn't happen in his command.

My experience is that they happen in every command, just not everyone is aware of who is doing what. One of my friends visited one of the wives from her group multiple times in the hospital-bringing her food, etc. The family wrote a letter to the Stars and Stripes complaining that nobody from the command's FSG visited or cared. The family didn't realize that my friend *was* the FSG leader and was visiting on their behalf. That sort of thing happens a lot.

[Ravin]

I'd make a cake for a jewish wedding, but I wouldn't make one for a brit milah (assuming they would have a cake at such an event).

 

 

I think private businesses should be able to discriminate. Not the government. Not schools. But regular business owners. Why not let them show their true colors? If a business owner is a closet racist or hostile towards certain groups of people, wouldn't you like to know so you could choose to shop elsewhere? Remember when businesses used to have signs up that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" I always assumed that was so they could throw out disruptive people, but I kind of think that private business owners ought to be able to sell their services to only the people they want to.

 

I don't know, maybe that's opening a giant can of worms. But I'd like to believe that as a society we are diverse and tolerant enough that minority groups would still have plenty of places to shop at and receive services from, even if a small number of people discriminate against them.

Wanting to believe it doesn't make it so. Which is why federal civil rights laws go beyond prohibiting the states from enacting segregation laws and extend the requirement not to discriminate to businesses of public accommodation.

[Rosie_0801]

 

If you were extremely homophobic being at the wedding like that might be creepy. To be honest, if you were a gay couple getting married, would you really want a homophobic person interacting with your family and friends on such a special day?

 

 

Quite honestly, I'd expect them to act like professionals, just like I'd expect them to if they thought the groom was a sleaze,  half the guests were drunk or any other working environment that wasn't to their taste.

[Caroline]

I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of argument, and you may never have been to a high dollar wedding, while I have been to more than 300, and you may not know that expensive wedding cakes are set up by the baker on site.

 

A baker is an active participant in a wedding, they do not just swoosh some frosting on the cake and send it out the door. The baker brings the cake to the wedding in pieces, assembles the cake on site and does the touch up decorations and adds any flowers, figurines, ect to the cake while it is on site and gives directions on cutting the cake. Cutting wedding cake is a skill. I consider a baker to be part of the wedding event.

 

If you were extremely homophobic being at the wedding like that might be creepy. To be honest, if you were a gay couple getting married, would you really want a homophobic person interacting with your family and friends on such a special day?

 

I am not homophobic, and I would happily cater a wedding for gay people, although there are groups of people I would NOT cater a wedding for, no matter what, so I don't offer wedding catering from my restaurant so that I will not have to discriminate.

I, too, am familiar with high end weddings and cakes. I never considered the baker to be part of the wedding. He came, set up the cake, gave directions, and left. Not there for the ceremony. Not there for the reception. Never have I a seen a baker be an 'active participant' in a wedding. (Well, my friend who bakes wedding cakes was an active participant in my wedding because she was a bridesmaid, and she was the bride at her own wedding, so an active participant.)

[texasmama]

Here's why: because God calls believers to be the salt and light. How many religious people put their kids in public school to do just that, to be a good witness to christianity. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it's a belief. 

 

God asks people to be humble too. You don't like gay weddings, bake the cake, pray over the cake, pray before each meeting you have with the couple that they will come to know Christ (if they don't already). People are not attracted to Christ or christianity by hateful, divisionist rhetoric. 

 

Pray they keep coming to your bakery so that they will continue to see your religion in a good light. Pray that they will see christianity with new eyes even if they never convert. 

 

Forget the love the sinner, hate the sin rhetoric, just love the people where they are, that is how Christ took people where they were. 

 

If you have a problem with others seeing you served a same-sex couple, then that's their problem. Evangelicals believe you are to go into all the world to preach (use words if necessary). Sometimes all the world is your own backyard or the person that walks through your business door and wants a wedding cake. 

 

A  million times yes.

 

[Crimson Wife]

But it's a good being sold. The baker does not participate in the event. The only thing relevant to the business transaction is who he is selling to. A wedding cake is a good for sale by a business covered by public accommodation laws.

 

Maybe the baker could be said not to be participating, but what about a photographer who actually goes to the event? What about a fertility doctor approached by a lesbian for help in getting pregnant? There have been lawsuits over those latter situations that require much greater involvement on the part of the Christian.

 

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws being on the books so long as there is a robust religious exemption. If the government wants to pass a law stating that homosexuals are a protected class and secular organizations can't discriminate against them, I don't particularly care. But the government should not infringe on the right of Americans to practice their religions and that is why religious exemptions are so vital. Protecting religious liberty is more important than making things convenient for homosexuals.

[LucyStoner]

I think cherry pie made with actual cherries is a sacrament. Cherry pie made with canned cherries is an abomination.

 

 

 

Agreed.

And it looks a lot like a sacrament of sacrificing a medium sized animal. Cherry juice everywhere...

[Pam in CT]

Ok, so I didn't leave... yet... but my mind has come up with a purely speculative question.

 

Would people be complaining if a baker refused to provide a cake (of any sort) to a KKK event?

 

We have those around here occasionally (sadly).  I don't know that they ever ask for catering of any sort.  But still...

 

Personally I wouldn't have any problem providing a wedding cake to a gay couple (quite honestly they wouldn't want any wedding cake I attempted to bake, but that's a different issue).  I would, however, not care to support a KKK event.  I wonder how compatible that is in my thoughts.

 

And that's why this is purely speculative.

 

As has by now already been noted, the KKK is not a legally protected class.

 

 

Public accommodation laws cover businesses which are open to the public.  

 

Houses of worship and private clubs are not such businesses and are not ordinarily subject to public accommodation laws.  (If they accept public funding, they may then be subject to public accommodation laws as a defined condition of accepting the public funds.) 

 

Public accommodation laws say: whatever good or service you provide, you must provide to anyone who is in a legally protected class.  That is: whatever good or service you provide, you cannot discriminate against anyone who is in a legally protected class.

 

Public accommodation laws do NOT require that you provide a particular item, only that whatever you provide, you do so to all comers in all protected classes.  If you, for example, own a bookstore, you are not required to stock a particular book... but whatever books you do stock, you must sell to all (protected) customers.  If you, for example, own a deli, you are not required to serve ham... but whatever you do serve, you must serve to all (protected) customers.  If you own a hotel, you are not required to have multi-room suites... but whatever type rooms you have, you must make available to all (protected) customers.

 

 

Legally protected classes are defined by federal, state and in some cases local law.  They include race, religion, sex, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, and in some cases age.

 

If a status is not defined legally as a legally protected class -- say, pie eaters, or hair dye-ers, or KKK, a business may legally decline a customer.

[Scrub Jay]

Maybe the baker could be said not to be participating, but what about a photographer who actually goes to the event? What about a fertility doctor approached by a lesbian for help in getting pregnant? There have been lawsuits over those latter situations that require much greater involvement on the part of the Christian.

 

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws being on the books so long as there is a robust religious exemption. If the government wants to pass a law stating that homosexuals are a protected class and secular organizations can't discriminate against them, I don't particularly care. But the government should not infringe on the right of Americans to practice their religions and that is why religious exemptions are so vital. Protecting religious liberty is more important than making things convenient for homosexuals.

 

Treating homosexuals like regular human beings = making things "convenient" for them in your opinion.

 

Wow.

 

How about, instead, people who follow certain religions that discriminate against large groups of people (race, class, sexual orientation, differing religion, lack of religion, etc) choose career paths where they don't have to associate with any of those icky groups? 

 

[Crimson Wife]

There is no pregnancy from a medical standpoint unless there is implantation. This is something that is commonly considered a fact in the medical community, particularly the medical community that deals with women's health. That's why ACOG defines it that way. I think most people accept that definition.

 

According to whose definition? People who believe that life begins at conception would say that there was a pregnancy that ended in a very early miscarriage.

[Scrub Jay]

According to whose definition? People who believe that life begins at conception would say that there was a pregnancy that ended in a very early miscarriage.

 

The post you quoted said whose defintion it is:  http://www.acog.org/

 

You know, doctors...

 

[Tanaqui]

According to whose definition? People who believe that life begins at conception would say that there was a pregnancy that ended in a very early miscarriage.

 

And if you call a dog's tail a leg, you might say a dog has five legs. What's your point?

 

 

[Frances]

Ok, so I didn't leave... yet... but my mind has come up with a purely speculative question.

 

Would people be complaining if a baker refused to provide a cake (of any sort) to a KKK event?

 

We have those around here occasionally (sadly).  I don't know that they ever ask for catering of any sort.  But still...

 

Personally I wouldn't have any problem providing a wedding cake to a gay couple (quite honestly they wouldn't want any wedding cake I attempted to bake, but that's a different issue).  I would, however, not care to support a KKK event.  I wonder how compatible that is in my thoughts.

 

And that's why this is purely speculative.

A baker refusing to provide a cake for a KKK event would not be breaking any laws, as the KKK is not part of any protected class. I'd have no complaints. Nor would I be bothered by a photographer refusing to photograph nude couples because they never photograph nudes. A problem would only arise if they will photograph any nude couple except a(n) (insert race of your choice) one.

 

The baker could also refuse to write a particular message they find offensive on a cake, as long as they are not refusing to do so only for members of a protected class, but freely do so for everyone else. The baker is simply being asked to follow the laws they agreed to when they opened their business. If you provide a product or service to everyone except members of a protected class because they somehow offend your religious or other beliefs, you are breaking the law.

[Anne in CA]

Quite honestly, I'd expect them to act like professionals, just like I'd expect them to if they thought the groom was a sleaze,  half the guests were drunk or any other working environment that wasn't to their taste.

Clearly that is how they should act, but a wedding can be a tense time, and it is much better to have everyone involved WANT to be there.

[Scrub Jay]

And the thing that really gets me - religion (or lack of) is a CHOICE.  Being gay is NOT a choice.

 

Seems to me that the religious people should be jumping through hoops, not someone living the way god/mother nature made them.

[Crimson Wife]

Treating homosexuals like regular human beings = making things "convenient" for them in your opinion.

 

Buying your cake from bakery X instead of bakery Y is a matter of convenience. So is hiring wedding photographer A instead of wedding photographer B. Plenty of wedding vendors are happy to take your money regardless of your orientation- why should your convenience take precedence over the right of baker Y or photographer B to practice his/her faith?

[Χά�ων]

Maybe the baker could be said not to be participating, but what about a photographer who actually goes to the event? What about a fertility doctor approached by a lesbian for help in getting pregnant? There have been lawsuits over those latter situations that require much greater involvement on the part of the Christian.

 

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws being on the books so long as there is a robust religious exemption. If the government wants to pass a law stating that homosexuals are a protected class and secular organizations can't discriminate against them, I don't particularly care. But the government should not infringe on the right of Americans to practice their religions and that is why religious exemptions are so vital. Protecting religious liberty is more important than making things convenient for homosexuals.

 

 

My father had a beloved saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." It could be applied here.

[Tanaqui]

Buying your cake from bakery X instead of bakery Y is a matter of convenience. So is hiring wedding photographer A instead of wedding photographer B. Plenty of wedding vendors are happy to take your money regardless of your orientation- why should your convenience take precedence over the right of baker Y or photographer B to practice his/her faith?

 

This is not true in all places, as has been repeatedly explained.. Stop falling back on refuted arguments.

[Scrub Jay]

Buying your cake from bakery X instead of bakery Y is a matter of convenience. So is hiring wedding photographer A instead of wedding photographer B. Plenty of wedding vendors are happy to take your money regardless of your orientation- why should your convenience take precedence over the right of baker Y or photographer B to practice his/her faith?

 

Because I don't put people's choice of faith above treating gay people like human beings.

 

[Corraleno]

Buying your cake from bakery X instead of bakery Y is a matter of convenience. So is hiring wedding photographer A instead of wedding photographer B. Plenty of wedding vendors are happy to take your money regardless of your orientation- why should your convenience take precedence over the right of baker Y or photographer B to practice his/her faith?

 

Oy, no one is saying that the baker cannot "practice his faith"! No one is trying to force him to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender against his will. It is not a requirement of the Christian faith that adherents must refuse to sell pastries to gay couples.

 

However, when someone opens a commercial, open-to-the-public business in the state of Colorado (or Oregon or any other state), they agree to abide by the LAWS of that state. Business owners are legally prohibited from discriminating for specific reasons, which in many states include sexual orientation. If a business owner believes that he cannot abide by that law without violating the tenets of his faith, then it is HIS responsibility to find another business where his religious beliefs and civil LAW do not conflict. It is not the responsibility of the person who was discriminated against to give up their civil rights for the "convenience" of the business owner!

[Mrs Mungo]

Oy, no one is saying that the baker cannot "practice his faith"! No one is trying to force him to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender against his will. It is not a requirement of the Christian faith that adherents must refuse to sell pastries to gay couples.

 

However, when someone opens a commercial, open-to-the-public business in the state of Colorado (or Oregon or any other state), they agree to abide by the LAWS of that state. Business owners are legally prohibited from discriminating for specific reasons, which in many states include sexual orientation. If a business owner believes that he cannot abide by that law without violating the tenets of his faith, then it is HIS responsibility to find another business where his religious beliefs and civil LAW do not conflict. It is not the responsibility of the person who was discriminated against to give up their civil rights for the "convenience" of the business owner!

Right. Or they can find ways to operate their business within the law, as has been repeatedly shown. The baker in question decided to stop selling wedding cakes, problem solved.

[Pam in CT]

Buying your cake from bakery X instead of bakery Y is a matter of convenience. So is hiring wedding photographer A instead of wedding photographer B. Plenty of wedding vendors are happy to take your money regardless of your orientation- why should your convenience take precedence over the right of baker Y or photographer B to practice his/her faith?

 

 

 

Public accommodation laws establish obligations on the side of the BUSINESS.  Just as other commercial laws establish obligations concerning taxation, health and sanitation standards, wages etc on the side of the BUSINESS.

[creekland]

I coincidentally already used them in an example. If my sale to them bothered my conscience, I'd donate the profits from the sale to the NAACP or something.

 

Ooh, I love this!  Problem solved.  Of course it doesn't solve my problem that I don't bake, but as I said before, that's a different issue.  This was purely speculative.

 

As has by now already been noted, the KKK is not a legally protected class.

 

 

Perhaps not, but they had the legal right to hold their brouhaha nearby even though they weren't wanted by the majority of local residents.  It was a public venue open to the public (by permit) and they weren't allowed to deny them.

 

I could easily see them challenging anything in court if someone with a public business like a bakery denied them something.  How many business owners could even afford the legal fees?

 

Methinks donating all their $$ to an opposing educational group (or similar) would be the best thing to do if in that situation.

[Pam in CT]

re: KKK

 

Perhaps not, but they had the legal right to hold their brouhaha nearby even though they weren't wanted by the majority of local residents.  It was a public venue open to the public (by permit) and they weren't allowed to deny them.

 

I could easily see them challenging anything in court if someone with a public business like a bakery denied them something.  How many business owners could even afford the legal fees?

 

Methinks donating all their $$ to an opposing educational group (or similar) would be the best thing to do if in that situation.

 

Yes -- they are not a legally protected class under public accommodation laws, but they certainly still have rights of assembly, free speech etc.

 

and yes, arguing these cases in court, from either side, is prohibitively expensive and very often impracticable.

[Elisabet1]

Your pie link frightens me.  What if it contains pie porn?

You mean like chocolate pie and banana cream pie..and some key lime pie too?

[Elisabet1]

If a post goes 7 pages..it is a guarantee that it is no longer on the original topic. Kind of drives me nuts. I read the original post and always respond before I read what others have to say, so I am not affected by other's opinions before I give my own. Then I look back and it could have started about how to build a snowman but turned in to a debate on the environmental impact of snow and the abuses of snow peoples everywhere.

[creekland]

re: KKK

 

Yes -- they are not a legally protected class under public accommodation laws, but they certainly still have rights of assembly, free speech etc.

 

and yes, arguing these cases in court, from either side, is prohibitively expensive and very often impracticable.

 

But taking their $$ and channeling it into the polar opposite of their views is really a perfect conclusion, no?

 

It allows free speech without discrimination AND uses their $$ to further a cause I'd prefer - education against such nonsense.  

 

The Hive is terrific for answers of all sorts - even hypothetical questions!

 

Now I just need to know if scuba diving is ok with the brain issues I have going on... ;)  But I'll check with the grand pumbas of medicine I see first, then check out google.  If those don't give me answers, I just might turn to the Hive again.  Two completely different thoughts playing around in my mind today (I never claimed to be normal)... one is answered!

[Chelli]

As a Christian that also happens to be conservative, I feel the need to apologize on behalf of people that claim to share my faith, yet are not representing our Savior.

 

I've often said that it is a huge failing of the church, in general, that "we" expect non-Christians to behave like Christians. Why would you? Our family stays out of politics in general because we do not hold the belief that this is a Christian nation, nor that it was founded to be one. We do believe in separation of church and state, because I certainly do not want the government trying to legislate my faith. We realize that it is a two way street in that we should not try to legislate the nation into Christianity. Would I like to live in a Christian nation? Sure. But I also realize that it isn't going to happen on this side of heaven.

 

What am I commanded to do? Love my neighbor. (Yes, my white, black, Asian, gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. neighbors). Love my God. I am not commanded to force the world to conform to scripture. In fact it is pretty clear from scripture that it will not happen, and God already knows that. I am only to conform myself, and love others. The end.

 

I LOVE this response and agree 1,000%

 

The church I am a part of has quite a few people that fit into the "this is a Christian nation" camp, and the "USA has turned its back on God" group. Honestly I think a lot of it comes from fear and the idea that it is our (Christians) job to keep the country on the straight and narrow so that God will be pleased with us. I feel it is more an allegiance to the United States (save this country!) than to Christ himself.

 

I feel the need to periodically remind them that ancient Rome (the time in which Jesus and the apostles lived) was cesspool of immoral and wrong behaviors, but Jesus and the apostles spend ZERO effort trying to take over Rome and turn it Christian. They work with people to change their hearts through love and respect because when you change people through love the overflow of that changes the nation and the world. Love and morality cannot be legislated. It is a heart issue. I wish people would stop trying to change others (not my job) and work a little harder on themselves (my job). That's when the nation and the world works the best.

[Luanne]

OP - separation of church and state was originally created to keep the state from running the church, not the other way around.  It was never meant to be the other way around.

[creekland]

I feel the need to periodically remind them that ancient Rome (the time in which Jesus and the apostles lived) was cesspool of immoral and wrong behaviors, but Jesus and the apostles spend ZERO effort trying to take over Rome and turn it Christian. 

 

I remind people of this many times too... and that we are to welcome the aliens/immigrants among us... that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves with a BROAD definition of neighbor... that we are to take care of the orphans and widows as well as our family... that we are to treat everyone (poor, rich, etc) the same... and probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment.

 

I'm not exactly sure when/how the "hot topics" got selected or why some of them even exist.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe the baker could be said not to be participating, but what about a photographer who actually goes to the event? What about a fertility doctor approached by a lesbian for help in getting pregnant? There have been lawsuits over those latter situations that require much greater involvement on the part of the Christian.

 

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws being on the books so long as there is a robust religious exemption. If the government wants to pass a law stating that homosexuals are a protected class and secular organizations can't discriminate against them, I don't particularly care. But the government should not infringe on the right of Americans to practice their religions and that is why religious exemptions are so vital. Protecting religious liberty is more important than making things convenient for homosexuals.

 

Convenient?  Dismissive much?

[OnTheBrink]

As a Christian that also happens to be conservative, I feel the need to apologize on behalf of people that claim to share my faith, yet are not representing our Savior.

 

I've often said that it is a huge failing of the church, in general, that "we" expect non-Christians to behave like Christians. Why would you? Our family stays out of politics in general because we do not hold the belief that this is a Christian nation, nor that it was founded to be one. We do believe in separation of church and state, because I certainly do not want the government trying to legislate my faith. We realize that it is a two way street in that we should not try to legislate the nation into Christianity. Would I like to live in a Christian nation? Sure. But I also realize that it isn't going to happen on this side of heaven.

 

What am I commanded to do? Love my neighbor. (Yes, my white, black, Asian, gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. neighbors). Love my God. I am not commanded to force the world to conform to scripture. In fact it is pretty clear from scripture that it will not happen, and God already knows that. I am only to conform myself, and love others. The end.

 

 

And you know, life is so much more peaceful when your focus isn't on what everyone else is doing. I discovered this myself a few years ago. I have definite convictions and beliefs which aren't going to change. But I think my testimony to my faith speaks much louder if I treat people as people and not compartmentalize them by (pick something). 

[Corraleno]

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws being on the books so long as there is a robust religious exemption. If the government wants to pass a law stating that homosexuals are a protected class and secular organizations can't discriminate against them, I don't particularly care. But the government should not infringe on the right of Americans to practice their religions and that is why religious exemptions are so vital. Protecting religious liberty is more important than making things convenient for homosexuals.

 

So do you think that a Christian restaurant owner who believes Islam is evil should have the right to refuse to serve anyone wearing a hijab? Or that a Muslim business owner should have the right to refuse to serve Christians or Jews? Should a hotel owner who believes interracial marriage is unbiblical be allowed to refuse accommodations to an interracial couple? Or does your concept of "religious exemption" only apply to the subset of Christian business owners who want the right to discriminate against people because of sexual orientation?

[hornblower]

 Protecting religious liberty is more important than making things convenient for homosexuals.

 

I'd say protecting universal human rights for all is more important than making things convenient for religious people.

 

[Cindy in FL.]

I appreciate this post and agree with what you are saying here. I do not believe the US is or ever was a Christian nation. I think there are benefits to any person or nation that follows God's laws, however, whether they are Christian or not. I do not expect non-Christians to behave like Christians, and know that you can't legislate anyone into the Kingdom.

 

I do think that part of loving my neighbor is telling them the truth, though I think many Christians don't go about this in a very good way. Unless someone asks you about Christianity and your beliefs you really need to form a relationship with them first. You don't get to barge into someone's life and say I see you do xyz and I'm here to tell you that that is wrong and if you don't stop you're going to hell. Until you have shown that you care about them as a human being you really don't have a right to get into that with them. More of a friendship evangelism approach. I do absolutely believe that Christians are sent out to share the Gospel.

As a Christian that also happens to be conservative, I feel the need to apologize on behalf of people that claim to share my faith, yet are not representing our Savior.

 

I've often said that it is a huge failing of the church, in general, that "we" expect non-Christians to behave like Christians. Why would you? Our family stays out of politics in general because we do not hold the belief that this is a Christian nation, nor that it was founded to be one. We do believe in separation of church and state, because I certainly do not want the government trying to legislate my faith. We realize that it is a two way street in that we should not try to legislate the nation into Christianity. Would I like to live in a Christian nation? Sure. But I also realize that it isn't going to happen on this side of heaven.

 

What am I commanded to do? Love my neighbor. (Yes, my white, black, Asian, gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. neighbors). Love my God. I am not commanded to force the world to conform to scripture. In fact it is pretty clear from scripture that it will not happen, and God already knows that. I am only to conform myself, and love others. The end.

[bettyandbob]

I don't know how cherry pie got mixed into the middle of this thread, but I like cherry pie. I wanted to defend cherry pie. Can I defend cherry pie without being discriminatory against other pies. I don't think cherry pie is part of a protected class. I do like all kinds of pies.

[foxbridgeacademy]

And now you know. Always click my links, they're chosen with love and care. This one is even tangentially related to the discussion.

Currently stuck on Skippy's List, thank you it's freakin' hilarious!

 

ETA: fruit pies in general are gross, squishy fruit should not be eaten(squishy=rotted without the good times of fermented) but cherry pie with its big globs that take forever to chew....  :ack2: are particularly yuck. But that's just my belief and I would never try to stop anyone else from enjoying their fruit pies.

[*Lulu*]

I don't know how cherry pie got mixed into the middle of this thread, but I like cherry pie. I wanted to defend cherry pie. Can I defend cherry pie without being discriminatory against other pies. I don't think cherry pie is part of a protected class. I do like all kinds of pies.

The priestess of pie has declared real cherry pie worthy.

 

As a member of the cult of cake, (who occasionally partakes in the pies of divinity), I do not discriminate against pie. I discriminate against cherry flavored anything, marishino cherries, and canned cherry pie filling.

[Elisabet1]

This pregnant person now needs pie. 

[creekland]

There's not enough salt in pie.  Y'all can have it.  I get the chips or tortillas or FunYuns.  Ham will work nicely too as long as it's the salty kind.

 

Dinner tonight consisted of celery sticks with French Onion dip, an apple, and a couple of Adirondack cheese slices.  I'm feeling salt deprived - not at all hungry - just salt deprived.  I'm also up past my bed time... so there's definitely no guarantee my brain is engaged in anything useful.

[creekland]

And I'm committed to staying up until I win a Dragons MahJong game, so it could be awhile (sigh).  I'm better at the table MahJong game, but with just two of us here, that's not happening.

[*Lulu*]

This pregnant person now needs pie.

Pregnant people should always get pie.

[TranquilMind]

Actually, I have all the evidence I need, and it it 100% irrefutable and valid.

 

That was the Jesus I worshipped - just as I posted.

Do tell.  Source?

[creekland]

Ah, I won, so I'm off to the great upstairs.  I'll be around some tomorrow morning, then out for a bit, so enjoy - or if the thread gets locked/deleted/too long for me to read further... adios!

[Mrs Mungo]

There's not enough salt in pie. Y'all can have it. I get the chips or tortillas or FunYuns. Ham will work nicely too as long as it's the salty kind.

 

Dinner tonight consisted of celery sticks with French Onion dip, an apple, and a couple of Adirondack cheese slices. I'm feeling salt deprived - not at all hungry - just salt deprived. I'm also up past my bed time... so there's definitely no guarantee my brain is engaged in anything useful.

I was offering tacos and margaritas last night! But, we are having salmon tonight.

[DesertBlossom]

You assume wrong. History shows us otherwise. It is more basic to human nature to shun those not like oneself than it is to embrace all. That is the whole reason laws have been made to protect minority groups.

 

I agree that history has never been good to minority groups. But I also think the climate in the US has changed to the point that the type of discrimination we've seen in the past wouldn't happen again. I don't think that making it "legal" to discriminate would make people automatically begin discriminating against certain groups. It wouldn't be socially acceptable and I think people would boycott businesses that did.  

 

I'd hate to figure out what places did serve and didn't serve Mormons every time I moved to a new place in the US.  It could make ordering pizza hard the first night.

 

And then I'd have to figure out all the places that refused to serve people based on any currently protected class and avoid them too.  

 

That would have been after applying the same rules to all the landlords I talked to as we tried to find a place to rent before moving.  And the moving companies!  I might as well just stay out of the US.

 

See, I just don't think this would happen. I don't think businesses would do it. It's not socially acceptable to discriminate against minority groups. Those businesses that did would be few and far between.