U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[Mac'nCheese]

Of course they can tell whoever they want. It becomes a smear campaign when the gay person sues the Christian business for every penny and avows to punish anyone with beliefs different from their own.

My friend, the Christian in this case believes that gay marriage is offensive to God and a grave sin. That is their belief. It is not the government's job to decide what a Christian does or does not believe. By arranging flowers for the wedding, yes, many Christians would believe that would be participating in what they consider evil. Would you force a Muslim to eat meat on their holy days? Of course not. For the same reason a Christian shouldn't be forced to act against their beliefs.

Forcing a Muslim to eat meat is not the same as bringing flowers to a gay wedding because the eating of the meat is the sin just as the marriage is the sin. You're not forcing the florist to get married to another man. No one is punishing anyone for their belief. They are punishing people for acting on them. Discrimination is illegal. You don't get a get out of jail free card because of religion. Forget about the florist for a minute. Think of really extreme case. Someone who doesn't want to offer their business or service to a group of people whom their religion says they shouldn't mix with. What if that service is the only gas station in a small town and that group of people are driving through that town, about to run out of gas. Should they be stranded there over someone's belief? Of course, a gay couple can find another florist. Hell, they should want to find one. What gay person would want to support a businessman who thinks they are a sinner? But our laws have to be applied to all or else someday someone who really needs a service won't get one because of "religious freedom."

 

[chrono1081]

Well, I think it's pretty simple. We should be able to respect the dignity of the person without condoning the behavior.

If I'm a florist and a gay person comes into my shop, I'll sell them flowers. I shouldn't not sell them flowers because they're gay.

If they come into my shop and say, "I'm getting hitched in a gay marriage, provide the flowers for my wedding," I should be able to decline the business on the basis of my belief that gay marriage is wrong.

They can easily take their business elsewhere and the free market will react to my decision accordingly.

In this situation the rights of both individuals are respected.

Unfortunately, though, there is a lot of movement in the direction of forcing the florist to provide the service or go out of business. If there isn't a lawsuit there are thousands of dollars in human rights violation fees, or there is a smear campaign against the business by gay rights activists.

I think that's messed up.

Messed up his hating someone for something they can't choose. THAT is messed up.

If this woman wants to be a public business she has to obey consumer protection laws. If she wants to be a private bigot business then by all means discriminate away.

Gay is not a choice, its is never a choice. No one should be discriminated against just because they fall into the estimated 8-10% of the population that is gay.

 

[phillipduran]

Well, that's your interpretation of what that means. That's my point: seems very clear to you, but you have to re-write it as opposed to it just being clear without someone telling us what it means. "No, no, no, when God said kill your children, that's not what he really meant. You see, I will tell you want he meant.....because I know."
.

That is what he meant. Yes, kill children that are disobedient.

I think you're one of those people that think the bible is all roses and sunshine. The bible is some hard hitting fire and brimstone stuff not some G rated book. You look to the old testament and say OMG Christians are supposed to kill disobedient kids and they pick and choose their beliefs. This is not true. The people in the Old Testament were told this and it was the standard they were held to. Then Jesus came along and removed that system of punishment and all will be accountable to God directly. Still accountable, different judge. So all the rules are the same, just different method of dealing with it.

To clear this up. All people are accountable for their sin. The penalty for sin is death. To escape this death, a sacrifice is necessary to pay for this sin. This was done a different way in the Old Testament, it's now done by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. All of the sins from the Old Testament remain sins today. All of the wrongs then are wrongs now (to my knowledge, always learning here). The payment method has changed. You can look at the payment paid for sins in the Old Testament and say that is what Christians have to do, but that is not true. Someone stepped in for us and were not bound to those same punishments.

Make sense?

 

[Demon Hunter]

Forcing a Muslim to eat meat is not the same as bringing flowers to a gay wedding because the eating of the meat is the sin just as the marriage is the sin. You're not forcing the florist to get married to another man. No one is punishing anyone for their belief. They are punishing people for acting on them. Discrimination is illegal. You don't get a get out of jail free card because of religion. Forget about the florist for a minute. Think of really extreme case. Someone who doesn't want to offer their business or service to a group of people whom their religion says they shouldn't mix with. What if that service is the only gas station in a small town and that group of people are driving through that town, about to run out of gas. Should they be stranded there over someone's belief? Of course, a gay couple can find another florist. Hell, they should want to find one. What gay person would want to support a businessman who thinks they are a sinner? But our laws have to be applied to all or else someday someone who really needs a service won't get one because of "religious freedom."

Well, again the problem here is that you are deciding what is sin for the Christian. That's not something you or the government can decide. And for what it's worth, Christianity specifically forbids that kind of participation in a gay wedding (at least Catholicism does).

And wait, how is the florist "acting on" the gay couple? From my understanding they simply declined the transaction. Sounds like the gay couple is acting on the Christian.

I don't understand why you want to forget about the florist when I provided a real-world example to demonstrate my claim. That florist is going out of business because of their religious beliefs.

I am afraid your example misses the point, because for a Christian marriage is really important. It's central to our entire belief system. If the celebration was a birthday or something like that, then I could see why the law would be needed. But there is a very clear need to protect the Christian's belief about marriage in this case.

 

[chrono1081]

That is what he meant. Yes, kill children that are disobedient.

I think you're one of those people that think the bible is all roses and sunshine. The bible is some hard hitting fire and brimstone stuff not some G rated book. You look to the old testament and say OMG Christians are supposed to kill disobedient kids and they pick and choose their beliefs. This is not true. The people in the Old Testament were told this and it was the standard they were held to. Then Jesus came along and removed that system of punishment and all will be accountable to God directly. Still accountable, different judge. So all the rules are the same, just different method of dealing with it.

To clear this up. All people are accountable for their sin. The penalty for sin is death. To escape this death, a sacrifice is necessary to pay for this sin. This was done a different way in the Old Testament, it's now done by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. All of the sins from the Old Testament remain sins today. All of the wrongs then are wrongs now (to my knowledge, always learning here). The payment method has changed. You can look at the payment paid for sins in the Old Testament and say that is what Christians have to do, but that is not true. Someone stepped in for us and were not bound to those same punishments.

Make sense?

So why do you hate gays? Gay isn't on the 10 commandments, gay isn't condemned anywhere in the new testament (and don't try and quote me corinthians or romans in English, if you do it means you don't know what you're talking about).

Explain to me how you can forgo everything else you read in Levitucus yet still think gays are terrible.

Terrible hateful Christians are the real problem.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Messed up his hating someone for something they can't choose. THAT is messed up.

If this woman wants to be a public business she has to obey consumer protection laws. If she wants to be a private bigot business then by all means discriminate away.

Gay is not a choice, its is never a choice. No one should be discriminated against just because they fall into the estimated 8-10% of the population that is gay.

You throw around that word "hate" like a grenade. What does it even mean in this case?

I like how you throw around those figures too as if they're fact. They're not. Homosexual inclinations may not be a choice but practicing homosexuality is, quite objectively, a choosable behavior.

 

[chrono1081]

I am afraid your example misses the point, because for a Christian marriage is really important. It's central to our entire belief system. If the celebration was a birthday or something like that, then I could see why the law would be needed. But there is a very clear need to protect the Christian's belief about marriage in this case.

So why is it right for you to decide who gets married and who doesn't? I'm Christian and I support gay marriage and its not just because I'm gay. I support equal rights because thats what Jesus wants.

God made me gay and if people like you don't like it you can tell him he screwed up if you meet him in the afterlife.

----------

You throw around that word "hate" like a grenade. What does it even mean in this case?

I like how you throw around those figures too as if they're fact. They're not. Homosexual inclinations may not be a choice but practicing homosexuality is, quite objectively, a choosable behavior.

So you expect someone to live their life alone and with no human contact? Get real.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Well, again the problem here is that you are deciding what is sin for the Christian. That's not something you or the government can decide. And for what it's worth, Christianity specifically forbids that kind of participation in a gay wedding (at least Catholicism does).

And wait, how is the florist "acting on" the gay couple? From my understanding they simply declined the transaction. Sounds like the gay couple is acting on the Christian.

I don't understand why you want to forget about the florist when I provided a real-world example to demonstrate my claim. That florist is going out of business because of their religious beliefs.

I am afraid your example misses the point, because for a Christian marriage is really important. It's central to our entire belief system. If the celebration was a birthday or something like that, then I could see why the law would be needed. But there is a very clear need to protect the Christian's belief about marriage in this case.

The florist is "acting on" the gay couple by denying them a service. And it's not simple. The laws in the country are clear: you can't deny people services for reasons such as they are gay, or black, or whatever. The gay couple is simply standing up for their rights.
I said forget this for a minute because I wanted to use an extreme example to show why we need laws like this. Do you understand why denying someone a service could have much more an impact on them then simply "they need to find another florist".
Again, no one is saying you can't believe that marriage is one man and one woman. You just can't act on that belief to the detriment of another person. If people really believed in their religion so strongly that it would Interfer with their ability to open a business and run it within the legal system of this country, then they need to sacrifice and put their belief first and not open that business.

 

[Demon Hunter]

So why is it right for you to decide who gets married and who doesn't? I'm Christian and I support gay marriage and its not just because I'm gay. I support equal rights because thats what Jesus wants.

God made me gay and if people like you don't like it you can tell him he screwed up if you meet him in the afterlife.

----------



So you expect someone to live their life alone and with no human contact? Get real.

Hey, no need for getting defensive. You may think that I'm attacking you or something but that's not the case at all. I just think the Bible is pretty straightforward when it comes to this stuff.

I don't decide anything! God decided (see Genesis 1:27). He is God, after all.

Jesus made it very clear that some things are forbidden. For me, as a heterosexual, I have a ton of limitations on my behavior. I accept them because it's what Jesus asks of me, and it's the only path to life.

I hope I get the privilege of meeting you in the afterlife and thanking him for the person he made you. He's not calling you to loneliness, he's calling you to be close to Himself.

 

[citizenzen]

All of the sins from the Old Testament remain sins today. All of the wrongs then are wrongs now (to my knowledge, always learning here). The payment method has changed. You can look at the payment paid for sins in the Old Testament and say that is what Christians have to do, but that is not true. Someone stepped in for us and were not bound to those same punishments.

Make sense?

Let me see if I got this right ...

"The payment method has changed."

IMO, that means that the method of payment is accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior. That alone now is "payment" for any or all of one's sins.

Is that true?

 

[chrono1081]

Hey, no need for getting defensive. You may think that I'm attacking you or something but that's not the case at all. I just think the Bible is pretty straightforward when it comes to this stuff.

I don't decide anything! God decided (see Genesis 1:27). He is God, after all.

Jesus made it very clear that some things are forbidden. For me, as a heterosexual, I have a ton of limitations on my behavior. I accept them because it's what Jesus asks of me, and it's the only path to life.

I hope I get the privilege of meeting you in the afterlife and thanking him for the person he made you. He's not calling you to loneliness, he's calling you to be close to Himself.

1:27? Really? Yes God made genders. That doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong.

Wrong would by lying to a woman, telling her you love her and are attracted to her and allowing her to give up her one life to be with you and build up a family based on that lie. I'm pretty sure thats a much worse offense than being with another person of the same gender and loving them.

 

[Demon Hunter]

The florist is "acting on" the gay couple by denying them a service. And it's not simple. The laws in the country are clear: you can't deny people services for reasons such as they are gay, or black, or whatever. The gay couple is simply standing up for their rights.
I said forget this for a minute because I wanted to use an extreme example to show why we need laws like this. Do you understand why denying someone a service could have much more an impact on them then simply "they need to find another florist".
Again, no one is saying you can't believe that marriage is one man and one woman. You just can't act on that belief to the detriment of another person. If people really believed in their religion so strongly that it would Interfer with their ability to open a business and run it within the legal system of this country, then they need to sacrifice and put their belief first and not open that business.

Yes, I do understand how that could have an emotional and psychological impact on the gay couple. And yes I also agree that in some cases the Christian would be wise not to even open a business, if that's what it comes down to.

It's true that we have laws, but what about the greatest law in the U.S., the Consitution? The law is also clear on this matter. Government shall not molest or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

[gnasher729]

You always have control and if you say you don't, what do you say about the people who are attracted to little kids? Are you willing to make an exception for them and say that is wrong or are you going to explain how they can't help who they are and we should accept them and stop being hateful?

Pathetic and wrong.

I don't have control. If there was a law that forced me to have only sex with men, I couldn't do it. I don't have a choice there. So what on earth makes you think that a gay person would be different and would have a choice?

And then you step from the wrong to the pathetic and disgusting. This is about relationships between consenting people. "Consenting" implies old enough to make a decision.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Yes, I do understand how that could have an emotional and psychological impact on the gay couple. And yes I also agree that in some cases the Christian would be wise not to even open a business, if that's what it comes down to.

It's true that we have laws, but what about the greatest law in the U.S., the Consitution? The law is also clear on this matter. Government shall not molest or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Once again, no one is prohibiting the exercise of religion. They are prohibiting the act of discrimination while running a business. If you can't run your business under the laws of this country because of your religious beliefs then don't try and run that business. No one is saying you have to stop believing.

 

[Demon Hunter]

1:27? Really? Yes God made genders. That doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong.

Wrong would by lying to a woman, telling her you love her and are attracted to her and allowing her to give up her one life to be with you and build up a family based on that lie. I'm pretty sure thats a much worse offense than being with another person of the same gender and loving them.

I agree that would be wrong. Marriage is a beautiful gift from God. Not everyone is called to marriage, though. There are many, many ways to serve God without being called to matrimony. It doesn't mean that God loves them any less.

 

[phillipduran]

So why do you hate gays? Gay isn't on the 10 commandments, gay isn't condemned anywhere in the new testament (and don't try and quote me corinthians or romans in English, if you do it means you don't know what you're talking about).

Explain to me how you can forgo everything else you read in Levitucus yet still think gays are terrible.

Terrible hateful Christians are the real problem.

I don't hate gays.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Once again, no one is prohibiting the exercise of religion. They are prohibiting the act of discrimination while running a business. If you can't run your business under the laws of this country because of your religious beliefs then don't try and run that business. No one is saying you have to stop believing.

That's the tricky part. A Christian's life is their exercise of religion. Everything they do. Their work, play etc.

I appreciate our debate, honestly I do. This may be where we just agree to disagree. We've arrived at what it really comes down to -- what constitutes the exercise of religion? I will have to leave that to the legal scholars, but my final point is just that we should be able to respect both parties.

 

[gnasher729]

So then women and men who are heterosexual but can't produce children for one reason or another can't marry in your world?

And anyway, who says gay and lesbian people can't have children and can't raise children?

If we're going to talk about "biological underpinnings", one must consider that homosexuality is observed to occur naturally in many animal species other than human beings. It's neither dysfunctional nor defective; it is a naturally occurring sexual orientation with evolutionary explanations for its continuing recurrence in modern humans.

With some clever modeling, scientists have proven that in hard times, when food is scarce, a small percentage of gay men or women in a community actually increases the overall rate of surviving children and is therefore an evolutionary advantage. Having an unattached uncle or aunt in the family can help more children survive in hard times.

 

[citizenzen]

I don't hate gays.

Let me see if I got this right ...

"The payment method has changed."

IMO, that means that the method of payment is accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior. That alone now is "payment" for any or all of one's sins.

Is that true?

If you have a moment, could you answer this question?

Thank you.

 

[chrono1081]

I agree that would be wrong. Marriage is a beautiful gift from God. Not everyone is called to marriage, though. There are many, many ways to serve God without being called to matrimony. It doesn't mean that God loves them any less.

While marriage I'd imagine is nice (I can't get married in my state so I don't know) I don't consider it a gift from God. The idea of marriage for love is relatively new. Biblical marriage was pretty rotten since it generally involved selling a daughter to a farmer for some livestock or money.

The people in you're life you are blessed with whether it be friends, a husband or wife, sure they're a gift but a marriage ceremony? I'm not convinced.

 

[phillipduran]

Let me see if I got this right ...

"The payment method has changed."

IMO, that means that the method of payment is accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior. That alone now is "payment" for any or all of one's sins.

Is that true?

That is absolutely 100% correct and there is not one single additional requirement and only one thing can nullify it, accepting the mark of the beast. At that single moment in time when you truthfully accept Jesus into your heart, you are forgiven for all sins past and present.

How many blessings you will enjoy in your life, is a separate issue.

 

[Rustus Maximus]

...Gay is not a choice, its is never a choice...

I have seen this repeatedly stated in this thread as though fact.

I shouldn't need to remind anyone participating in this discussion that there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetically related development. There is no determinable proof. Any statements presenting it as a determinable truth are false.

As has already been pointed out, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality would be considered maladaptive or a genetic dead end as it does not further the development of the species through the continuance of positive adaptive and survival improving genetic characteristics.

 

[citizenzen]

That is absolutely 100% correct and there is not one single additional requirement and only one thing can nullify it, accepting the mark of the beast. At that single moment in time when you truthfully accept Jesus into your heart, you are forgiven for all sins past and present.

How many blessings you will enjoy in your life, is a separate issue.

Thank you.

Follow-up questions ...

1. Who is responsible for their personal sins? Is it the individual alone? Their friends and family? Their neighbors?

2. Who are they accountable to for their sins if they don't accept Jesus as their Savior?

 

[Demon Hunter]

From everything I've read to date, the arguments come down to biological propensity toward sex attractions and official spousal recognition within society. This means the financial properties of modern day marriage in terms of taxes, purchases like health insurance, and ability to visit a hospitalized spouse, as well as state recognition of the couple as a family who may adopt orphaned children. Regardless of this, the issue of whether to perform ceremonies could be left up to individual churches. If nothing was tied to marriage at a societal level, it would not be problematic to leave this up to individual churches. Right now the religious argument is to deny churches the ability to interpret their own practices.

I realize your examples are meant to be generalized, but I can't think of a good case, so I'll respond to them directly. There's no way for me to offer something really deductive over a few minutes of typing. Regarding some of the hypothetical situations, the union of three men would be one of polygamy. You chose to assign the situation of three men as an extension of gay marriage, but the only element that can be isolated there is polygamy. You haven't shown how polygamy is an extension of same sex marriage, but the primary issue I have with polygamy is the issue of subjugation. It's an entirely different topic in itself. I could see some parallels in terms of spousal visitation rights and things of that nature, but you haven't shown how this is a pandora's box. Interestingly mormonism initially advocated polygamy, so at the time any limitation would have technically been an affront to their religious freedoms. I keep running into the issue of religious favoritism rather than religious rights, which is problematic for me.

The other one you presented was an argument involving a tree, but I'll use a shrubbery. I would argue that even if this was made legal, which it wouldn't be because the shrubbery isn't legally recognized as a person, it wouldn't change anything. If it's an issue of religion, that comes down to the willingness of your church to perform such a ceremony. If the issue is one of issuance of a marriage license, can you show what would change there? I don't see anything in the collection of marriage rights that would have any impact. It wouldn't have a social security number, so it wouldn't be included on joint tax returns. Regarding spousal visitation rights, that might be amusing. Given that it isn't recognized as a legal person, I'm not sure inheritance would work.

I'm having trouble finding societal harm outside the issue of absurdity with this one, where the former is merely implicating polygamy and same sex marriage as the same issue. Outside of subjugation, the other issue that comes to mind with polygamy is one of fraudulence, just like you occasionally have with naturalization through marriage.

Sorry, just getting to your post now. Your points are well taken, in particular the issues you raise with one denomination or belief system subjugating the others in a pluralistic society. And really, without getting into a whole new topic, that is both the danger and benefit of a democracy isn't it? We all push each other around a bit, but in the end we hope to arrive at some harmonious balance where people can live within the bounds of liberty and the social contract.

I was questioning its roots and considering alluding to the fact that homosexual relationships have been found among primates other than humans. The concept of modern marriage is in some ways still a transfer of wealth, and it isn't perfect in any way. It's merely what we have as a social construct. It hasn't ever been static, and I suggested that scientific evidence of biological propensity (of homosexuality) should be enough to consider their case on its own merits. It's very easy to maintain the rights of religious individuals by simply allowing their churches to make the decision on whether or not to perform certain ceremonies. It becomes problematic when you try to use the values of a specific religion to limit the rest of society. Otherwise you are merely trampling other religions which do not expressly forbid it.

Understood that marriage is not static as demonstrated by the historical record... if only it were so easy as you say to allow ceremonies and end the issue there. Clearly marriage has fundamental implications on the whole of society. Even if all 50 states (assuming you are an American as I type this) ratify gay marriage, we are likely to not see the ramifications for decades. Additionally I would argue that the aforementioned "fluidity" of the marriage contract is still entirely different from what is proposed in homosexual marriage in terms of its effects on said society.

Okay I am editing in these responses, and yeah if it's too much to respond to every point I've made, I'll understand. It is a lot of typing, and I do like arguing. This is kind of why I would prefer the churches were able to make their own decisions on whether to perform services. I do not see why anyone would want to belong to a church that doesn't wish to marry them.

Agreed.

This is typically the case where something has a demonstrably problematic effect on society. If someone can stab or shoot you without repercussion or open a warehouse that stores explosives next door, you may have provable harm. This is not something that merely makes you uncomfortable. It creates an increased potential for provable harm.

Yes, but it could be argued that homosexual marriage is demonstrably problematic. In particular some of the studies I've seen regarding social outcomes for children raised by homosexual parents, including rates of infidelity.

 

[Kurwenal]

That is what he meant. Yes, kill children that are disobedient.

I think you're one of those people that think the bible is all roses and sunshine. The bible is some hard hitting fire and brimstone stuff not some G rated book. You look to the old testament and say OMG Christians are supposed to kill disobedient kids and they pick and choose their beliefs. This is not true. The people in the Old Testament were told this and it was the standard they were held to. Then Jesus came along and removed that system of punishment and all will be accountable to God directly. Still accountable, different judge. So all the rules are the same, just different method of dealing with it.

To clear this up. All people are accountable for their sin. The penalty for sin is death. To escape this death, a sacrifice is necessary to pay for this sin. This was done a different way in the Old Testament, it's now done by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. All of the sins from the Old Testament remain sins today. All of the wrongs then are wrongs now (to my knowledge, always learning here). The payment method has changed. You can look at the payment paid for sins in the Old Testament and say that is what Christians have to do, but that is not true. Someone stepped in for us and were not bound to those same punishments.

Make sense?

Oh, yes, perfect sense: god did away with the parts of the Old Testament that are inconvenient, but other parts he kept. So, tell me, for instance, where does it say the 10 commandments are still the 10 commandments? Where is the support for your belief that it is no longer ok to rape someone so long as you marry them, but the 10 commandments still apply?

Chapter & verse, please. Cite it.