So why did you say,
Sue De Nimes said:
in reference to the jesuslovesgays Facebook page.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So why did you say,
in reference to the jesuslovesgays Facebook page.
The Repubs know they have to give ground on the gay issue or else they have no future. The bill is a compromise and there are enough exemptions to make any fundamentalist happy. If they don't do something wih this, more moderates will vote Dem in the midterms
There is no list.
Mathew 5:17 is the verse that concerns the fulfillment of the old covenant. He created a new covenant with mankind. This is Christianity 101 stuff.
I'm a Catholic by the way and we don't base our faith on sola scriptura (scripture alone). We also include Sacred Tradition. Remember the Bible wasn't compiled for hundreds of years.
----------
Because homosexuality isn't a sin - homosexual acts are sinful. It really isn't complicated.
I am going out now. (To Mass funnily enough)
If you want to understand what the Catholic Church teaches on homosexuality this is a good starting point :
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
That is my position on things.
The anti-gay stuff is in the same passage as the mixed fibres stuff. So I'm not clear how the anti-gay stuff applies but the mixed fabrics doesn't.
Additionally I don't see what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors is a moral issue.
In my mind religious institutions already enjoy significant protections over and above everyone else. What do they need protecting from? The government rarely interferes in the vast incomes of many institutions by requiring them to do anything silly like pay tax. You can still pretty much say and believe what you want inside the square walls of your church. They can have their ceremonies and rituals. The problem comes when these institutions have to operate in the larger society and employ people with different beliefs. That's when they have to have a larger common denominator and treat a larger group of people than they're used to with respect and decency.
I see. So homosexuality is a 'condition', it's a 'phenomenon', it's a 'moral disorder'.
And of course - back to the old 'mutuality of the sexes' natural nonsense.
Whoever wrote that is a clueless, ignorant bigot.
Gay people, like straight people - like touching each other. It's either okay to be gay, or it's not. No arsing around in the middle because your stinking institution is morally bankrupt and out of date.
Paedophilia, for the record, which some of the guys taking Mass are fond of - that's not okay.
Enjoy your culty evening of woo woo.
Look, I'm a humanist. I believe we have one shot of life and not only should we do all the good we can and live life to it's full potential but we should enjoy it. I don't believe in eternal life, reincarnation, heaven or hell or any form of life after death. If, when I die, I have anything worth using again, I will allow my organs to be used to save the life of someone else while my body goes back to nature and is reintegrated into the carbon cycle. This is my belief and I'm afraid as society progresses and we learn more about the countless religions that have existed over millennia, more and more people will begin to think this way. I find it absurd and upsetting that Muslims, Jews and Christians all continue to war and blame each other for the world's ills despite having a common theology. I despair at clashing denominations of the same religion whether it be Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland or Sunni and Shia Muslims in the middle east that continue to kill each other over their own interpretations of religious texts. And I find it fascinating quite how many religions are amalgamations of others or have simply stolen from others.
Yes, I have lied, but sometimes the moral maze in which we live is more complex than a simple binary right/wrong. If I do anything that I consider to be a "sin", I am man enough to apologise and right that wrong.
Right, I'm off to spend a weekend in the country with some equally well-adjusted homosexuals, engaging in such morally reprehensible acts as going to a pub, reading the paper and walking dogs.
A group of people that have experienced terrible discrimination is finally getting the same rights and protections enjoyed by heterosexuals for decades, and you feel victimized? You feel they are "picking" on you? I don't understand that reasoning.
This is hilarious...YOUR generation is currently in leadership positions in all areas of government and business, and leaders from YOUR generation have led you down the path you think is leading to our country's demise.
Your argument is nothing more that the usual generation bashing.
European law also guarantees freedom of expression and the right to practice your religion. It's not against the law to say that you don't agree with gay people.
----------
There is no medical or scientific evidence to prove that people are born gay.
I might be more attracted to women with large boobs or blonde hair. Does that mean that I was born with the Barbie Gene?
Yeah, pretty sure we got that down. Where nutjobs try to refuse service to gays - that's where your little guarantee ends.
So talk it up. But if you try to have a negative impact on homosexuals in our society you'll find yourself fined, cautioned or locked up. As would be appropriate.
I can't believe Tim Cook.
He spends his time and goes around lobbying the U.S. Congress for gay rights -- when competitors like Samsung are running circles around Apple and eating Apple's breakfast for fun, and when Apple cannot even come up with bigger screen iPhones and instead has to "innovate" by slapping plastic cases with different colors on an one-year-old phone and sell it as new.
And while we are on civil liberties and non-discrimination, why isn't Tim Cook focusing on respecting rights of workers in Asia who are basically treated like quasi slaves under inhumane conditions assembling his iPhone?
If he is serious about rights, he needs to look at the broader picture, rather than focusing on gay rights.
Nothing wrong with gay rights. I am all for it. But Apple needs to fess up and get itself in order before trying to act noble.
As far as rights go, Apple's record on human rights and workers rights in Asia is lacking.
He spends his time and goes around lobbying the U.S. Congress for gay rights -- when competitors like Samsung are running circles around Apple and eating Apple's breakfast for fun, and when Apple cannot even come up with bigger screen iPhones and instead has to "innovate" by slapping plastic cases with different colors on an one-year-old phone and sell it as new.
And while we are on civil liberties and non-discrimination, why isn't Tim Cook focusing on respecting rights of workers in Asia who are basically treated like quasi slaves under inhumane conditions assembling his iPhone?
If he is serious about rights, he needs to look at the broader picture, rather than focusing on gay rights.
Nothing wrong with gay rights. I am all for it. But Apple needs to fess up and get itself in order before trying to act noble.
As far as rights go, Apple's record on human rights and workers rights in Asia is lacking.
Yes, I think they do. I believe Catholic hospitals hire doctors of all persuasions. Catholic universities hire professors of all persuasions as well. Why wouldn't they? They are both trying to deliver a quality product.
Agreed. If Tim Cook was at all bothered about human rights he would remove all manufacturing from China which is one of the most evil regimes in the world with little or no respect for human rights, and start building stuff in free democratic countries that respect human rights. He's a typical hypocrite. Shouts for human rights when it suits him.
But take it just one step further, and as the BB owner found out it's not so much laughter.
A gay couple who were turned away from a bed and breakfast were discriminated against, it has been ruled.
Michael Black and John Morgan were refused a double room at Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire by its owner.
The pair from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for "injury to feelings".
Cambridgeshire Police said it was looking into complaints following comments made on Twitter by BNP leader Nick Griffin about the couple.
'Rights of all'
The MEP is alleged to have asked for the couple's address and called for a demonstration to be held outside their home.
One of the complained about tweets read: "We'll hold demo for rights of all home owners, gays included, to rent or not rent rooms to whomsoever they wish."
Mr Griffin's Twitter account was subsequently suspended.
A police spokesman said: "We have received a number of calls in relations to the tweets and are looking into the complaints we have received.
"Officers will also visit the men mentioned in the tweets as part of our inquiries."
Mr Black, 64, and Mr Morgan, 59, booked a double room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire via email.
When they arrived in March 2010, owner Susanne Wilkinson would not let them stay in a room with a double bed.
Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".
It comes as a similar case in Cornwall awaits a Supreme Court hearing.
'Like a triumph'
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the Christian owners of a guesthouse in Marazion who also turned away a gay couple have won permission to appeal against their ruling.
In the latest case, the judge accepted Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.
Reacting to the ruling, Mrs Wilkinson said: "Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings.
"We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."
The Christian Institute had backed Mrs Wilkinson's case.
Mrs Wilkinson was granted permission to appeal against the ruling and said she would give it "serious consideration".
Mr Black said the ruling felt "like a triumph".
He said: "It's taken two and a half years to get this far so to get the judgement and be vindicated in it is a great feeling."
'Simply unacceptable'
He said the only drawback was that Mrs Wilkinson had leave to appeal and, because the case involving the Cornwall guesthouse was due to go to the Supreme Court in late 2013 or early 2014, their own case was unlikely to be heard until after that.
When asked about Mrs Wilkinson's religious beliefs, Mr Black said he was not trying to fight anyone's beliefs. He said: "Running a B&B is not a religion.
"If you are running a B&B you have to abide by the law so either change your job or carry on running a B&B and let gay couples stay."
When asked if the couple were willing to take the case as far as the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Morgan said: "If it is still quite common for this sort of discrimination to take place then I think it needs to be taken all the way to be stopped."
James Welch, from civil rights group Liberty which took up the men's case, said: "It is simply unacceptable for people running a business to refuse to provide a service because of someone's sexual orientation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266
Locked up for impacting homosexuals?
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/topic/homophobic-abuse/
Tell you what. I'll give you my twitter account info, and you throw some homophobic comments on it, and lets see what what happens. Up for it?
So? The law is an ass (forgive the pun). I agree with the owners of the B&B. The gay couple could have just stayed somewhere else. I understand they decided to close the business rather than compromise on their beliefs. I'd probably have done the same. Christians have been persecuted for centuries for following their faith. Hasn't stopped us and it never will.
I posted this to show that being a BIGOT does have consequences. The law is very clear, you break you pay.
Once again you're deliberately confusing the issue. I don't condone any forms of verbal attacks or violence. I don't hate gays. I just don't agree with them that's all. You're the one who can't accept that people can have different views on this matter.
I'm simply responding to your notion that people getting locked up for negatively impacting gays in society 'is laughable'.
Hope that's cleared up. Mind how you go.