login
Boycotting NC (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-04-13 10:39 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro  5761     Bartlett, TN |  Subject: RE: Boycotting NCOriginally posted by 3mar Originally posted by dmiller5 So does that mean you can sleep in anyone's bed you want? religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks. I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT. its bear discrimination.
You can, but that doesn't mean its the right thing to do |
| 2016-04-13 10:43 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. |
| 2016-04-13 10:44 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. And the law doesn't state that your beliefs have to be consistent with any particular religion. So, to use 3mar's example, a store owner could deny service to blacks because they were wearing two different fabrics and, under the law, they would be able to say, "yeah, but I believe that wearing two fabrics is a sin on Mondays between three and four pm. That's my interpretation of the laws of Christianity." Again, if you make the assumption that this is actually about religion, then what I wrote is absurd, but it isn't about religion at all-- it's about bigotry and discrimination, and giving people the right to hide behind religion in order to discriminate. And for that reason, a person can make up whatever silly nonsense they want and use it as a religious basis to deny service to people they don't like. |
| 2016-04-13 10:51 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by velocomp So if the populace of a state wanted to bring back racial segregation, then the government should listen??? If the populace doesn't want to do business with people of a different race based on their beliefs then the state government should enact laws that allow them to refuse service to black people? Yes a state's government should listen to the wants of its populace...but NOT when those wants interfere with the civil liberties of others. Period. These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. The bible says slavery is ok as long as it is from a bordering country. So if the populace of Mississippi wants to enact slavery (for Canadians and Mexicans only) is that what the government should do? Obviously not, regardless of what their religion says, and regardless of the fact that the majority of the populace believes in that religion. Everyone in this country has the right to practice their religion until it interferes with the liberties of others. This law is crossing that line. The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state. You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists. This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business." As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in. If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most. Now a state is a little different. But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state. The personality of your state is the most important thing. As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven. If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace. That is not where you want to be. Another example, would be Colorado. Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking. It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home. NC has a very strong religious base. Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state. In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it. (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)
Actually it is not crossing the line. This is different then segregation. And it is not discrimination. It is not stopping anyone from going to the bathroom or changing their clothes. So let's try not to get too outraged here. What I said is that a state does have the right, assuming that it does not conflict with federal law (except for drugs) to set their own rules and laws. In this case I think the state is listening to the people of said state. (not that I agree with them). So businesses not doing business with that state is the bully tactic. If it succeeds. fine, but I think a state should make decisions that benefit it's populace and that represent the people. If those people are horrible people, that is not my business to change. Eventually I believe they will come around, like what has happened with Gay Marriage. Some places are slower, but the acceptance is better when they do it on their own versus when it is forced upon them. |
| 2016-04-13 10:55 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by dmiller5 religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks. I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT. its bear discrimination. You believe that it's made up, but that doesn't mean your'e right. We have to base our morality on something, and many people for many thousands of years have tried to find the answer. Even taking the deity aspect of the Bible out of the discussion there is a lot of excellent moral guidelines in there that are the foundation of most of the laws in the US. |
| 2016-04-13 11:52 AM in reply to: tuwood |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? |
| 2016-04-13 11:58 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by dmiller5 religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks. I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT. its bear discrimination. So does that mean you can sleep in anyone's bed you want? Not in North Carolina, you can't.... Brilliant. |
| 2016-04-13 12:01 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Oh hells no. They're out there killing for the sake of God and country... |
| 2016-04-13 12:18 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. Excellent questions and I'm glad you're seeking to understand the Bible more. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. There are many Christians whose beliefs are in stark contrast to the Bible. Sin is sin and looking at a woman with impure thoughts is no different than having a homosexual relationship. The other part you talk about with "slips" versus continuing in "sin" is somewhat correct in that a Christian who truly repents of their sins and seeks to be filled with the Holy Spirit starts to feel convicted when they do continue in sin. If you as a follower of Christ continue to engage in sinful behavior repetitively and do not feel or have conviction for it, then one could argue that you haven't truly been saved and become a Christian. That is different than continuing to have sin versus settling in sin. |
| 2016-04-13 12:48 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. Forgot to answer the second part of your comment on the Military. Jesus' disciples carried swords (the proverbial AK47 of their day). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." |
| 2016-04-13 1:29 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks. I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT. its bear discrimination. You believe that it's made up, but that doesn't mean your'e right. We have to base our morality on something, and many people for many thousands of years have tried to find the answer. Even taking the deity aspect of the Bible out of the discussion there is a lot of excellent moral guidelines in there that are the foundation of most of the laws in the US. do you think it is moral to refuse to serve someone because they are homosexual, not Christian, divorced. etc. etc. etc. so if that's where you get your morals from I want no part of it, and I don't want you forcing me to live that way. |
| 2016-04-13 1:32 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. Forgot to answer the second part of your comment on the Military. Jesus' disciples carried swords (the proverbial AK47 of their day). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." So the disciples having swords negates EVERYTHING he said about passivism????? Jesus: "hey, I said turn the other cheek. I've said it a thousand times in a thousand ways..." Dude: "But your disciples carried swords" Jesus: "right, never mind...kill on" Come on man... Also, the quoted verse says "lay down HIS life" it does not say "lay down that other guy's life" BIG difference. |
| 2016-04-13 1:58 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks. I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT. its bear discrimination. You believe that it's made up, but that doesn't mean your'e right. We have to base our morality on something, and many people for many thousands of years have tried to find the answer. Even taking the deity aspect of the Bible out of the discussion there is a lot of excellent moral guidelines in there that are the foundation of most of the laws in the US. do you think it is moral to refuse to serve someone because they are homosexual, not Christian, divorced. etc. etc. etc. so if that's where you get your morals from I want no part of it, and I don't want you forcing me to live that way. It's not moral and it most certainly isn't Biblical. Anyone who does it and uses the Bible as their justification is wrong in my humble opinion. |
| 2016-04-13 2:08 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood So the disciples having swords negates EVERYTHING he said about passivism????? Jesus: "hey, I said turn the other cheek. I've said it a thousand times in a thousand ways..." Dude: "But your disciples carried swords" Jesus: "right, never mind...kill on" Come on man... Also, the quoted verse says "lay down HIS life" it does not say "lay down that other guy's life" BIG difference. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. Forgot to answer the second part of your comment on the Military. Jesus' disciples carried swords (the proverbial AK47 of their day). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." I'm sure you get upset when Christians take Bible verses out of context and throw them in your face (I certainly do), yet you take scripture completely out of context to try and prove a point. Question: "What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek?" To "turn the other cheek," does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in mortal danger. Like the principle of the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth in Matthew 5:38, turning the other cheek refers to personal retaliation, not criminal offenses or acts of military aggression. Clearly, Jesus did not mean to negate all God’s laws and injunctions protecting us against violent crime or invading armies. Rather, Jesus is speaking here of the principle of non-retaliation to affronts against our own dignity, as well as lawsuits to gain one’s personal assets (v. 40), infringements on one’s liberty (v. 41), and violations of property rights (v. 42). He was calling for a full surrender of all personal rights. If you're truly interested in learning more, here's some information on Jesus being a pacifist as well:
|
| 2016-04-13 2:15 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood So the disciples having swords negates EVERYTHING he said about passivism????? Jesus: "hey, I said turn the other cheek. I've said it a thousand times in a thousand ways..." Dude: "But your disciples carried swords" Jesus: "right, never mind...kill on" Come on man... Also, the quoted verse says "lay down HIS life" it does not say "lay down that other guy's life" BIG difference. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. Forgot to answer the second part of your comment on the Military. Jesus' disciples carried swords (the proverbial AK47 of their day). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." I'm sure you get upset when Christians take Bible verses out of context and throw them in your face (I certainly do), yet you take scripture completely out of context to try and prove a point. Question: "What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek?" To "turn the other cheek," does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in mortal danger. Like the principle of the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth in Matthew 5:38, turning the other cheek refers to personal retaliation, not criminal offenses or acts of military aggression. Clearly, Jesus did not mean to negate all God’s laws and injunctions protecting us against violent crime or invading armies. Rather, Jesus is speaking here of the principle of non-retaliation to affronts against our own dignity, as well as lawsuits to gain one’s personal assets (v. 40), infringements on one’s liberty (v. 41), and violations of property rights (v. 42). He was calling for a full surrender of all personal rights. If you're truly interested in learning more, here's some information on Jesus being a pacifist as well:
I'm not saying this is you, however, this does illustrate a point about a large majority of Christians: Jesus didn't actually mean "turn the other cheek" when he said "turn the other cheek" and that is absolute based on some guy's interpretation that you are referencing. Yet when the bible said "no homo" it ABSOLUTELY means no homosexuals....no, no, that one is literal. Doesn't it appear that when something Jesus did, or said, or the bible says doesn't align with what the general Christian population wants, it's simply not meant to be taken literally, you need to interpret it. Yet when it does align with what the general Christian population wants, it's literal..I mean, it's says it right there in black and white.. |
| 2016-04-13 2:31 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood I'm not saying this is you, however, this does illustrate a point about a large majority of Christians: Jesus didn't actually mean "turn the other cheek" when he said "turn the other cheek" and that is absolute based on some guy's interpretation that you are referencing. Yet when the bible said "no homo" it ABSOLUTELY means no homosexuals....no, no, that one is literal. Doesn't it appear that when something Jesus did, or said, or the bible says doesn't align with what the general Christian population wants, it's simply not meant to be taken literally, you need to interpret it. Yet when it does align with what the general Christian population wants, it's literal..I mean, it's says it right there in black and white.. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood So the disciples having swords negates EVERYTHING he said about passivism????? Jesus: "hey, I said turn the other cheek. I've said it a thousand times in a thousand ways..." Dude: "But your disciples carried swords" Jesus: "right, never mind...kill on" Come on man... Also, the quoted verse says "lay down HIS life" it does not say "lay down that other guy's life" BIG difference. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood We'd have to see them in the language they were originally written in and not someone's translation which is what you are referencing. However, I'm not here to argue the scriptures, but instead this law. I believe that what the Christians who are in support of this are saying is that when you look at a woman with impure thoughts, it is a slip, you then repent and don't go on planning to ogle women as a part of your life. However, someone in a homosexual relationship is continuing in that "sin" without repenting or plans of changing. So it's is ongoing, vs a slip up. Now, given that argument, I go back to the military thing. You throw up a couple of verses there...how many do you think I could find against ANY form of violence? Even in self defense? Something about offering up a second cheek? So answer this; would a Christian business be in the right to refuse service to active military personnel? They are actively doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached...A LOT. He was VERY clear on that. So is refusing them service their Christian right? And most importantly......is it right? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by jford2309 I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue? Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out. Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico. It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem. Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore. How do you interpret the following verses in the new testament? The Bible is very clear that anyone who sins even a single time will not go to heaven. It is very clear that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is also very clear that through Jesus' sacrifice we are cleansed of our sin and we are forgiven. Forgot to answer the second part of your comment on the Military. Jesus' disciples carried swords (the proverbial AK47 of their day). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." I'm sure you get upset when Christians take Bible verses out of context and throw them in your face (I certainly do), yet you take scripture completely out of context to try and prove a point. Question: "What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek?" To "turn the other cheek," does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in mortal danger. Like the principle of the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth in Matthew 5:38, turning the other cheek refers to personal retaliation, not criminal offenses or acts of military aggression. Clearly, Jesus did not mean to negate all God’s laws and injunctions protecting us against violent crime or invading armies. Rather, Jesus is speaking here of the principle of non-retaliation to affronts against our own dignity, as well as lawsuits to gain one’s personal assets (v. 40), infringements on one’s liberty (v. 41), and violations of property rights (v. 42). He was calling for a full surrender of all personal rights. If you're truly interested in learning more, here's some information on Jesus being a pacifist as well:
I know what you're trying to say, but you still can't take a statement such as "turn the other cheek" and turn it into a whole theology that it isn't. The Bible is very consistent from beginning to end about sexual immorality. It's unquestionably consistent on the issue and there's no possible way other than to completely ignore the Bible altogether to say that sexual immorality in the bible is subject to interpretation. Now don't get me wrong, we've had a lot of discussions on this topic over the years. I am a Libertarian through and through when it comes to stuff like this. I firmly hold my beliefs and I totally accept you having your beliefs and we can live side by side in harmony with these differences. btw, I smile every time I look at your avatar. |
| 2016-04-13 2:33 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. |
| 2016-04-13 2:36 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Where the heck is jeffnboise? I got everybody worked up for him and he's not around to play. |
| 2016-04-13 2:45 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. |
| 2016-04-13 2:48 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC My point is not to debate Christianity, it is simply to show that this law is not providing freedom for Christians, it is a ticket to removing citizens' civil liberties. What happens when a school owned by a Muslim refuses to allow Christians to go there because they eat pork? By the way; I'm not religious or atheist...I'm agnostic. I think both sides are silly for being SOOO sure about something there is no stinking way we will ever know.  Thanks for the pic comment...I was hoping that it would stop people from getting their chamois pads all up in a bunch taking me too seriously. |
| 2016-04-13 2:52 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar My point is not to debate Christianity, it is simply to show that this law is not providing freedom for Christians, it is a ticket to removing citizens' civil liberties. What happens when a school owned by a Muslim refuses to allow Christians to go there because they eat pork? By the way; I'm not religious or atheist...I'm agnostic. I think both sides are silly for being SOOO sure about something there is no stinking way we will ever know. Thanks for the pic comment...I was hoping that it would stop people from getting their chamois pads all up in a bunch taking me too seriously. It didn't work for me. LOL |
| 2016-04-13 2:54 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. It is not about holding the beliefs...it is about acting on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others' civil liberties. Christians are allowed to believe homosexuality is a sin if they wish...but they can't discriminate against homosexuals in a way that would infringe on their civil rights. So the reference to boycotting mosques....well, if a Muslim owns a business and refuses to serve homosexuals, then we will boycott those establishments...not the mosques. Nobody is boycotting a church or a belief, they are boycotting using that belief to infringe on the civil liberties of others. That distinction NEEDS to be understood. It is clear that it is not. |
| 2016-04-13 3:01 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar My point is not to debate Christianity, it is simply to show that this law is not providing freedom for Christians, it is a ticket to removing citizens' civil liberties. What happens when a school owned by a Muslim refuses to allow Christians to go there because they eat pork? By the way; I'm not religious or atheist...I'm agnostic. I think both sides are silly for being SOOO sure about something there is no stinking way we will ever know. Thanks for the pic comment...I was hoping that it would stop people from getting their chamois pads all up in a bunch taking me too seriously. I honestly need to go read the actual law. I truthfully have no idea whats in it other than what the media and opponents have been throwing around. I've mostly been discussing the topic on a broader scale. We did have a good long discussion in another thread about the cake baker type scenario and I kind of waffled back and forth. As a business owner I feel as though I have the right to do business with whomever I want, but for retail businesses it's a little difference because now you get into turning people away at the door which is wrong. Overall, I came down on the side of keeping morality out of business altogether. It's about making a product and staying in business. If I owned a Christian bakery and 1000 gay couples came to me for a cake I'd say welcome and call it excellent marketing. hehe Just a few weeks ago I had a little bit of a moral dilemma with my business because we were brought in to bid some services for the local Planned Parenthood office. I'm not a fan of some of their services, but ultimately came down on the side of it being stupid for me to turn away from the opportunity to build relationships and possibly even have an influence to those that work there and we put in our bid. Similar to the topic at hand, I feel that the whole boycott movement is more about bullying people into DOING what you want them to do versus changing their hearts and minds. It's the equivalent of me forcing you to accept Christianity or else I'm not going to do business with you. You might say "ok, I believe now give me the money" but you darn sure aren't going to have a heart change and be a real believer. That's why I feel Paypal would be better suited to come in with their culture of acceptance and tolerance to influence the community versus just run away. |
| 2016-04-13 3:02 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain It is not about holding the beliefs...it is about acting on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others' civil liberties. Christians are allowed to believe homosexuality is a sin if they wish...but they can't discriminate against homosexuals in a way that would infringe on their civil rights. So the reference to boycotting mosques....well, if a Muslim owns a business and refuses to serve homosexuals, then we will boycott those establishments...not the mosques. Nobody is boycotting a church or a belief, they are boycotting using that belief to infringe on the civil liberties of others. That distinction NEEDS to be understood. It is clear that it is not. Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. That's fine and I'm not saying I disagree.....but increasingly I find myself (in my work) standing between those two sides as the rhetoric and tensions increase. From my interaction with both sides I can easily say that you should not expect that this will just go away......there is a fight of one kind or another coming. Watch and see. |
| 2016-04-13 3:06 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain It is not about holding the beliefs...it is about acting on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others' civil liberties. Christians are allowed to believe homosexuality is a sin if they wish...but they can't discriminate against homosexuals in a way that would infringe on their civil rights. So the reference to boycotting mosques....well, if a Muslim owns a business and refuses to serve homosexuals, then we will boycott those establishments...not the mosques. Nobody is boycotting a church or a belief, they are boycotting using that belief to infringe on the civil liberties of others. That distinction NEEDS to be understood. It is clear that it is not. Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. It doesn't happen a lot, but a few years back the church I was going to brought in a speaker who was speaking about homosexuality. There was a huge boycott at our church and the protesters refused to let anyone into the parking lot. They had to call the police and it was quite a mess. I do agree with you, we all need to just get along and let others do their best to make the best of the time we have on earth. I'm pretty Libertarian overall when it comes to public policy. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK