If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   When it comes to the gay marriage debate, the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots bigots. Bigots   (theweek.com) divider line 315
    More: Unlikely, Conor Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, democratic government, fashion trends  
•       •       •

1358 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-07 10:14:31 AM
Here's the rub, one group believes "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs. The other group doesn't believe "A" and wants the force of law to let everyone believe whatever they want.


/"A" can be about abortion, gay marriage, hate speech, etc
//Shove your slippery slope arguments of, "What if 'A' were murder, or rape, etc?"
 
2014-03-07 10:19:09 AM
And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?
 
2014-03-07 10:23:47 AM

Gecko Gingrich: "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs


That's why people are being forced by the state to get gay married.  We knew this would happen.
 
2014-03-07 10:25:32 AM
I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.
 
2014-03-07 10:27:21 AM

Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.


You'd think that the Equal Protection clause would count double if the two people were men.  But you would be wrong.
 
2014-03-07 10:28:16 AM
They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.
 
2014-03-07 10:30:22 AM

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


What if I am tall and standing on a ladder?
 
2014-03-07 10:37:38 AM

Nadie_AZ: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

What if I am tall and standing on a ladder pulpit?


FIFY
 
2014-03-07 10:38:59 AM

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays.

In other words, your garden variety "small government" conservative.
 
2014-03-07 10:43:31 AM

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


It's the best of crazy arguments

"If you want to change the legal status quo that's stopping you from getting equal rights, you're not respecting my sincerely held belief that you should continue to be oppressed, and that's not fair."
 
2014-03-07 10:51:49 AM
Is it still ok to be in favor of gay marriage because you really don't give a rat's ass how other people live their lives?

/apathy FTW
 
2014-03-07 10:54:55 AM

gilgigamesh: It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays


I thought that's what you meant.
 
2014-03-07 11:04:01 AM
The business community was very upset/concerned of the Arizona law permitting discrimination.   Everyone dodged a bullet.  I would suggest that now we be a good time for all businesses everywhere to purge themselves of their bigots before another law like this is proposed.  Just doesn't make good business sense to have bigots on the pay-rolll.
 
2014-03-07 11:05:14 AM
I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.
 
2014-03-07 11:30:44 AM
I wonder what people who were opposed to interracial marriage on religious grounds would say to all this?

Something derpy, no doubt. Either way, those people were on the wrong side of history just as the people currently opposed to same sex marriage are. In a few decades they'll be viewed with the same sort of head-scratching disbelief as those who came before them.

They're entitled to their opinions, of course. Just as people choosing to remain aboard a sinking ship are entitled to their choice off the menu, blissfully ignoring the waters rising around them as their arguments and objections are swatted away by acceptance and common sense. Those of us who long ago swam for the shores of equality and reason don't wish them ill will, but we're not above pointing out the folly and utter wrongness in their choices.
 
2014-03-07 11:34:16 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Is it still ok to be in favor of gay marriage because you really don't give a rat's ass how other people live their lives?


I'd argue that that's the preferred way.

We have to get there first, though.
 
2014-03-07 11:55:49 AM
This certainly is the Golden Age for us closeted masochists that see the world in black and white us against them dualities.

Whip me, tease me, tell me I'm intolerant.  Make me get on my knees and lobby for civil rights like the dog that I am.  Don't stop filibustering don't stop until you filibuster a nut.
 
2014-03-07 11:59:14 AM
I am sick of this issue.  Who the eff cares?  Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree.  I couldn't care less.
 
2014-03-07 12:15:02 PM

mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.


i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.
 
2014-03-07 12:20:48 PM

JohnnyBravo: I am sick of this issue. Who the eff cares? Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree. I couldn't care less.


Tell me more about the taste characteristics of those grapes.
 
2014-03-07 12:23:00 PM

ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.


So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?
 
2014-03-07 12:25:39 PM
FTFA: <the argument assumes> that "homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding," when in fact, plenty of gay marriage opponents merely reject it because they regard "marriage as a religious sacrament with a procreative purpose."

Then I suppose those same people oppose the elderly and people who can't or don't want to have kids getting married as well.
 
2014-03-07 12:27:47 PM
The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.
 
2014-03-07 12:35:14 PM
Even twenty years ago Wal*Mart was giving benefits to same sex couples *gasp*. Target followed shortly after that year. I get the 'point' - that everyone needs to understand everyone needs equal protection. But when you have an overwhelming number of voters, in the Kerry POTUS election for example, vote Democrat and against Gay Marriage on the same ballot where I lived at the time, there is a disconnect that isn't limited to rednecks. In fact the support of gay rights was around the same number in the red and blue areas that year. Considerable improvement has been made since, but if you are just going to bash one group because of one issue while disregarding the other extensive issues on the ballot, than yah, I could see calling it a form of bigotry.
 
2014-03-07 12:36:00 PM

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


Except you're not free to be a bigot in every way. That's what Douchehat was whining about in his column, and that, unbelievably, this article is defending: that you don't get to refuse service to gay people in your business, and that that's somehow unfair.

There's an ironic part to this, too:
And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents... They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Douchehat and others want to be free to ostracize gay people from civilized life, specifically, by excluding them from public businesses, and yet are complaining about receiving similar treatment.
 
2014-03-07 12:38:03 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.
 
2014-03-07 12:40:14 PM

OregonVet: Even twenty years ago Wal*Mart was giving benefits to same sex couples *gasp*. Target followed shortly after that year. I get the 'point' - that everyone needs to understand everyone needs equal protection. But when you have an overwhelming number of voters, in the Kerry POTUS election for example, vote Democrat and against Gay Marriage on the same ballot where I lived at the time, there is a disconnect that isn't limited to rednecks. In fact the support of gay rights was around the same number in the red and blue areas that year. Considerable improvement has been made since, but if you are just going to bash one group because of one issue while disregarding the other extensive issues on the ballot, than yah, I could see calling it a form of bigotry.


In what way is bashing bigots "a form of bigotry"? Furthermore, in what way is complaining about people bashing bigots "while disregarding the other extensive issues" anything but concern trolling? "Gosh, we can't say anything bad about those homophobic assholes, because, uh, national debt! Jobs! Afghanistan!"
 
2014-03-07 12:42:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?


img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-07 12:44:18 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.
 
2014-03-07 12:46:34 PM
I am merely pointing out that it is the Democrats that prevent equal protection where I live and and one can't just paint a broad brush.
 
2014-03-07 12:47:54 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


Actually its etymology is French, and refers to a religious hypocrite but thanks again for your undoubtedly thoroughly researched scholarly contribution.
 
2014-03-07 12:48:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.


Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?
 
2014-03-07 12:48:06 PM
Oh, and add in there that evil corporations make better ground by saying farkit and extending benefits regardless.
 
2014-03-07 12:55:22 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?
 
2014-03-07 12:56:17 PM
They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Meh. That's just fear mongering and catering to the ignorance of those who think this is what "The Gay Agenda" actually is.
"The gays are coming to get you!", ad nauseum.
 
2014-03-07 12:56:23 PM

SkinnyHead: Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


If your region interferes with your job, get a new religion or a new job.  This isn't hard.
 
2014-03-07 12:57:15 PM

Rincewind53: Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?

It's the best of crazy arguments

"If you want to change the legal status quo that's stopping you from getting equal rights, you're not respecting my sincerely held belief that you should continue to be oppressed, and that's not fair."


The odd thing about this belabored point of his (TFA author's, that is) is that he is pro-marriage-equality.  My counter-argument to what he's saying is that the "tradition" camp is letting their narrative be projected by people with really insensitive, dehumanizing points of view.  Yeah, gay marriage is a new thing on a cultural scale, but in the information age ideas fly fast.  Perhaps the philosophical war cries from the "equality" camp are responses to the type of crap that we hear from all these "Family" groups of really hateful f*ckers that seem to own the message.

brap: Actually its etymology is French, and refers to a religious hypocrite but thanks again for your undoubtedly thoroughly researched scholarly contribution.


Dude: it is Skinnyhead.  Seriously.
 
2014-03-07 01:00:29 PM
Sorry, I feel strongly about language.  Someday I hope to marry a big thick juicy word.
 
2014-03-07 01:01:30 PM

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?


I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...
 
2014-03-07 01:03:25 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


If you're providing a professional service to the public, you have to understand that the public is pretty much batshiat insane.  You have no idea how many loonies and nutjobs and kooks and losers are out there.  So if someone asks you to photograph a gig and you show up and they're all fabulous, well, that just comes with the territory.  If you feel that God will smite you and you'll go to hell for photographing gay people and then charging them for it, I'd say you need a new God.

Especially if photographing a tattooed man eating shellfish at the buffet it A-OK, you know what I mean?
 
2014-03-07 01:05:26 PM

ManateeGag: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...


Feel free. If you were going to raise the old "but it's a privately owned business and you should have the rights to refuse service to anyone" thing, that hasn't been true for literally 50 years, thanks to the Civil Rights Act.
And part of the reason for the CRA was that the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.
i.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-07 01:07:30 PM
A wild Skinnyhead appears!

He uses 'Troll'

It's super effective!
 
2014-03-07 01:10:31 PM
Marcus Aurelius:

If you're providing a professional service to the public, you have to understand that the public is pretty much batshiat insane. You have no idea how many loonies and nutjobs and kooks and losers are out there.  So if someone asks you to photograph a gig and you show up and they're all fabulous, well, that just comes with the territory.  If you feel that God will smite you and you'll go to hell for photographing gay people and then charging them for it, I'd say you need a new God.

Especially if photographing a tattooed man eating shellfish at the buffet it A-OK, you know what I mean?


So much this. I don't understand how the fark you ever decided to start your own business if you're such a delicate little flower that dealing with the public (many of which are mean, insane crazy people...or otherwise just different from you) makes you clutch your pearls.
 
2014-03-07 01:19:24 PM

Theaetetus: ManateeGag: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...

Feel free. If you were going to raise the old "but it's a privately owned business and you should have the rights to refuse service to anyone" thing, that hasn't been true for literally 50 years, thanks to the Civil Rights Act.
And part of the reason for the CRA was that the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.


No, I was just going to ask, why not hire guy who isn't an asshole?
 
2014-03-07 01:23:01 PM

ManateeGag: No, I was just going to ask, why not hire guy who isn't an asshole?


What guy?

Theaetetus: the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.

 
2014-03-07 01:26:35 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


True; however, not in the way you are implying.
 
2014-03-07 01:28:51 PM

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?


Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.
 
2014-03-07 01:35:32 PM

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?


Because religious people have rights to free exercise of their religion. They do not have rights to operate a business in a discriminatory manner.

To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

Yes, the word is "good". There is no requirement that we be tolerant of hate and bigotry. If you're a huge asshole, there's nothing that legally requires me to smile and nod and wish you well. That sort of requirement is more the province of... religion.
 
2014-03-07 01:41:05 PM
What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?
 
2014-03-07 01:43:59 PM

luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?


Because judges aren't stupid, and don't have to accept a sham. Whether a business qualifies as a private club is a factual determination that a court can make looking at all the factors - how selective they are, how much they charge for membership, whether "membership" is really just a sham to get around anti-discrimination laws, etc.
 
2014-03-07 01:44:23 PM

mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.


What does "institutionalizing it" mean to you (or anyone here who wants to chime in), in this context?
 
2014-03-07 01:47:39 PM
That is....poorly written.

And all that talk about "tolerance" he's spouting sure doesn't make him walk the walk, only talk the talk.

I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.
 
2014-03-07 01:48:20 PM
If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot.  Period.  And there's nothing wrong with calling you out on it.
 
2014-03-07 01:48:27 PM

luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?


Why would Mr. A be marrying a Mrs. B? Does Mr. B know? Shouldn't it be Miss or Ms. B?

Or are we past gay marriage now and are moving on to the point where we are arguing on fark over whether the law discriminates against polygamists?
 
2014-03-07 01:50:05 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

What does "institutionalizing it" mean to you (or anyone here who wants to chime in), in this context?


Instituting laws that have no basis in rational fact, but deny equal rights for purely moralistic religious reasons qualifies, IMO.
 
2014-03-07 01:50:08 PM
A nasty intolerant streak runs through the argument of some gay rights supporters

Uh, yeah. People are nasty. But only one nasty side is right, and it's not the side that wants to tell other adults they can't have the same rights because they have icky sex.
 
2014-03-07 01:50:17 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?

Why would Mr. A be marrying a Mrs. B? Does Mr. B know? Shouldn't it be Miss or Ms. B?

Or are we past gay marriage now and are moving on to the point where we are arguing on fark over whether the law discriminates against polygamists?


They are marrying each other simply because I hit the "r" key while typing.
 
2014-03-07 01:52:06 PM

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


Came here to say this exact same thing.

Funny thing is, I actually prefer that people be more open about their bigotry.  It makes it a lot easier to avoid them.
 
2014-03-07 01:52:10 PM
Bigots hate being called bigots, because they have been mistakenly taught that freedom of sppech means they cannot suffer any consequences of their speech, by anyone.
 
2014-03-07 01:53:01 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


No
 
2014-03-07 01:53:43 PM

luniz5monody: Debeo Summa Credo: luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?

Why would Mr. A be marrying a Mrs. B? Does Mr. B know? Shouldn't it be Miss or Ms. B?

Or are we past gay marriage now and are moving on to the point where we are arguing on fark over whether the law discriminates against polygamists?

They are marrying each other simply because I hit the "r" key while typing.


Oh, ok. In that case let me say that I unequivocally support your right to make typos.
 
2014-03-07 01:54:24 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

sometimes you have to be a bigot in order to take down bigger bigots
 
2014-03-07 01:55:16 PM

CalvinMorallis: If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot.  Period.  And there's nothing wrong with calling you out on it.


Not necessarily. You could just be a guy in his 15th year of marriage to another guy.
 
2014-03-07 01:55:16 PM
One of the most aggravating things when reading forums or comments railing against gay marriage is that they keep bringing up the argument of "well would you expect a bakery to have to bake something for the KKK?"

First Google result for "bakery discrimination KKK"
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery- fo r-discrimination/
 
2014-03-07 01:55:18 PM
I don't understand what the big deal is. Why the fark does it matter who gets married?

I've only lived in Iowa for 5 or 6 years, but I can tell you that after it was legal here, nothing changed. At all. People who loved each other were able to get married. That is a good thing. The states that are fighting this have to know that eventually they are going to lose.
 
2014-03-07 01:55:48 PM

gilgigamesh: Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?

It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays.

In other words, your garden variety "small government" conservative.


Did you even read the article or are you just judging this quote by itself?
 
2014-03-07 01:56:28 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Should gay people continue to pay the taxes that allows those wedding photographers to live in a stable, modern society where something like "wedding photography" can be a means to earn a living?
 
2014-03-07 01:56:49 PM
SkinnyHead:

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

No there's not.  There are plenty of thing religious people believe that they cannot do because it is illegal, such as marry a dozen wives or stone adulterers.  Why is it like this amiable?  Well I'm glad you asked.

There was a Supreme Court decision called Employment Division vs Smith where a Native American sued because he was fired for using Peyote. He argued that laws against his consumption of Peyote violated his religious freedom.  He lost.

Why? Because this crazy ultra liberal Justice named Antonin Scalia pointed out religious people have to follow laws, even if it violates their religious belief, unless that law was specifically intended to oppress them. To do anything else would be anarchy.  Gay marriage laws/civil rights decisions were not passed to punish Christians, they were passed to ensure the rights of that minority were protected.  Arguing that because you have a particular religious belief you should be able to violate the law goes against CONSERVATIVE principles.
 
2014-03-07 01:57:58 PM
There really isn't a rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage except bigotry. That's why.
 
2014-03-07 01:57:58 PM

Carolus99: One of the most aggravating things when reading forums or comments railing against gay marriage is that they keep bringing up the argument of "well would you expect a bakery to have to bake something for the KKK?"

First Google result for "bakery discrimination KKK"
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery- fo r-discrimination/


NVM
I've been duped, hoodwinked, bamboozled...etc.
 
2014-03-07 01:58:32 PM
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

Karl Popper
 
2014-03-07 01:58:46 PM
I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)
 
2014-03-07 01:59:19 PM

Gecko Gingrich: CalvinMorallis: If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot.  Period.  And there's nothing wrong with calling you out on it.

Not necessarily. You could just be a guy in his 15th year of marriage to another guy.


rimshot!

/NTTAWWT
 
2014-03-07 02:00:23 PM

amiable: SkinnyHead:

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

No there's not.  There are plenty of thing religious people believe that they cannot do because it is illegal, such as marry a dozen wives or stone adulterers.  Why is it like this amiable?  Well I'm glad you asked.

There was a Supreme Court decision called Employment Division vs Smith where a Native American sued because he was fired for using Peyote. He argued that laws against his consumption of Peyote violated his religious freedom.  He lost.

Why? Because this crazy ultra liberal Justice named Antonin Scalia pointed out religious people have to follow laws, even if it violates their religious belief, unless that law was specifically intended to oppress them. To do anything else would be anarchy.  Gay marriage laws/civil rights decisions were not passed to punish Christians, they were passed to ensure the rights of that minority were protected.  Arguing that because you have a particular religious belief you should be able to violate the law goes against CONSERVATIVE principles.


top making sense. you're just going to get them all worked into a froth.
 
2014-03-07 02:01:31 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

What does "institutionalizing it" mean to you (or anyone here who wants to chime in), in this context?


I guess I mean an institution being an important aspect of life and society (e.g., marriage, adoption, justice, military).

When you want to formalize discrimination beyond your own interaction with people in a broader sense in people's day to day life
 
2014-03-07 02:02:26 PM

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


My advice is to go ahead and start making friends with people who still oppose interracial marriage (well, the few that are still alive anyway), because a few decades from now, they'll be the only ones left who don't consider people like you to be bigots.
 
2014-03-07 02:02:31 PM

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


Except that's not the traditional function of marriage.
 
2014-03-07 02:02:59 PM

mark12A: traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens)


so, you believe women who are too old to have children or are unable to have children due to some medical condition should not be allowed to get married?  What about infertile men, are they banned from marriage?  Why is marriage required to make a baby?  If I've learned anything from Maury, it's that you don't need to be married to make a child.
 
2014-03-07 02:03:39 PM
mark12A

I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?


I'm relatively sure no one has suggested you have to marry someone of the same sex, so they're not telling you how to live.

They're just saying you might not want to tell other people how to live as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, because it kinda makes you look like an asshole.
 
2014-03-07 02:03:50 PM

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


How do you define the traditional functionality of marriage?
 
2014-03-07 02:04:01 PM

Carolus99: One of the most aggravating things when reading forums or comments railing against gay marriage is that they keep bringing up the argument of "well would you expect a bakery to have to bake something for the KKK?"

First Google result for "bakery discrimination KKK"
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery- fo r-discrimination/


Second Google Result:
UPDATE: Apparently, the "news story" that prompted this post is a fake.
 
2014-03-07 02:05:00 PM

mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


How will allowing gays to marry diminish the:
a. Child output of heterosexual unions?
b. Adopting/child-rearing abilities of gays?
c. Enforcement of marriage as a child-rearing legal obligation?

How does it affect your rights at all, in fact?
 
2014-03-07 02:05:37 PM

Pincy: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

Came here to say this exact same thing.

Funny thing is, I actually prefer that people be more open about their bigotry.  It makes it a lot easier to avoid them.


Same with gay people. Some are rather obvious about it, and are therefore easy to avoid. Whereas others aren't noticeably gay and there is no way to immediately recognize that they are. Maybe they are single despite being reasonable looking and successful, maybe they dont like sports as much as regular guys do, maybe they don't ogle women or make off color comments, etc., so you can speculate that they are gay but you can't really tell.

I know this makes me sound bigoted to those here who are intolerant of those who aren't PC, but it is really aggravating when you meet a gay person who seems outwardly normal and doesn't make it apparent that he's gay.

You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.
 
2014-03-07 02:07:12 PM
Friedersdorf wrote, because it assumes that "homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding," when in fact, plenty of gay marriage opponents merely reject it because they regard "marriage as a religious sacrament with a procreative purpose." And that is fundamentally different from bigotry.

Which is of course why they also think that infertile couples, the elderly, or the previously divorced should be denied the sacrement of a nice floral arrangement.
 
2014-03-07 02:07:46 PM

luniz5monody: Debeo Summa Credo: luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?

Why would Mr. A be marrying a Mrs. B? Does Mr. B know? Shouldn't it be Miss or Ms. B?

Or are we past gay marriage now and are moving on to the point where we are arguing on fark over whether the law discriminates against polygamists?

They are marrying each other simply because I hit the "r" key while typing.


Good jorb.  Your clumsy fingers are going to get B brought up on bigamy charges.  I hope you're happy with yourself.
 
2014-03-07 02:08:20 PM

mark12A: Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot.


Sorry, but you kind of are.  Replace "Gay Marriage" with "Interracial Marriage" and I think you might see the similarities.
 
2014-03-07 02:08:49 PM

mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens)


My wife and I cannot have children.  Are you telling me we shouldn't be married?  No?  Then what's the difference?

 the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

So just because you're creeped out, others should suffer.  Got it.
 
2014-03-07 02:09:01 PM
They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.
That is an unacceptable, illiberal demand.


I don't know ... that demand seems to have worked well against racist and anti-miscongeniationists.
 
2014-03-07 02:09:13 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


Such a genuine smile this prompted... wonderful.
 
2014-03-07 02:10:09 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

Came here to say this exact same thing.

Funny thing is, I actually prefer that people be more open about their bigotry.  It makes it a lot easier to avoid them.

Same with gay people. Some are rather obvious about it, and are therefore easy to avoid. Whereas others aren't noticeably gay and there is no way to immediately recognize that they are. Maybe they are single despite being reasonable looking and successful, maybe they dont like sports as much as regular guys do, maybe they don't ogle women or make off color comments, etc., so you can speculate that they are gay but you can't really tell.

I know this makes me sound bigoted to those here who are intolerant of those who aren't PC, but it is really aggravating when you meet a gay person who seems outwardly normal and doesn't make it apparent that he's gay.

You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


I'm assuming you are trying to make some kind of point but I'm not sure you made the point you intended to.  Being a bigot is a choice.  Being gay isn't.
 
2014-03-07 02:10:47 PM

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


No one is demanding you ACCEPT gay marriage.  What they are demanding is that gays have every right TO MARRY, have all the benefits of that, and YOU can't tell them they can't.  Where is it written that YOU have to have anything to do with gays, and more importantly, WHERE IS MARRIAGE DEFINED AS ONLY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?  I have asked for YEARS where this is, and not once has it been pointed out to me. King Solomon, from that book you seem to beat people up with had what? 700 wives/whores? The "traditional functionality of marriage"?  Really?  I about spit water on that one.  There is no "traditional functionality" of marriage.   You're one of the ones that think marriage is for procreation only.  Fark you on behalf of every couple who cannot conceive, every child who dies in the womb, and just on general grounds that that is farked up thinking.

The "traditional" definition of marriage goes back at least as far as ancient Mesopotamia, and unlike your personal definition, marriage served to seal power deals and acquire lands.  Concubines and acceptable women were brought to the bed to serve as incubators for heirs, not the woman of the marriage.  Only much later did it become "the woman should submit, and bear heirs".  So fark off with the traditional thing.

So until laws are passed that allow bands of fabulous men to kick in your door, gay marry you by force and tell your wife that her entire wardrobe is HORRID, your thought process is weak and unsubstantiated, with absolutely no basis in fact.

So how about you go hide in your little closet so the homoghey doesn't accidentally fall all over you and make you an actual human being.
 
2014-03-07 02:11:52 PM

mark12A: Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


Very few people are trying to force you to accept gays or gay marriage, or for anyone to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. And those few people are wrong to try to.
 
2014-03-07 02:12:04 PM

SkinnyHead: Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?



1. Which religion forbids taking photographs (or making other images)of/or preparing food for homosexuals?

2. Are you aware that if you photograph a gay couple or serve them cupcakes, it doesn't make you homosexual?
 
2014-03-07 02:12:35 PM

mark12A: Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


Aside from arguments others have noted ((a) why aren't you also protesting infertile couples getting married; and (b) plenty of people have children without getting married), there's also the question of how restricting marriage to heterosexual couples will help achieve your purported goal of "producing and rearing quality replacement citizens." Do you believe that, if gay marriage is legal, heterosexual people will stop having children?

The only way this could be logically consistent is you believe that many current marriages include closeted homosexual people who are trapped in a loveless relationship and that if gay marriage were legal, they would choose to be with someone they loved. Accordingly, there would be fewer heterosexual marriages, because the ones based on lies would not exist.

Is that what you're saying? We need to keep marriage restricted to heterosexual couples, because it is more important to keep a high birthrate than that people should be with those they love?
And if so, where do you stop? If the birthrate slips, do you start having forced breeding camps? Do you start selecting people to bear children based on their genetic traits, rather than any actual interest in each other? And if people refuse, do you imprison and rape them?
 
2014-03-07 02:14:17 PM
Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

images.nationalgeographic.com

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!
 
2014-03-07 02:15:46 PM

palelizard: luniz5monody: Debeo Summa Credo: luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?

Why would Mr. A be marrying a Mrs. B? Does Mr. B know? Shouldn't it be Miss or Ms. B?

Or are we past gay marriage now and are moving on to the point where we are arguing on fark over whether the law discriminates against polygamists?

They are marrying each other simply because I hit the "r" key while typing.

Good jorb.  Your clumsy fingers are going to get B brought up on bigamy charges.  I hope you're happy with yourself.


This is a by-product of the massive amounts of Percocet I am taking due to breaking my ankle in infinity places 2 weeks ago in a snowshoe accident. I apologize to Ms. B and to you, good sir/madam.
 
2014-03-07 02:16:37 PM
Churches are allowed to discriminate.  Get yourself internet ordained, call yourself The Holy Church of Durable Images- voila you're as right as rain!
 
2014-03-07 02:17:57 PM

Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!


If he was against gay marriage, then he was in fact a bigot. Greatest? I'd say probably not.
 
2014-03-07 02:18:49 PM
Marriage is gay.
 
2014-03-07 02:19:45 PM
In States where same sex marriage is allowed, you don't have to be gay to get same sex married, just like you don't have to be straight, or even really be romantically involved, to get opposite-sex married.

So even if two guys come and ask you to bake them a cake for their wedding, I don't know how you can definitively prove that they're gay.
 
2014-03-07 02:20:30 PM

Pincy: I'm assuming you are trying to make some kind of point but I'm not sure you made the point you intended to. Being a bigot is a choice. Being gay isn't.


Ahem:

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo

 
2014-03-07 02:21:56 PM

ManateeGag: No, I was just going to ask, why not hire guy who isn't an asshole?


That's not mutually exclusive with suing the shiat out of the bigot. You hire someone decent while you have your lawyer make the bigot hurt.
 
2014-03-07 02:22:18 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


gifatron.com
 
2014-03-07 02:25:04 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


I laughed.  :)
 
2014-03-07 02:25:35 PM

amiable: SkinnyHead:

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

No there's not.  There are plenty of thing religious people believe that they cannot do because it is illegal, such as marry a dozen wives or stone adulterers.  Why is it like this amiable?  Well I'm glad you asked.

There was a Supreme Court decision called Employment Division vs Smith where a Native American sued because he was fired for using Peyote. He argued that laws against his consumption of Peyote violated his religious freedom.  He lost.

Why? Because this crazy ultra liberal Justice named Antonin Scalia pointed out religious people have to follow laws, even if it violates their religious belief, unless that law was specifically intended to oppress them. To do anything else would be anarchy.  Gay marriage laws/civil rights decisions were not passed to punish Christians, they were passed to ensure the rights of that minority were protected.  Arguing that because you have a particular religious belief you should be able to violate the law goes against CONSERVATIVE principles.


As a result of that Smith decision, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and many states followed suit by enacting state versions of that act.  Arizona is one of those states.  Arizona recognizes a religious defense for Native Americans who are prosecuted for using peyote as part of their religious ceremonies.  Toleration and accommodation of the sincerely held religious beliefs of others, when feasible, is certainly a more enlightened approach.
 
2014-03-07 02:27:18 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Here's the rub, one group believes "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs. The other group doesn't believe "A" and wants the force of law to let everyone believe whatever they want.


/"A" can be about abortion, gay marriage, hate speech, etc
//Shove your slippery slope arguments of, "What if 'A' were murder, or rape, etc?"


Depends how you phrase it.  Is A "that marriage is only between a man and a woman" or "that gay people should be treated equally"?
 
2014-03-07 02:28:19 PM
Hey mark12a!  Here's your TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!  Enjoy it!  I hope your wife and kids enjoy being property.

Upon marriage, a woman's property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men's possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women's status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey" (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.
Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man's children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband.

Biblical marriages were endogamous -- that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan -- unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders.

Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to "own" sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh.

A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her -- unless, of course, she was a prostitute.

Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).

Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to "House of the Unshoed" (Dt. 25:5-10).
 
2014-03-07 02:30:52 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Hey mark12a!  Here's your TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!  Enjoy it!  I hope your wife and kids enjoy being property.

Upon marriage, a woman's property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men's possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women's status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey" (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.
Little attention was p ...


hold on, let me write this down.  wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?
 
2014-03-07 02:31:14 PM
When it comes to ..  img.fark.net


lelz
 
2014-03-07 02:32:09 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


My religion says that gays can marry, bigots are trying to take my religious freedom.
 
2014-03-07 02:32:51 PM

timujin: mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

How do you define the traditional functionality of marriage?


Me and two chicks at the same time... oh yeah.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:24 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:42 PM

Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!


he's bigoted racist because he is afraid of teh ghey
 
2014-03-07 02:41:31 PM
ManateeGag: hold on, let me write this down.  wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?

I did find the " If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to "House of the Unshoed" kinda funny to consider.  In a really not very funny way.
 
2014-03-07 02:41:58 PM
I'm bigoted against the cultures that have the child brides, too. You better be bigoted about something.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:34 PM

palelizard: timujin: mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

How do you define the traditional functionality of marriage?

Me and two chicks at the same time... oh yeah.


I guess it was too much to expect he'd actually answer.  And, yes, I'm aware he put a blip of a description in his initial comment, but I was looking for something more than a line that has been thoroughly destroyed as a line of reasoning many times over.

/hrm... wondering if "initial comment" gets filterpwned
 
2014-03-07 02:44:53 PM

ManateeGag: hold on, let me write this down. wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?


$5 bucks says you make it to the second use of the word 'possession', but only because when you got to the first use of the word 'body', she thought you were telling a joke.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:05 PM

Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.


I like the cut of your jib. Hadn't thought of it that way before, but that actually makes some sense.

Either way, institutionalized discrimination is unbecoming to a constitutional republic and the people quacking about same-gender marriage are starting to get very embarrassing.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:22 PM

Theaetetus: OregonVet: Even twenty years ago Wal*Mart was giving benefits to same sex couples *gasp*. Target followed shortly after that year. I get the 'point' - that everyone needs to understand everyone needs equal protection. But when you have an overwhelming number of voters, in the Kerry POTUS election for example, vote Democrat and against Gay Marriage on the same ballot where I lived at the time, there is a disconnect that isn't limited to rednecks. In fact the support of gay rights was around the same number in the red and blue areas that year. Considerable improvement has been made since, but if you are just going to bash one group because of one issue while disregarding the other extensive issues on the ballot, than yah, I could see calling it a form of bigotry.

In what way is bashing bigots "a form of bigotry"? Furthermore, in what way is complaining about people bashing bigots "while disregarding the other extensive issues" anything but concern trolling? "Gosh, we can't say anything bad about those homophobic assholes, because, uh, national debt! Jobs! Afghanistan!"


Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.

Condemnation of a particular flavour of sexuality is religious freedom.

It's simple, really.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:38 PM

SkinnyHead: Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?


Good question. Let's ask the religions that somehow made "being gay" more of a sin than:
-working on the Sabbath
-sleeping with a menstruating woman
-sleeping with a married woman (if you're not her husband, that is)
-blasphemy
-making fun of a bald Rabbi ("not having proper respect for religious authority" is the heading, IIRC)

all of which carry the Biblical death penalty.

I think the better question is: "why would a deeply religious person enter a profession likely to run afoul of religious demands?" An Orthodox Jew, for example, would have to answer god about working in a non-kosher butcher shop, or they could choose to find a new job.

// plenty of people used to do this, if you believe the "Jews used to have 6-day jobs" trope
// supposedly, I know grandchildren of people who went from 6-day to 6-day
 
2014-03-07 02:51:23 PM
So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.
 
2014-03-07 02:52:54 PM
I am anti gay and straight marriage...


/but if people choose to be miserable, at least let the straights and gays marry then. More misery for all...
 
2014-03-07 02:53:33 PM

JohnnyBravo: I am sick of this issue.  Who the eff cares?  Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree.  I couldn't care less.


This certainly seems like the kind of post someone who couldn't care less would make.
 
2014-03-07 03:00:18 PM
I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.
 
2014-03-07 03:01:49 PM

factoryconnection: mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

How will allowing gays to marry diminish the:
a. Child output of heterosexual unions?
b. Adopting/child-rearing abilities of gays?
c. Enforcement of marriage as a child-rearing legal obligation?

How does it affect your rights at all, in fact?


I don't like the idea of any man rearing kids, gay or otherwise.  Just seems wrong.  Gays raising them is OK by me though.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:11 PM

Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.


 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?
 
2014-03-07 03:04:52 PM
No, I think the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots who call bigots, bigots.

//bigots.
 
2014-03-07 03:05:26 PM
Executive Summary: "I want to hate but I want to be the good guy too!"
 
2014-03-07 03:05:49 PM

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.


I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.
 
2014-03-07 03:06:14 PM
BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF!

For f*ck's sake, this is not a hard concept. I do not have to - and I will not - tolerate or be respectful of your views inasmuch as they are based on fundamental assumptions about how certain groups of people are inferior to others because of circumstances that are beyond anyone's control, i.e. race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc. It is morally disgusting to hold such views, in a way that is qualitatively different than, for example, hating Raiders' fans if you're a Chargers' fan, when that kind of animosity is merely silly and inconsequential (that is, no one is seriously suggesting Raiders' fans be barred access to rights, freedoms, and liberties in the United States on account of being a Raiders' fan). You want to hate on someone because of a fundamental attribute of their being? Go f*ck yourself. I hope you rot, and I will not show you respect. You don't deserve any. You should be made to feel guilty, and ashamed, and embarrassed to hold such views because they are wrong on every conceivable level.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of the "tone" argument. "Oh, could you be a little more polite when responding to people who hate blacks/gays/women and want to strip them of their rights/prevent them from having rights? That'd be great." F*ck you. I'm reminded of my favorite quote by MLK Jr.:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

The denial of equality in this country for certain groups of people based on characteristics that are amoral (that is, neither good nor bad) and beyond the control of anyone should enrage people of conscience. But, it seems, there are still those recipients of (white/straight/male) privilege who agree in principle with equality but in practice don't want to be inconvenienced with having to stress out over dealing with how to effect change for the better. They see these arguments and debates as abstract hypotheticals, and not very real situations with very real consequences for very real people. And to them I also say "Go f*ck yourself."

/seriously hoping I used those apostrophes correctly
 
2014-03-07 03:07:15 PM
You know if they want to keep playing these gotcha word games with "bigot" and "intolerance" we'll just come up with much more specific terms that let you know you're a stupid asshole.
 
2014-03-07 03:09:20 PM
We had this discussion a long time ago . . .

Let me ask you about the boycott business since we have two or three minutes left. You've used the boycott as a very effective weapon, and you regard that certainly as the right of your forces not to buy and so on. Do you see any right comparable on the part of the store owner not to sell? Do you see in your freedom to associate any right of others not to associate? 

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol5/26Nov1960_Debate wi thJamesJ.KilpatrickonTheNation'sFuture.pdf

And this question was answered by the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
 
2014-03-07 03:10:49 PM

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


If your religion has that many restrictions that it affects your job, you need to find a new profession. Or stop believing the religious dogma and understand that someone else being gay isn't the reason you secretly want to suck a cock in the airport men's room.
 
2014-03-07 03:11:12 PM

SkinnyHead: Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


I wonder how you would feel if the photographer or baker were employees of the photography studio or bakery? Would the owner/boss of the studio/bakery be justified in firing their employee for refusing to do their job?
 
2014-03-07 03:11:21 PM
SkinnyHead: Toleration and accommodation of the sincerely held religious beliefs of others, when feasible, is certainly a more enlightened approach.

i4.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-07 03:11:56 PM
Say what??


bigot.

urp....excuse me.
 
2014-03-07 03:12:16 PM
The term perversion was also used in the pre-Vatican II era by some Roman Catholics to describe the process of converting from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism Whereas a protestant who joined Roman Catholicism was described as a convert a Catholic who became a Protestant was called a pervert The phrase is no longer used by mainstream Catholicism though a small conservative fringe do on occasion still use it.

http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Perversion.html
 
2014-03-07 03:13:02 PM
Let's just call it what it is:  religious conservatives are primitive screwheads who can't keep up with society.  Their beliefs SHOULD be shunned and bulldozed by better ideas no matter how much they cry about it.
 
2014-03-07 03:13:46 PM

threedingers: Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.


by this definition, every religious person is a bigot towards every religion EXCEPT his/her own.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:11 PM
Black people who spoke out against the Klan were the real bigots apparently.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:14 PM

Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.


This. I've been saying this since the start and it's why I prefer to use the term "same-sex marriage" as opposed to "gay marriage".
 
2014-03-07 03:15:25 PM

Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.


No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.
 
2014-03-07 03:16:47 PM

Arkanaut: No, I think the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots who call bigots, bigots.

//bigots.


Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
 
2014-03-07 03:17:18 PM
If you fit the definition of a word, that's what you are. This is not a debate. This is not an "insult." This is the English language.
 
2014-03-07 03:18:44 PM
skyotter

by this definition, every religious person is a bigot towards every religion EXCEPT his/her own.

That's not true. Some religions can exist compatibly without even thinking the other is wrong, much less condemning each other. The problems come with the "we're 100% right and you're incompatible" religions, like Christianity.

Shinto and Romuva, for example, have no beef.
 
2014-03-07 03:19:06 PM

palelizard: Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.

No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.


A priest?
 
2014-03-07 03:19:58 PM

threedingers: Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.


While I'm fairly sure you're not serious, this is as good a place to point this out as any other in this thread.  Bigotry is not simply condemnation of someone else or their ideas.  Here's the definition:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. :

Bolded for edification.  I strongly dislike the people who picket soldiers funerals, but not unfairly, so I'm not bigoted against them.  I dislike them because they're assholes, which is completely fair.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:36 PM
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism.  Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal.  There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

/As an Episcopalian, I'd like to force my beliefs on the rest of the country.
//Gay marriage for anyone who wants one!
///It doesn't work that way.
 
2014-03-07 03:22:46 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.

This. I've been saying this since the start and it's why I prefer to use the term "same-sex marriage" as opposed to "gay marriage".


I've also been saying this for awhile and it has come-up in court arguments.

Discrimination against same-sex marriage is gender discrimination in the same sense that discrimination against inter-racial marriages is racial discrimination.
 
2014-03-07 03:24:26 PM

skyotter: threedingers: Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.

by this definition, every religious person is a bigot towards every religion EXCEPT his/her own.


Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism

But sometimes, yeah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_separation
 
2014-03-07 03:25:54 PM

Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.


What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.
 
2014-03-07 03:26:51 PM

HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.


isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?
 
2014-03-07 03:28:15 PM

miss diminutive: I wonder what people who were opposed to interracial marriage on religious grounds would say to all this?

Something derpy, no doubt. Either way, those people were on the wrong side of history just as the people currently opposed to same sex marriage are. In a few decades they'll be viewed with the same sort of head-scratching disbelief as those who came before them.

They're entitled to their opinions, of course. Just as people choosing to remain aboard a sinking ship are entitled to their choice off the menu, blissfully ignoring the waters rising around them as their arguments and objections are swatted away by acceptance and common sense. Those of us who long ago swam for the shores of equality and reason don't wish them ill will, but we're not above pointing out the folly and utter wrongness in their choices.


Well I do think the people who supported civil rights a few decades have a great deal more street cred than than the folks who support same sex marriage today. Attitudes are rapidly changing in favor of same sex mariage which will be the law of the land soon.  I doupt there will be any mounments errected to anyone because for most you can be on the right side of history and not even leave the internet.
 
2014-03-07 03:28:34 PM

SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?


why would you consider a vegetarian caterer for your BBQ in the first place?
 
2014-03-07 03:31:43 PM

Kome: BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF!

For f*ck's sake, this is not a hard concept. I do not have to - and I will not - tolerate or be respectful of your views inasmuch as they are based on fundamental assumptions about how certain groups of people are inferior to others because of circumstances that are beyond anyone's control, i.e. race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc. It is morally disgusting to hold such views, in a way that is qualitatively different than, for example, hating Raiders' fans if you're a Chargers' fan, when that kind of animosity is merely silly and inconsequential (that is, no one is seriously suggesting Raiders' fans be barred access to rights, freedoms, and liberties in the United States on account of being a Raiders' fan). You want to hate on someone because of a fundamental attribute of their being? Go f*ck yourself. I hope you rot, and I will not show you respect. You don't deserve any. You should be made to feel guilty, and ashamed, and embarrassed to hold such views because they are wrong on every conceivable level.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of the "tone" argument. "Oh, could you be a little more polite when responding to people who hate blacks/gays/women and want to strip them of their rights/prevent them from having rights? That'd be great." F*ck you. I'm reminded of my favorite quote by MLK Jr.:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can se ...


You think white privilege has anything to do with anti-gay bigotry? How so?
 
2014-03-07 03:32:33 PM
If your relationship to your God or your wife is so fragile that it is threatened somehow by gay marriage, you have some pretty farking deep problems.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:39 PM

SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.


Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:00 PM

SkinnyHead: What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.


Enforcement of the constitutional requirements of equal protection is a compelling state interest. Furthermore, even if that were not true, there is no need for a compelling state interest: this is a law of general applicability, and not a substantial burden on the free exercise of their religion. No one is alleging that their religion requires them to run a business.

But, you're begging the question. No one is "forcing" the wedding photographers, cake decorators, and the like to do anything. They are free to close their businesses, if they feel they cannot run a business in a non-discriminatory fashion.

You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.

www.crmvet.org www.americaslibrary.gov
What SkinnyHead thinks spiteful people look like.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:33 PM

I drunk what: Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!

he's bigoted racist because he is afraid of teh ghey


Not exactly.  The March on Washington was organized by Bayard Rustin, a close associate of King's, who was an openly gay man at the time.

/I think that was what the joke was, in part.
 
2014-03-07 03:38:43 PM

ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:40 PM

HighOnCraic: ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid.


//See also: the Mormons and their "the darker your skin is, the more you've sinned" dogma
 
2014-03-07 03:41:25 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

I wonder how you would feel if the photographer or baker were employees of the photography studio or bakery? Would the owner/boss of the studio/bakery be justified in firing their employee for refusing to do their job?


Getting fired by an employer is not a state action, so the employee might not have any legal claim that his right to religious freedom has been violated.  But a reasonably tolerant private employer should try to make some accommodation out of respect for the religious views of his employees, whether the law forces him to do so or not.
 
2014-03-07 03:41:26 PM

SkinnyHead: Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.

What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.


Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?
 
2014-03-07 03:42:22 PM

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.


Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?
 
2014-03-07 03:42:45 PM

s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.


Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:27 PM

HighOnCraic: I drunk what: Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!

he's bigoted racist because he is afraid of teh ghey

Not exactly.  The March on Washington was organized by Bayard Rustin, a close associate of King's, who was an openly gay man at the time.

/I think that was what the joke was, in part.


I think the joke was to look back 50 years and apply the same "they're the REAL bigots for not tolerating intolerance" to highlight how ridiculous it is. Seriously we have this thread every day. How can people be so self-centered and not see the hypocrisy in arguing that intolerance has any place in a 'tolerant' society.

You don't tolerate intolerance, dummies! to do so is to enable intolerance and that is the opposite of this 'tolerance' you pretend to care about. They only care because it's (rightly) directed at them. gah.
 
2014-03-07 03:45:56 PM

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.

Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?


I like tacos stuffed with sausage.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:24 PM

HighOnCraic: ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid).


Slight tangent... That pisses me off to no end when religions, or other organizations (businesses do it a lot, too), have spontaneous changes of heart, but blame some other outside force to avoid having to admit they were wrong.  The Church above had a "revelation".  Uh huh.  Whatever.  Look, you picked wrong, you made the wrong choice.  Own up to it, ask for forgiveness, and move on.  I mean seriously, what ever happened to taking responsibility for yourself?  When the Catholic Church inevitably decides that gay marriage isn't wrong after all, I sincerely hope they just come out and say, "Ya know what guys?  We were arseholes!  We're sorry, we know what we did wrong, and we won't do it again."  I'd have tremendous respect for that.  Don't just hide behind some bullshiat revelation or whatever.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:41 PM
ManateeGag

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

In addition to those already mentioned, see Christian Identity.
 
2014-03-07 03:50:33 PM

Theaetetus: palelizard: Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.

No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.

A priest?


They mostly just use saliva as lube.
 
2014-03-07 03:52:42 PM

give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?


Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:27 PM
I think Democrats should propose a bill banning Sharia law including their prohibition against same sex marriage?

Watch heads explode.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:50 PM
To a Christian(R), walking into a Macy's between Halloween and New Year's Day and seeing a menorah is more bigoted than being told that you can't marry the person you love because they are the same gender as you.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:52 PM

mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens)


What traditional functionality of marriage might look like:

Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother.
Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage (i.e., that outside the clan) was forbidden. It has been known in many societies around the world. The practice is similar to widow inheritance, where, for example, the deceased husband's kin can dictate whom the widow may marry.
The term is a derivative of the Latin word levir, meaning "husband's brother".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sororate_marriage
 
2014-03-07 03:55:16 PM

Fafai: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.

Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?

I like tacos stuffed with sausage.


sounds like sloppy seconds to me
 
2014-03-07 03:57:35 PM

SkinnyHead: give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?

Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.


Does this mean you're starting to think of yourself and el chip as two separate people now?

/Yeah, I know, I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious, threadshiatting alt.  The obvious, threadshiatting alt is the victim, and I'm the REAL bigot. . .
 
2014-03-07 03:57:51 PM

mrshowrules: Fafai: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.

Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?

I like tacos stuffed with sausage.

sounds like sloppy seconds to me


Who are you to judge?
 
2014-03-07 03:57:53 PM
Bigots need some minority group that they can hate and condemn unabashedly and still be allowed to feel good about themselves.

Liberals have that already, bigots.

The poor bigots have nothing.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:21 PM

SkinnyHead: give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?

Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.


I just figured you were a masochist.
 
2014-03-07 04:02:29 PM

ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?

why would you consider a vegetarian caterer for your BBQ in the first place?


Consider your source.
 
2014-03-07 04:03:22 PM

HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.


When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:11 PM

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: I wonder how you would feel if the photographer or baker were employees of the photography studio or bakery? Would the owner/boss of the studio/bakery be justified in firing their employee for refusing to do their job?

Getting fired by an employer is not a state action, so the employee might not have any legal claim that his right to religious freedom has been violated. But a reasonably tolerant private employer should try to make some accommodation out of respect for the religious views of his employees, whether the law forces him to do so or not.


This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Whether the scenario I described or the one with the baker in real life, the result could be a lawsuit that will be decided in the courts. If you want to call that a 'state action', so be it, but it is no different. And, by writing the bolded part above, you seem to be indicating that the employee in my hypothetical scenario would likely lose a suit against their employer for firing them and it is for those exact same reasons that the baker will (if they have not already, I'm not really following it) lose the suit against them. You don't have a constitutional right to own a bakery. Feel free to discriminate against gays if your religion requires you to do so, but be prepared to deal with the consequences of your choices.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:15 PM
I don't think vegetarian is a protected class under the constitution.

If I don't want to work on a Harley, I don't have to work on a Harley.

If I work at a cupcake shop, I don't have to sell you BBQ.

See? It's different.

Now if you are vegetarian working at a BBQ joint and refuse to serve me BBQ because it is against your beliefs, then I can say fark you and your boss may have a problem with you not doing your job.

Now, pretend you are caterer who doesn't believe in gay marriage. Yet gay marriage is a reality under the law. Do you still get to choose not to cater a gay wedding?

No.

Because that is being a bigoted bigot. Just like you can't say you don't cater to Muslims. Because in this country, you can be any goddamned religion you want, and you can't discriminate.

Unless you are a exclusively shellfish oriented caterer. If you only sell mussels, and cockles, and clams, you can go ahead and say no.

Because who wants just that shiat, right?
 
2014-03-07 04:07:09 PM

mrshowrules: Bigots need some minority group that they can hate and condemn unabashedly and still be allowed to feel good about themselves.

Liberals have that already, bigots.

The poor bigots have nothing.


They want to be free to unabashedly hate and not be called out on it, so they call out what they percieve as hate. It may very well be hate coming from a lot of those 'nasty' gay rights advocates, but people are allowed to hate, and others are allowed to respond in kind. They don't seem to get this. You can hate on whoever you want. When they hide their own hatred behind religion or traditional marriage, that's besides the point. No-one's saying you can't legally hate. They're saying you can't illegally act upon hatred via discrimination.

The whole 'sore winners' thing is like deja vu. Reminds me of back in the 90's when people staged 'kiss-ins' to protest bigotry and people whined about people kissing in the streets being combative or whatever. The more I think aboutt hese people trying to stop gay marriage the more my head explodes.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:29 PM

s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.

When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.


I'm glad someone understands my struggle.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:32 PM

loki see loki do: I don't think vegetarian is a protected class under the constitution.

If I don't want to work on a Harley, I don't have to work on a Harley.

If I work at a cupcake shop, I don't have to sell you BBQ.

See? It's different.

Now if you are vegetarian working at a BBQ joint and refuse to serve me BBQ because it is against your beliefs, then I can say fark you and your boss may have a problem with you not doing your job.

Now, pretend you are caterer who doesn't believe in gay marriage. Yet gay marriage is a reality under the law. Do you still get to choose not to cater a gay wedding?

No.

Because that is being a bigoted bigot. Just like you can't say you don't cater to Muslims. Because in this country, you can be any goddamned religion you want, and you can't discriminate.

Unless you are a exclusively shellfish oriented caterer. If you only sell mussels, and cockles, and clams, you can go ahead and say no.

Because who wants just that shiat, right?


Though a shellfish-exclusive caterer would be a little hypocritical using Biblical references to back up their bigotry.
 
2014-03-07 04:08:46 PM
But if you want the shellfish, I'll sell em to you.
It's no skin off my back.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:54 PM

SkinnyHead: Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.

What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.


If the war photographer portrayed some war crimes as atrocities, and some war crimes as justice, would you be right to wonder if that photographer is a twisted human being?

A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer.  A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:55 PM
If I only sell shellfish, I don't have to sell what I don't got is what I'm saying. To you it's a sin, to me it's delicious.

/bacon wrapped scallops
//doubly sacrilicious.
 
2014-03-07 04:13:51 PM

HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.

When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.

I'm glad someone understands my struggle.


That which doesn't make you struggle, makes you soshulist!
 
2014-03-07 04:15:50 PM

s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: HighOnCraic: s2s2s2: So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.

Well, I don't allow bigots in mine.

When running a camp, you gotta be very discriminating. I feel ya.

I'm glad someone understands my struggle.

That which doesn't make you struggle, makes you soshulist!


Working hard makes me feel free. . .
 
2014-03-07 04:16:27 PM

Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.


so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?
 
2014-03-07 04:16:47 PM
...and Ghost bustin' makes me feel good!
 
2014-03-07 04:17:49 PM

peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.

 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?


Dunno. Rent my clothes maybe.
 
2014-03-07 04:18:27 PM

Krymson Tyde: Rent my clothes maybe.


I'll give you two bits for ten minutes with your pants.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:01 PM

ManateeGag: Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.

so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?


You can pork the hell out of her.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:35 PM
What kind of pathetically spineless piece of shiat wants to simultaneously be against gay marriage and can't handle their little feelings getting hurt when they get called a bigot?

Want to be a bigot? Go right the fark ahead, nothing is stopping you, but for christ's sake actually own that shiat.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:38 PM
Anybody else getting hungry?
 
2014-03-07 04:20:51 PM

loki see loki do: You can pork the hell out of her.


Mary Moon Catering?
 
2014-03-07 04:24:35 PM

ManateeGag: Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.

so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?


In America, you have the right to sue anybody for anything until a judge orders you to stop clogging up his fax machine.

Seriously, though, I almost added that exact example to my last post, but deleted it because I thought it was going a little far afield of his question.  So yes, a vegan caterer doesn't have a right to deny service to a party just because that party will also have meat served by a second caterer.

Conversely, a vegan caterer does have the right to refuse to eat any of the meat served.
 
2014-03-07 04:24:55 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Krymson Tyde: Rent my clothes maybe.

I'll give you two bits for ten minutes with your pants.


Deal.

Wait, what did you have in mind?
 
2014-03-07 04:25:29 PM

loki see loki do: Anybody else getting hungry?


I'm freaking starving.
 
2014-03-07 04:25:38 PM
Friedersdorf wrote, because it assumes that "homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding," when in fact, plenty of gay marriage opponents merely reject it because they regard "marriage as a religious sacrament with a procreative purpose." And that is fundamentally different from bigotry.

Ooooh!!! I got this one!!! They're requiring people to have babies when they marry, denying them marriage licenses if they don't plan to have babies and all for making it illegal for them to get married if either one is physically incapable of having babies, right???? Are they going to push to set a hard deadline, a "shiat or get off the pot" moment, say, when they have to show cause to stay married? Maybe 18 months? No kids? No more marriage.

Right?
Is this thing on?
Hello????
 
2014-03-07 04:25:50 PM

ManateeGag: Jaymark108: A vegan caterer who has moral objections to preparing animals as food would be justified to not make BBQ for a customer. A vegan caterer would not be justified to deny vegan dishes to an omnivore customer.

so if I want to hire a vegan caterer to prepare dishes for my vegan guests that my MEAT-O-RAMA summer party, and she refuses because my party is going to have mean, even though I'm not asking her to cook, serve or even look at it, i have the right to sue her?


You have the right to sue anyone for any reason, so yes, but you won't win unless diet is a protected class in your state.
 
2014-03-07 04:25:51 PM

Krymson Tyde: Wait, what did you have in mind?


Hey, as long as I pay for the insurance, that's none of your business!
 
2014-03-07 04:27:02 PM

Krymson Tyde: peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.

 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?

Dunno. Rent my clothes maybe.


I need a ballgown for Saturday night.
 
2014-03-07 04:29:26 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Krymson Tyde: Wait, what did you have in mind?

Hey, as long as I pay for the insurance, that's none of your business!


My religion had strict tenets regarding the use of my pants. You're not being a bigot against my religious beliefs, are you?
 
2014-03-07 04:30:41 PM

peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.

 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?

Dunno. Rent my clothes maybe.

I need a ballgown for Saturday night.


I wear boxers or briefs, not gowns. Sorry.
 
2014-03-07 04:30:48 PM

thurstonxhowell: You have the right to sue anyone for any reason, so yes, but you won't win unless diet is a protected class in your state.


Judging by obesity rates, diet is definitely not a protected class in my state.
 
2014-03-07 04:31:52 PM

Krymson Tyde: peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: peacheslatour: Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.

 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?

Dunno. Rent my clothes maybe.

I need a ballgown for Saturday night.

I wear boxers or briefs, not gowns. Sorry.


If she wants to wear your boxers as a ball gown, that's her right I suppose.
 
2014-03-07 04:38:13 PM

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


Terrible, I know!
 
2014-03-07 04:44:10 PM

Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?


God has to exist in order to smite anything. Evidence for such a being is sorely lacking. So, no. It doesn't bother me.
 
2014-03-07 04:45:36 PM
There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.
 
2014-03-07 04:45:46 PM

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


No one's asking you to "accept" anything. No one is proposing you to be forced to gaymarry What is expected is that you won't deny others who may like to do that sort of thing their own right to decide and do that if they want to. See how that works? They're not trying to force anything on you. You're trying to force something on them if you're trying to deny them equal rights. It's not the same and you're not special or entitled, any more than they are, so they get the same right to choose their private lives as you do.
 
2014-03-07 04:48:05 PM

cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.


ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2014-03-07 04:49:07 PM
cchris_39

But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

This doesn't even make sense. No one wants to make you marry another guy. No one wants to force you to officiate a gay wedding. No one wants to force your church or temple or whatever to have homosexual marriages, as far as I know. So what religious rights are you talking about?
 
2014-03-07 04:50:00 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: That is....poorly written.

And all that talk about "tolerance" he's spouting sure doesn't make him walk the walk, only talk the talk.

I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.


But that is their business. Their religion commands them to tell everyone how to live.
 
2014-03-07 04:54:35 PM

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


So, my wife and I should not have been allowed to get married 20 years ago because we chose to never have children? Fark you.
 
2014-03-07 04:55:10 PM

cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).


Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.
 
2014-03-07 04:56:22 PM

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


This, right here.

What the RW in this country want is they can say what they want without repercussions...I wonder if they'd have the balls to say anything to Putin and not expect Putin to hit back...hard.
 
2014-03-07 04:57:17 PM

cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.


Please point out the exact religious basis - in the Bible - for opposing equal marriage rights and encouraging treating fellow human beings like subhumans for their sexuality.

Note: You can't just say "because muh preacher said so" or "Ah thank it's gross 'n' stuff."

Also, you left out the good troll language about "ramming it down our throats." Do try harder next time.
 
2014-03-07 04:58:49 PM

Facetious_Speciest: cchris_39

But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

This doesn't even make sense. No one wants to make you marry another guy. No one wants to force you to officiate a gay wedding. No one wants to force your church or temple or whatever to have homosexual marriages, as far as I know. So what religious rights are you talking about?


It's the part where Jesus told his followers that they should not sell any goods or services to a known homosexual, right?
 
2014-03-07 05:00:12 PM
People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them?
 
2014-03-07 05:01:00 PM

Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them?


Whats that?
 
2014-03-07 05:01:51 PM

Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them el chip's alt?

 
2014-03-07 05:06:11 PM

Ed Grubermann: mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

So, my wife and I should not have been allowed to get married 20 years ago because we chose to never have children? Fark you.


I'm assuming he's just a shiat-and-split troll since he has only made this one comment that has already been thoroughly destroyed both earlier in this thread and in prior threads and has not been back to attempt to defend it.
 
2014-03-07 05:07:16 PM
Fafai:

I was commenting about bigotry in general, referencing racism and sexism as well as the topically appropriate homophobia. I thought that was pretty clear in my post. My apologies if it wasn't.
 
2014-03-07 05:08:47 PM

Facetious_Speciest: cchris_39

But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

This doesn't even make sense. No one wants to make you marry another guy.


I do. I'm tired of his constant denials of the obvious.
 
2014-03-07 05:09:05 PM

cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.


jungwildeandfree.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-07 05:09:10 PM

HighOnCraic: I think that was what the joke was


Fafai: I think the joke was to look back 50 years


I think the joke is Fark

media.moronail.net

*stares*

LELZ
 
2014-03-07 05:09:41 PM
Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.
 
2014-03-07 05:11:07 PM

HighOnCraic: Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them el chip's alt?


is that true?  That's kind of funny, because when I was very conservative he was the only person I ever blocked, and now Skinnyhead is pretty much the only one I want to block now.
 
2014-03-07 05:13:42 PM

Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them?


Ever see a cat play with a dead mouse?
 
2014-03-07 05:15:22 PM

rwhamann: HighOnCraic: Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them el chip's alt?

is that true?  That's kind of funny, because when I was very conservative he was the only person I ever blocked, and now Skinnyhead is pretty much the only one I want to block now.


I've seen proof.  Of course, just by mentioning it, I risk+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++CARRIER LOST++++++++++++++++++
 
2014-03-07 05:17:18 PM

lordjupiter: Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them?

Ever see a cat play with a dead mouse?


Yeah but eventually a cat gets tired of it or it finds a new mouse to kill.

Unless you wish to elaborate further. :D
 
2014-03-07 05:21:45 PM

Rwa2play: lordjupiter: Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them?

Ever see a cat play with a dead mouse?

Yeah but eventually a cat gets tired of it or it finds a new mouse to kill.

Unless you wish to elaborate further. :D


bat bat...bat bat bat bat....tap tap....gnaw gnaw FLING!
 
2014-03-07 05:29:48 PM

rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.


You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?
 
2014-03-07 05:35:22 PM

rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.


I guess you don't care for lobster, that's o.k.- I'll have yours.
 
2014-03-07 05:36:54 PM

rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.


They are bigots.  You guys pick and choose what you follow from the bible.  I'm sure you followed all the rules from Leviticus.  They choose to hate.
 
2014-03-07 05:37:27 PM

timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?


I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.
 
2014-03-07 05:38:34 PM

Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.


Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.
 
2014-03-07 05:41:17 PM

rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?

I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.


How did the New Testament "abolish" those issues?  Shellfish and mixed fabrics, along with a host of other ridiculous rules, are clearly enumerated in Leviticus, the same place that people get the rules about man lying with a man.
 
2014-03-07 05:42:14 PM

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.


What agenda is that?
 
2014-03-07 05:42:30 PM

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.


Christians are lucky as hell that gays treat them with as much respect and consideration as they do, considering all the vitriolic hate that has been lavished on them from pulpits and pews across the entire country. I don't think Christians have half a leg to stand on regarding "respect" (especially since they're ostensibly all about loving their neighbors.)
 
2014-03-07 05:47:13 PM

timujin: How did the New Testament "abolish" those issues?  Shellfish and mixed fabrics, along with a host of other ridiculous rules, are clearly enumerated in Leviticus, the same place that people get the rules about man lying with a man.


It was supposedly a revelation the apostle Peter had in a dream, outlining a change in the old Levitical laws. Don't remember off-hand chapter and verse.
 
2014-03-07 05:49:58 PM

cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.


image.blingee.com
 
2014-03-07 05:52:05 PM

timujin: rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?

I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.

How did the New Testament "abolish" those issues?  Shellfish and mixed fabrics, along with a host of other ridiculous rules, are clearly enumerated in Leviticus, the same place that people get the rules about ma ...


In a Acts 10 Peter receives a vision from God telling him to kill and eat some unclean animals.  This is frequently interpreted to lift the arbitrary rules of diet and other silly rules from Leviticus, (along with the greater message tha salvation was not restricted from the Gentile) - rules which were there mainly to prove the folly of living by a set of rules anyway. However, Paul, in the New Testament, still condemns homosexuality. And this was the bitter pill for me - how can God create gay people, yet deny them the gift of love and marriage?  It was a long road, turning away from that. Doug Pinnick, a Christian singer who came out as gay in 2001, wrote a very emotional a powerful letter to his fans on the topic. That was where I started turning away, and started to take a lot less of the bible as literal and more of it as cultural setting and lyrical.
 
2014-03-07 05:54:28 PM

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.



Wait, you want equal respect for hatred and discrimination against people for who they ARE, because of something you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE?

Yeah, don't hold your breath.  It's not hypocrisy to tell you to stop discriminating based on the way people are born.  Do you respect the muslim terrorists who want to kill you for being American?  Would you let them lock you up and torture you because it wouldn't be "fair" to resist their attack on who you are?
 
2014-03-07 05:55:46 PM

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


They do not have the right to deny anyone because they are gay. Period.
 
2014-03-07 05:55:59 PM

mark12A: Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


Who's stopping you from moving to Saudi Arabia?
America: Love it or leave it, as republicans always say.
 
2014-03-07 05:56:38 PM

timujin: cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.

What agenda is that?


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-07 05:57:00 PM

Facetious_Speciest: cchris_39

But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

This doesn't even make sense. No one wants to make you marry another guy. No one wants to force you to officiate a gay wedding. No one wants to force your church or temple or whatever to have homosexual marriages, as far as I know. So what religious rights are you talking about?


He has a religious right to be an asshole. but you don't have the right to be an asshole to him because he's an asshole.
 
2014-03-07 05:59:00 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste

He has a religious right to be an asshole. but you don't have the right to be an asshole to him because he's an asshole.

My religion is quite clear on the concept of being an asshole to assholes. It's my right!
 
2014-03-07 06:01:05 PM

menschenfresser: cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.

Please point out the exact religious basis - in the Bible - for opposing equal marriage rights and encouraging treating fellow human beings like subhumans for their sexuality.

Note: You can't just say "because muh preacher said so" or "Ah thank it's gross 'n' stuff."

Also, you left out the good troll language about "ramming it down our throats." Do try harder next time.


Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.
 
2014-03-07 06:02:42 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Christians are lucky as hell that gays treat them with as much respect and consideration as they do


img.fark.net

lelz

beg for mercy u farkers, beg!

/ur post nees moar lion picz
//roflelz

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-07 06:03:34 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Uchiha_Cycliste

He has a religious right to be an asshole. but you don't have the right to be an asshole to him because he's an asshole.

My religion is quite clear on the concept of being an asshole to assholes. It's my right!


You sound like a solid Christian with a well founded understanding of the New Testament. Like I said above, Jesus was all about hatred and being an asshole to anyone who was different. It was his big thing.
 
2014-03-07 06:05:32 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: He has a religious right to be an asshole. but you don't have the right to be an asshole to him because he's an asshole.


It's right there in the book of Lloyd, chapter 8, versus 5-9:

And Lloyd said unto Harry, "You're it."
Harry, upon hearing this, said unto Lloyd, "You're it."
Lloyd then replied, "You're it, quitsies!"
And behold, Harry spoketh unto Lloyd, "Anti-quitsies, you're it, quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies!"
Lloyd replied, "You can't do that!"
Harry replied, "Can too!"
Lloyd replied, "Cannot, stamp it!"
Harry, "Can too, double stamp it, no erasies!"
Lloyd, "Cannot, triple stamp, no erasies, Touch blue make it true."
Harry, "No, you can't do that... you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!"
Lloyd, "LA LA LA LA LA LA!"
Harry, "LLOYD! LLOYD! LLOYD! "

Amen.
 
2014-03-07 06:06:38 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Uchiha_Cycliste: He has a religious right to be an asshole. but you don't have the right to be an asshole to him because he's an asshole.

It's right there in the book of Lloyd, chapter 8, versus 5-9:

And Lloyd said unto Harry, "You're it."
Harry, upon hearing this, said unto Lloyd, "You're it."
Lloyd then replied, "You're it, quitsies!"
And behold, Harry spoketh unto Lloyd, "Anti-quitsies, you're it, quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies!"
Lloyd replied, "You can't do that!"
Harry replied, "Can too!"
Lloyd replied, "Cannot, stamp it!"
Harry, "Can too, double stamp it, no erasies!"
Lloyd, "Cannot, triple stamp, no erasies, Touch blue make it true."
Harry, "No, you can't do that... you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!"
Lloyd, "LA LA LA LA LA LA!"
Harry, "LLOYD! LLOYD! LLOYD! "

Amen.


Amen.
 
2014-03-07 06:07:12 PM

rwhamann: In a Acts 10 Peter receives a vision from God telling him to kill and eat some unclean animals. This is frequently interpreted to lift the arbitrary rules of diet and other silly rules from Leviticus, (along with the greater message tha salvation was not restricted from the Gentile) - rules which were there mainly to prove the folly of living by a set of rules anyway. However, Paul, in the New Testament, still condemns homosexuality. And this was the bitter pill for me - how can God create gay people, yet deny them the gift of love and marriage? It was a long road, turning away from that. Doug Pinnick, a Christian singer who came out as gay in 2001, wrote a very emotional a powerful letter to his fans on the topic. That was where I started turning away, and started to take a lot less of the bible as literal and more of it as cultural setting and lyrical.


What God has cleansed, call thee not common (or something like that) doesn't cover anything but the food and, at that, only food that God has "cleansed".  Interpreting it to mean the other rules are null and void.

As for the New Testament, Jesus healed a Roman centurion's gay slave lover ("valued highly", indeed), so he didn't seem to have too much of a problem with them.

/not the best person to discuss this with as I believe that Jesus was likely not an actual person, but rather sewn together from the cloth of a dozen different tales by that paranoid schizophrenic from Tarsus, so my view is, well, tainted at best.
 
2014-03-07 06:10:00 PM
Wow. Facts be damned.
 
2014-03-07 06:12:36 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.


If Jeeebus is ok width anti-gay marriage then how combs he kreayted lewsiphur so beyuteefull?

Judge not..

upload.wikimedia.org

sinnars!!1! hateful bigot racists!

*stares*

lelz
 
2014-03-07 06:15:21 PM

I drunk what: UrukHaiGuyz: Christians are lucky as hell that gays treat them with as much respect and consideration as they do

[img.fark.net image 718x550]

lelz

beg for mercy u farkers, beg!

/ur post nees moar lion picz
//roflelz

[img.fark.net image 275x183]


Please stop spamming that same pic in every thread. You're the worst performance artist on Fark.
 
2014-03-07 06:18:16 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: You sound like a solid Christian with a well founded understanding of the New Testament. Like I said above, Jesus was all about hatred and being an asshole to anyone who was different. It was his big thing.


THIS^^^

Jeeebuz loves all the kulurs of teh rainbow

fc09.deviantart.netcdn-www.i-am-bored.com
img.fark.netwww.quickmeme.com

s3.amazonaws.com

LELZ
 
2014-03-07 06:30:07 PM

I drunk what: Uchiha_Cycliste: Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.

If Jeeebus is ok width anti-gay marriage then how combs he kreayted lewsiphur so beyuteefull?

Judge not..

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x502]

sinnars!!1! hateful bigot racists!

*stares*

lelz


And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.
 
2014-03-07 06:32:11 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: I drunk what: UrukHaiGuyz: Christians are lucky as hell that gays treat them with as much respect and consideration as they do

[img.fark.net image 718x550]

lelz

beg for mercy u farkers, beg!

/ur post nees moar lion picz
//roflelz

[img.fark.net image 275x183]

Please stop spamming that same pic in every thread. You're the worst performance artist on Fark.


But the gays are *literally* steamrolling people... =P
 
2014-03-07 06:34:16 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: But the gays are *literally* steamrolling people... =P


hez such a noob

obviously imma postin it uniconically..

duh  ;P
 
2014-03-07 06:34:50 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste:

And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

Gawdamm...that's a good point
 
2014-03-07 06:39:39 PM

Barfmaker: Uchiha_Cycliste:

And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

Gawdamm...that's a good point


Right?... so what the hell? How is he not God's left hand man? Jesus of course sitting on the right hand.
 
2014-03-07 06:48:29 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: menschenfresser: cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.

Please point out the exact religious basis - in the Bible - for opposing equal marriage rights and encouraging treating fellow human beings like subhumans for their sexuality.

Note: You can't just say "because muh preacher said so" or "Ah thank it's gross 'n' stuff."

Also, you left out the good troll language about "ramming it down our throats." Do try harder next time.

Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.


That's really funny because they really don't realize how they go against what there religion claims to stand for as one of its most basic tenets. Of course, they'll just turn it around and say that "you're the real bigot" for not allowing them to discriminate and therefore your intolerance of discrimination is itself discrimination.

Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there. They aren't even using anything actually religious to prop up their "belief" that certain groups of people don't deserve rights just because they are who they are. A part of me almost wishes that THEY would start being the ones who are singled out just for existing, and are allowed fewer rights than everyone else. But that would be wrong - particularly in the eyes of the religion they claim to follow but nonetheless stand for everything opposite to it.
 
2014-03-07 06:50:47 PM
Yeah, but the left hand is the poopie hand.
 
2014-03-07 06:52:58 PM

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.


No different than serving blacks. Your arguments were no only wrong 50 years ago, they didn't work. And they are still wrong (and won't work) today. That is good and right.
 
2014-03-07 06:57:32 PM
You know what this thread needs?  Someone to post that gay steamroller pic.
 
2014-03-07 06:58:57 PM

menschenfresser: Uchiha_Cycliste: menschenfresser: cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.

Please point out the exact religious basis - in the Bible - for opposing equal marriage rights and encouraging treating fellow human beings like subhumans for their sexuality.

Note: You can't just say "because muh preacher said so" or "Ah thank it's gross 'n' stuff."

Also, you left out the good troll language about "ramming it down our throats." Do try harder next time.

Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.

That's really funny because they really don't realize how they go against what there religion claims to stand for as one of its most basic tenets. Of course, they'll just turn it around and say that "you're the real bigot" for not allowing them to discriminate and therefore your intolerance of discrimination is itself discrimination.

Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there. They aren't even using anything actually religious to prop up their "belief" that certain groups of people don't deserve rights just because they are who they are. A part of me almost wishes that THEY would start being the ones who are singled out just for existing, an ...


You're preaching to the choir buddy.
But also, you didn't seriously expect a response from that ass did you? You've been here for 5 years, surely you've seen him post this kind of shiat all over and then dodge any followups asking for elaboration or justification. He's just a GOP spout-box and ignorant god botherer.
As House would say, if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people. All they have is a feeling of what they think is right or wrong; a gut feeling, substantiated by nothing more than how they wish the world worked. They start with what they want or believe and then when asked to qualify they throw up the word "RELIGION" as an end all for arguments. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars, this conversation ends now because "RELIGION"  It's become some magical panacea for defending any belief no matter what that belief is. Racism,- RELIGION... bigotry - RELIGION.  beating your kids because you are a horrible person - RELIGION!  there is no theological backing to their beliefs, there is just a bizarrely evolving cultural attitude that when you say RELIGION  counter-arguments are invalid and explanations are unnecessary.
 
2014-03-07 07:01:29 PM

theknuckler_33: cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.

No different than serving blacks. Your arguments were no only wrong 50 years ago, they didn't work. And they are still wrong (and won't work) today. That is good and right.


that was communism. not being allowed to deny service to blacks, and race-mixing was the exact same thing as having a single sided government that owned all of the means of production and all property. If you weren't allowed to discriminate it meant that the government had removed all incentive to work hard and meritocracy from society, somehow.
 
2014-03-07 07:02:44 PM

theknuckler_33: You know what this thread needs?  Someone to post that gay steamroller pic.


the best thing is that comic has nothing to do with gays, it's all grammar.
 
2014-03-07 07:04:19 PM

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.


You can keep your goddamned respect princess. The law only says you don't get to be a bigoted farking dirtbag and refuse service to gays because of your pathetic bronze age superstitions. Respect that and you'll be just fine guy.
 
2014-03-07 07:10:13 PM

Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?


Why should anybody be upset at an imaginary construct potentially behaving like a spoiled child?
 
2014-03-07 07:19:40 PM
SkinnyHead:.

As a result of that Smith decision, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and many states followed suit by enacting state versions of that act.  Arizona is one of those states.  Arizona recognizes a religious defense for Native Americans who are prosecuted for using peyote as part of their religious ceremonies.  Toleration and accommodation of the sincerely held religious beliefs of others, when feasible, is certainly a more enlightened approach.



Bzzzzt... Sorry, still doesn't help because that law was overturned for state and local laws in Boerne v Flores.  Why you ask amiable?  Because the court felt it impinged on Congresses ability to enforce the 14th Amendment.  Whats the justification for allowing gay marriage ?  Oh, yeah, equal protection under the 14th amendment.
 
2014-03-07 07:25:55 PM

rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?

I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.

How did the New Testament "abolish" those issues?  Shellfish and mixed fabrics, along with a host of other ridiculous rules, are clearly enumerated in Leviticus, the same place that people get the rules ...


Since you claim to be a Christian, why don't you just use what Jesus Christ said about homosexuals as your guide?
 
2014-03-07 07:36:05 PM

menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.


Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
 
2014-03-07 07:38:47 PM

cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


That says they are bad and won't go to heaven. It doesn't say anything about judging them yourself or denying them service. Why do we not have the same controversy regarding idolators or adulterers?
 
2014-03-07 07:49:25 PM

give me doughnuts: rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?

I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.

How did the New Testament "abolish" those issues?  Shellfish and mixed fabrics, along with a host of other ridiculous rules, are clearly enumerated in Leviticus, the same place that people get ...


If you'd read what I wrote entirely, donuts, you'd see that I essentially have - I could not reconcile a loving kind and compassionate God and a merciful Christ His Son with the condemnation of homosexuality.  You're right - He doesn't say a thing about it in the Gospels, and that figured prominently in my change of heart.  Of course, he also said precious little about cheating people with Credit Default Swaps, and I'm pretty sure that's a sin too, so lack of words from Christ on the subject is not the be-all end-all.  When all is said and done, condemnation of someone for the way they were born is not compatible with a loving and merciful God, and that doctrine is way more important than anything else.  I hope I right.
 
2014-03-07 07:51:23 PM

Fafai: That says they are bad and won't go to heaven. It doesn't say anything about judging them yourself or denying them service. Why do we not have the same controversy regarding idolators or adulterers?


That was the other part of my disillusionment - for some reason Gay is way worse than cheating on your taxes, oppressing the poor, smoking, cheating on your wife ...
 
2014-03-07 07:53:31 PM

cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Thank you for providing your evidence! So, what you cite here provides evidence that gay people may not enter Heaven. Especially if they worship creatures, or something. Sounds to me like your big guy has it all covered, then - they're going to Hell. Now, where does it say that YOU have a right to treat them as subhumans and deny them rights allowed to others -you know, what I asked you to provide evidence for? The basis for discrimination? Or are we just saying that anybody condemned in the Bible is fair game for being treated differently than everyone else? Because THAT would be interesting, since it seems to cover pretty much everybody.
 
2014-03-07 07:55:00 PM

rwhamann: Fafai: That says they are bad and won't go to heaven. It doesn't say anything about judging them yourself or denying them service. Why do we not have the same controversy regarding idolators or adulterers?

That was the other part of my disillusionment - for some reason Gay is way worse than cheating on your taxes, oppressing the poor, smoking, cheating on your wife ...


Notice they ignore everything except the parts that they imagine to support their completely non-religious-based biases.
 
2014-03-07 07:58:02 PM
Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.
 
2014-03-07 08:10:33 PM

cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.


Okay, then! So, when do we start removing rights of addicts and adulterers, then?! This could be fun! Should we jail them, execute them or what do you think?! I mean, that book right there contains a couple of passages that tangentially reference those people, among a few thousand other passages I'm ignoring - but it's totally not based on my personal prejudices or anything. Goody, this is gonna be fun!
 
2014-03-07 08:13:11 PM

cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.


It's amusing how you have to tie yourself in logical knots to justify being a bigot.
 
2014-03-07 08:28:08 PM

cchris_39: Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners.


What's a "sin" is in the eye of the beholder. So you're telling me they expect all people to conform to the rules of their religion even if they don't belong to that religion. That is not what Religious Freedom means. It's kind of the opposite actually.
 
2014-03-07 08:28:47 PM

theknuckler_33: cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.

It's amusing how you have to tie yourself in logical knots to justify being a bigot.


What is this? Bible trivia night?

Eph 5:11. Romans 1:32
 
2014-03-07 08:36:24 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: You're preaching to the choir buddy.
But also, you didn't seriously expect a response from that ass did you? You've been here for 5 years, surely you've seen him post this kind of shiat all over and then dodge any followups asking for elaboration or justification. He's just a GOP spout-box and ignorant god botherer.
As House would say, if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people. All they have is a feeling of what they think is right or wrong; a gut feeling, substantiated by nothing more than how they wish the world worked. They start with what they want or believe and then when asked to qualify they throw up the word "RELIGION" as an end all for arguments. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars, this conversation ends now because "RELIGION"  It's become some magical panacea for defending any belief no matter what that belief is. Racism,- RELIGION... bigotry - RELIGION.  beating your kids because you are a horrible person - RELIGION!  there is no theological backing to their beliefs, there is just a bizarrely evolving cultural attitude that when you say RELIGION  counter-arguments are invalid and explanations are unnecessary.


I couldn't have put that any better than you did.

You're right, too, about arguing with people like this. They have no logic or rational reasoning. They'd gleefully start believing that 2+2=5 if their book said that was true (assuming they chose not to ignore that part, anyway...). It makes me so sad that we have to share a planet with these people. Having said that, I still would never support giving them fewer rights than others because of it, and I'd still serve this jerk in a shop if the situation were to arise like that. They'd better hope they never end up getting treated like they insist on treating all these other people their "religion" deems to be sub-human, because in many ways one could argue that they've actually earned the mistreatment given what they've done to others in the past. Thanks and g'nite!
 
2014-03-07 08:38:06 PM

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.

It's amusing how you have to tie yourself in logical knots to justify being a bigot.

What is this? Bible trivia night?

Eph 5:11. Romans 1:32


Still not seeing anything about not having to associate with such people for business purposes. Unless you're claiming to run heaven as your private business. This all has to do with wether these people are saved, not wether they should be treated as equal human beings in this life. Are you claiming to be the authority on who gets to be saved? Isn't that in itself blasphemy?

Also even if the bible did say not to serve gays, who gives a fark. The bible is not the law. You should be happy knowing you'll be safe in heaven after all this is over. If you had any real faith in that, the here and now wouldn't really be an issue. You'd happily go to jail knowing all would be right in the end. Or conversely, you'd happily associate with gay people and sinners freely in the chance that you'll lead them to salvation through kindness and showing them the way to the light or whatever. This really shouldn't bother you at all if you have any real convictions regarding your faith.
 
2014-03-07 08:40:50 PM

cchris_39: Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.


Then leave.  How hard is that?
 
2014-03-07 08:53:00 PM

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.

It's amusing how you have to tie yourself in logical knots to justify being a bigot.

What is this? Bible trivia night?


No, it's "bigots trying to hide behind scripture night".
 
2014-03-07 08:54:03 PM

cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Please cite your source that these are the actual instructions of Yahweh and not the work of the assholes who wrote it, the Devil, a different God, or any other supernatural being.
 
2014-03-07 08:59:19 PM

menschenfresser: Uchiha_Cycliste: You're preaching to the choir buddy.
But also, you didn't seriously expect a response from that ass did you? You've been here for 5 years, surely you've seen him post this kind of shiat all over and then dodge any followups asking for elaboration or justification. He's just a GOP spout-box and ignorant god botherer.
As House would say, if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people. All they have is a feeling of what they think is right or wrong; a gut feeling, substantiated by nothing more than how they wish the world worked. They start with what they want or believe and then when asked to qualify they throw up the word "RELIGION" as an end all for arguments. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars, this conversation ends now because "RELIGION"  It's become some magical panacea for defending any belief no matter what that belief is. Racism,- RELIGION... bigotry - RELIGION.  beating your kids because you are a horrible person - RELIGION!  there is no theological backing to their beliefs, there is just a bizarrely evolving cultural attitude that when you say RELIGION  counter-arguments are invalid and explanations are unnecessary.

I couldn't have put that any better than you did.

You're right, too, about arguing with people like this. They have no logic or rational reasoning. They'd gleefully start believing that 2+2=5 if their book said that was true (assuming they chose not to ignore that part, anyway...). It makes me so sad that we have to share a planet with these people. Having said that, I still would never support giving them fewer rights than others because of it, and I'd still serve this jerk in a shop if the situation were to arise like that. They'd better hope they never end up getting treated like they insist on treating all these other people their "religion" deems to be sub-human, because in many ways one could argue that they've actually earned the mistreatment given what they've done to others in the ...


The real consolation in this situation is that I believe it's really a generational problem and I expect to see enormous demographic shifts between now and when I'm old and creaky. I just don't expect the kids who are kids today to place such stock in RELIGION in the near and far future as those who grew up during WWII and the Cold War. I'm really quite excited and I think the internet, cell phones and the communication of information and ideas are a major player in these shifts. I think it's generational and I think each passing generation will find less to blindly believe from religion.
 
2014-03-07 09:03:11 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: The real consolation in this situation is that I believe it's really a generational problem and I expect to see enormous demographic shifts between now and when I'm old and creaky. I just don't expect the kids who are kids today to place such stock in RELIGION in the near and far future as those who grew up during WWII and the Cold War. I'm really quite excited and I think the internet, cell phones and the communication of information and ideas are a major player in these shifts. I think it's generational and I think each passing generation will find less to blindly believe from religion.


But then things will have changed so that our sensibilities make us the terrible dinosaurs of the future. People will be waiting for us to die off too. It's why that I wonder/worry about.
 
2014-03-07 09:13:10 PM

Fafai: Uchiha_Cycliste: The real consolation in this situation is that I believe it's really a generational problem and I expect to see enormous demographic shifts between now and when I'm old and creaky. I just don't expect the kids who are kids today to place such stock in RELIGION in the near and far future as those who grew up during WWII and the Cold War. I'm really quite excited and I think the internet, cell phones and the communication of information and ideas are a major player in these shifts. I think it's generational and I think each passing generation will find less to blindly believe from religion.

But then things will have changed so that our sensibilities make us the terrible dinosaurs of the future. People will be waiting for us to die off too. It's why that I wonder/worry about.


I figure as long as we aren't assholes, hateful or exclusionary we have nothing to worry about. I mean, it goes without saying that we had the best taste in music and movies and the golden age on television is now, but those firm beliefs should have no bearing on future generations hating us. And admit it, it will be badass hearing Gangsta Paradise in the nursing home.
 
2014-03-07 09:19:00 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

Came here to say this exact same thing.

Funny thing is, I actually prefer that people be more open about their bigotry.  It makes it a lot easier to avoid them.

Same with gay people. Some are rather obvious about it, and are therefore easy to avoid. Whereas others aren't noticeably gay and there is no way to immediately recognize that they are. Maybe they are single despite being reasonable looking and successful, maybe they dont like sports as much as regular guys do, maybe they don't ogle women or make off color comments, etc., so you can speculate that they are gay but you can't really tell.

I know this makes me sound bigoted to those here who are intolerant of those who aren't PC, but it is really aggravating when you meet a gay person who seems outwardly normal and doesn't make it apparent that he's gay.

You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


It must be hard work to be this farkin stupid.
 
2014-03-07 09:26:44 PM
What's so amusing about this 'marriage' debate is that one side deserves what it is getting, while the other is getting what it doesn't deserve.

The Christians who invited the State into the marriage arena in an attempt to socially engineer opened the door to this. Rule #1 is simple. Never, ever, invite the State to regulate, encourage, discourage, or otherwise involve itself in anything. You will invite destruction to the institution. Marriage was fine before the religious people attempted to coerce people into religious life by offering State-given benefits. They initiated a process that sullied marriage by making it a business transaction rather than a promise made before the Creator to conduct one's spiritual and reproductive life in a manner consistent with teachings.

The proponents of gay favoritism under the so-called 'marriage' law are not for equality, but they wish to be granted the same favorable status. Imagine if Martin Luther King led marches for civil rights to make blacks equal under the law to whites, but not for Latino or Asian people. The underlying inequality still exists: why are people who choose to enter in a 'marriage' given preferential treatment over people who stay single? Why can't two single people, best friends, enter into a contract that allows for visitation at the hospital, power of attorney, etc.?

There's not a single reason for the State to grant favorable status to people who enter into a specific type of contract over those who do not. End all 'marriage' benefits from the State so the institution can heal.
 
2014-03-07 09:28:13 PM

Ed Grubermann: Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?

God has to exist in order to smite anything. Evidence for such a being is sorely lacking. So, no. It doesn't bother me.


His smiter isn't as precise as the movies make out, you know.  You see John Travolta as an archangel smiting a bank, and sure, that looks cute.  But in reality, getting smited might well mean getting hit by a Manhattan sized rock.  A Manhattan sized rock that was drawn here by gaydar.
 
2014-03-07 09:47:17 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.


I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.
 
2014-03-07 10:11:32 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.


I'll look for it, thanks. I know we have dante and the Renaissance to thank for many of our thoughts on Satan but that's about it.
 
2014-03-07 10:16:04 PM

jpbreon: What's so amusing about this 'marriage' debate is that one side deserves what it is getting, while the other is getting what it doesn't deserve.

The Christians who invited the State into the marriage arena in an attempt to socially engineer opened the door to this. Rule #1 is simple. Never, ever, invite the State to regulate, encourage, discourage, or otherwise involve itself in anything. You will invite destruction to the institution. Marriage was fine before the religious people attempted to coerce people into religious life by offering State-given benefits. They initiated a process that sullied marriage by making it a business transaction rather than a promise made before the Creator to conduct one's spiritual and reproductive life in a manner consistent with teachings.

The proponents of gay favoritism under the so-called 'marriage' law are not for equality, but they wish to be granted the same favorable status. Imagine if Martin Luther King led marches for civil rights to make blacks equal under the law to whites, but not for Latino or Asian people. The underlying inequality still exists: why are people who choose to enter in a 'marriage' given preferential treatment over people who stay single? Why can't two single people, best friends, enter into a contract that allows for visitation at the hospital, power of attorney, etc.?

There's not a single reason for the State to grant favorable status to people who enter into a specific type of contract over those who do not. End all 'marriage' benefits from the State so the institution can heal.


Umm...
 
2014-03-07 10:48:39 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.

I'll look for it, thanks. I know we have dante and the Renaissance to thank for many of our thoughts on Satan but that's about it.


Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.

I'll look for it, thanks. I know we have dante and the Renaissance to thank for many of our thoughts on Satan but that's about it.


Do, Jesus leaving the cave after being on a cross is an allegory for enlightenment basically.I've yet to read The Gospel of Thomas but I hear it features a lot of that near Buddhist thinking. Fun stuff really.
 
2014-03-07 11:53:10 PM

cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


guycodeblog.mtv.com

Dude are you for real quoting the bible?
 
2014-03-07 11:58:23 PM

ScaryBottles: cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[guycodeblog.mtv.com image 450x253]

Dude are you for real quoting the bible?


In his defense I believe people my have been asking for passages that demonstrate how gay rights would be an infringement on one's religious freedom. I could be wrong there have been so many of these threads.
 
2014-03-08 12:05:14 AM

Fafai: ScaryBottles: cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[guycodeblog.mtv.com image 450x253]

Dude are you for real quoting the bible?

In his defense I believe people my have been asking for passages that demonstrate how gay rights would be an infringement on one's religious freedom. I could be wrong there have been so many of these threads.


That doesn't strike you as kind of a trick to make him look stupid? Because it worked. The barfing gif is just the beginning.
 
2014-03-08 12:14:47 AM

ScaryBottles: That doesn't strike you as kind of a trick to make him look stupid?


Oh yeah of course he's going to look stupid. I don't really think it's a trick to make anyone look stupid. I think it's someone naturally looking stupid on their own. Providing someone a chance to support their claims isn't much of a trap. The ball was in his court and he blew it because he can't even be honest with himself about why he feels the way he feels.
 
2014-03-08 03:04:36 AM
It amazes me there are still people who think "you're intolerant of my intolerance!" is a an argument that should be taken seriously.
 
2014-03-08 05:27:08 AM

jpbreon: What's so amusing about this 'marriage' debate is that one side deserves what it is getting, while the other is getting what it doesn't deserve.

The Christians who invited the State into the marriage arena in an attempt to socially engineer opened the door to this. Rule #1 is simple. Never, ever, invite the State to regulate, encourage, discourage, or otherwise involve itself in anything. You will invite destruction to the institution. Marriage was fine before the religious people attempted to coerce people into religious life by offering State-given benefits. They initiated a process that sullied marriage by making it a business transaction rather than a promise made before the Creator to conduct one's spiritual and reproductive life in a manner consistent with teachings.

The proponents of gay favoritism under the so-called 'marriage' law are not for equality, but they wish to be granted the same favorable status. Imagine if Martin Luther King led marches for civil rights to make blacks equal under the law to whites, but not for Latino or Asian people. The underlying inequality still exists: why are people who choose to enter in a 'marriage' given preferential treatment over people who stay single? Why can't two single people, best friends, enter into a contract that allows for visitation at the hospital, power of attorney, etc.?

There's not a single reason for the State to grant favorable status to people who enter into a specific type of contract over those who do not. End all 'marriage' benefits from the State so the institution can heal.


I hate to puncture your Libertarian fantasy world, but marriage has carried legal implications in almost every society for the past 3000 years.  Inheritance, line of secession, household decisions making, these were standard since ancient Rome and probably earlier. Acting like state regulation of marriage is a new thing or that "religion ruined marriage" presupposes a time when marriage was an unregulated legal contract.  That time never existed.
 
2014-03-08 10:58:38 AM

amiable: for the past 3000 years


What are you, a creationist?
 
2014-03-08 11:10:49 AM

Aaron Haynes: It amazes me there are still people who think "you're intolerant of my intolerance!" is a an argument that should be taken seriously.


Not just taken seriously, it's practically a core political principle for them.  I have seen people make the excuse that BECAUSE gays/minorities/women are so "in your face" it gives them the right to keep discriminating.  If everyone weren't so "uppity" then all kinds of tolerance would break out!
 
2014-03-08 11:58:33 AM

what_now: SkinnyHead: Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

If your region interferes with your job, get a new religion or a new job.  This isn't hard.


Gay marriage may be a relatively new thing - but "sinful/wrong marriage" is not.

From a hardcore fundagelical Christian point of view, Hindu weddings, Muslim weddings, Catholic weddings, Mormon weddings, weddings between atheists (etc.etc.etc.) are evil... [this isn't a post about how stupid they are for thinking they're evil...  they do. many of them. 'tis fact]

My question is this: How did those companies (which are now complaining about not being able to discriminate against gays) handle working/not working all these evil wedding ceremonies?


This is a legitimate question, because in a broader sense this is not at all a new issue - religious folk who run businesses that have to do with weddings have a whole plethora of 'wedding types' that would make them uncomfortable / that they think are of the devil... Anybody know that side of the issue has been dealth with in the past?
 
2014-03-08 12:27:59 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


OK - I'll bite.  No -provided that their religious beliefs consist SOLELY of the one rule that they can't be involved in same-sex weddings in any way.  As that religion has never existed, then your questions is moot.

But what about religious sects that INCLUDE such a rule amongst other rules?   Then the wedding photographer has to apply ALL of the rules in the same manner.

SO for Christians, that means they would have to refuse ANY wedding where one of the participants is a) not heterosexual; b) divorced; c) not Christian (and strictly speaking not of the same Christian sect as the photographer), etc.   If your beliefs include Levitican law then all those apply too.

The photographer would have to require that ANY POTENTIAL CLIENT fill out a questionnaire, and possibly get it notarized BEFORE any business could take place, up to and including and consultations ABOUT what that business might entail.

They'd also have to show that they ALSO run their business based on their religious beliefs with NON-CUSTOMER interactions as well:  choice of suppliers, equipment, B2B retailers, etc.  (Good luck getting a computer, and hooking it up to the Internet, but hey - computers aren't in the Bible anyway.)

At that point they MIGHT be able to successfully argue that their business decisions are based completely on their religious beliefs to the degree where it would be absolutely necessary to continue to do so.
 
Displayed 315 of 315 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report