Florist who wouldn't sell flowers to gay couple loses big!

[formergothardite]

Why should we follow a ethical belief system that encourages discrimination and says that sex between two consenting adults is as bad a murder? If I had to choose between consensual sex or my loved one getting murdered, I am pretty sure I'm going with the sex. CND, do you really think consensual sex is as bad as murder? Is that why you treated rape and the Holocaust so casually?

[ShesCrafty]

You're wrong, but whatever, think what you like.

How, exactly, am I wrong? I said:

There were many Christians who fought against racial discrimination,

I was actually agreeing with you on this one

just like there are Christians today that fight for gay rights.

They even have websites! http://www.believeoutloud.com

And a Facebook page! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christia ... 8651159571

Your arguments in this thread show you would have been one of the Christians that made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.

Here are some of the things you have written:

"Because I fundamentally still believe that the old laws, on the books for hundreds of years, and backed by some passages of Scripture, are correct"

"I actually don't hate them [homosexuals]"

"If a sodomite couple comes to me and doesn't shove it in my face and buys a bouquet of flowers they get the flowers. If they shove it in my face and say that they want to have a "wedding" for their "marriage" - and yes, those things are being re-defined right now - then I don't really want to take part in it. Not because it really, really defiles me, but because I believe it is wrong and against nature (Romans 1) and don't believe that it's a positive thing for our society."

"I'm not saying I can't live with them, I'm not saying they can't live next door, I'm not saying I won't eat with them, I'm not calling for their execution, I even said I'd sell to them provided they weren't trying to shove it in my face. I'm saying I don't believe that anyone should force another to participate in something that they fundamentally disagree with for whatever reason."

They are the EXACT SAME ONES used to justify racial discrimination.

This is what formergothardite shared earlier in the thread as an example of how religion was used to discriminate against blacks, just like you are using it to discriminate against gays:

Good evening, my name is the Reverend Dr. Phil Snider. I was born and raised in Springfield, Missouri. And I stand before you this evening in support of this ordinance.

I worry about the future of our city. Any accurate reading of the bible should make it clear that gay rights goes against the plain truth of the word of god. As one preacher warns, man and overstepping the boundary lines god has drawn by making special rights for gays and lesbians has taken another step in the direction of inviting the judgment of god upon our land.

This step of gay rights is but another stepping stone toward the immorality and lawlessness that will be characteristic of the last days.

This ordinance represents a denial of all that we believe in and no one should force it on us. It’s not that we don’t care about homosexuals. But it’s that our rights will be taken away, and unchristian views will be forced on us and our children. For we would be forced to go against our personal morals. Outside government agents are endeavoring to disturb god’s established order. It is not in line with the bible – do not let people lead you astray.

The liberals leading this movement do not believe in the bible any longer. But every good, substantial, bible believing, intelligent, orthodox christian can read the word of god and know what is happening is not of god. When you run into conflict with god’s established order you have trouble. You do not produce harmony. You produce destruction and trouble and our city is in the greatest danger that it has have ever been in, in its history. The reason is that we have gotten away from the bible of our forefathers.

You see the right of segregation I’m sorry, hold on.

The right of segregation… is clearly established by the holy scriptures, both by precept and example.

I’m sorry I brought the wrong notes with me this evening. I borrowed my argument from the wrong century. It turns out what I’ve been reading to you this whole time are direct quotes from white preachers from the 1950s and 1960s, all in support of racial segregation. All I have done is simply taken out the phrase racial integration and substituted with the phrase gay rights.

I guess the arguments I’ve been hearing around Springfield lately sounded so similar to these that I got them confused. I hope you will not make the same mistake. I hope you will stand on the right side of history. Thank you.

See the similarities??

You were just born 50 years too late

I may be wrong on this one, as I don't actually know how old you are. I just assumed (hoped) by the way you are acting that you are young. Very young.

[CloakNDagger]

It's getting hard to answer all of the questions. My responses in Bold.

You probably wouldn't have simply because you are now on the side of people who want to use religion for discrimination. Still leaves the question of why are you the special snowflake that gets to use religion to discriminate? You trump other religious people?

Being Black, or part of the curse of Ham (those two really aren't necessarily the same thing, anyway), which is widely disputed in Christian circles, was never a crime, or a reason to treat them as sub-human, and definitely never had a civil punishment allotted to it in the Bible. Anyone who argues otherwise has a very steep hill to climb. Even in the OT there was a strong repetition of the admonition to be kind to the stranger and foreigner in your midst. That's why in the current political scheme I'm generally pro some form of amnesty for folks, as opposed to the stupid Republican masses in most churches that want to seal off the border. OTOH, I do have Constitutional protection prohibiting the Federal Government from prohibiting the free exercise of my religion. That I believe means that I can worship God as I believe I am supposed to. That would include following my conscience, as it follows what I understand the Bible to say.

Luckily there are plenty of Christians who are fighting for gay equality. They will be remembered as the good guys, you will be in the same category as the people who defended segregation.

So lesbians are cool with you as long as they don't have anal sex? And I really want to know, if something doesn't hurt anyone, why is it a sin? Think about that. And again, why do you get to use your religious beliefs to discriminate against a group while others cannot?

You might have me on the lesbian thing, so I might have to broaden my own definition, but I do believe it is same-gender sexual activity that is referred to. On the second question - if someone doesn't hurt anyone, why is it a sin? - Well, why is coveting wrong (in the Ten Commandments)? Coveting doesn't hurt anyone, either, although it can lead to that. There isn't a civil punishment for coveting, there is for sodomy.

You don't, but other people do not feel that way. Why do you get to use your religion to discriminate while they cannot?

their religion is indefensible by reasonable interpretation of the book they claim to follow

What about people whose religion makes them feel this exact same way about serving mixed raced couples or having white and black people mix? This isn't about your opinion on the subject it is about why you get to use your religion to justify discrimination while saying others are wrong for doing the exact same thing.

Well, if someone's religion told them to murder (Cult of Kali - I think?) it would still be wrong.

I want you to please explain to me why two consenting adults who are in a life-long, committed relationship are like incest and rape.

I didn't say they were exactly alike, I said that they were in the category of laws intended for everyone.

Context and original language is important when reading these verses. Especially if you are going to use them to justify discrimination.

I agree. Are you saying you know the original language and context better than 1900 years of scholars who for most of that time have believed that they understood Sodomy to be criminal activity?

So rather like the black activist I posted about earlier. They knew they were going places that did not want them and where the owners would have to violate their beliefs to serve them, but they went anyway. Do you think these guys were wrong to force people to violate their beliefs so that they could sit at the white only tables? If not, why do you get to use your religion to justify discrimination while the white people in the 50's and 60's couldn't? They felt as deeply about their beliefs as you do.

So do some murderers, child molesters, etc... I support black activists, I don't support murderer activists, or sodomites.

Think deep here. It is going to be hard, but worth it. Explain in detail how two consenting adults who are married and love each other having sex is just like murdering someone. How it is even in the same category? You are not allowed to fall back on "God said it" you have to think for yourself and tell us how it hurts people as much as adultery and murder.

It's not JUST like it, but it was in the same category of punishment.

There are people who believed and still believe that God created the world and set up rules for the universe and they deeply feel like segregation is one of those rules. Your opinion on the subject is not need or relevant, your explanation of why you get to use religion to discriminate and they can't is.

You know, I'm getting tired of that. I can find lots, and I mean tons of reasons why the segregationists clearly couldn't read their Bible straight. Whatever they did under color of religion was just outright bigotry and twisting of non-definitive text. The sodomy deal, not so much at this point.

[CloakNDagger]

I'm sorry Mr CnD. I still do not understand why I, an American, that pays taxes without complaint and always votes and supports my government, has to follow YOUR bible, which I do not believe in. I really want to understand. Am I not an American?

Do you want a logical answer to that, or can it be incoherent?

[formergothardite]

It doesn't really matter why you think they are wrong, you are just avoiding answering the question, which is, why do you get to use your deeply held religious beliefs to discriminate and others cannot?

There are plenty of Christians who feel like you are the one reading your Bible wrong.

[KittenMitten]

Again, Mr CnD. You are digging a deep hole for yourself. If I were you I'd stop. You sound foolish and have lost almost all credibility. But I think people here on Free Jinger are very open minded and have given you numerous chances to explain your beliefs. As for myself, a proud, tax paying American, why do I have to follow the rules from YOUR holy book?

[formergothardite]

I realized after I left fundamental Christianity that what the Bible clearly says is right and wrong changes with what society views as right and wrong. Fifty+ years ago it wasn't uncommon for people to read the Bible and be able to clearly say that segregation is God's law. Before that people could read the Bible and clearly see that women voting and having rights was against God's law. Before that people could read the Bible and clearly see that slavery was God's law. And in the future I strongly suspect that people will clearly see that the Bible is not against homosexuality. Society changes how people view the Bible. This is super clear once you leave fundamental Christianity.

[KittenMitten]

:evil:

Do you want a logical answer to that, or can it be incoherent?

Logical would be useful. Since you are trying to prove a point. I really am trying to understand where you are coming from.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip) You know, I'm getting tired of that. I can find lots, and I mean tons of reasons why the segregationists clearly couldn't read their Bible straight. Whatever they did under color of religion was just outright bigotry and twisting of non-definitive text. The sodomy deal, not so much at this point.

And yet you once defended slavery: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21996&start=160

[CloakNDagger]

Discrimination

Houghton Mifflin

n.noun

The act of discriminating.

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

Source: Yahoo Link

I'm going to say that I believe we're primarily talking about the last definition, although the other definitions are also being loosely used here at times.

It doesn't really matter why you think they are wrong, you are just avoiding answering the question, which is, why do you get to use your deeply held religious beliefs to discriminate and others cannot?

There are plenty of Christians who feel like you are the one reading your Bible wrong.

Gotcha, but can they prove it?

I see where you are going with your first question. Let me try a couple of different responses.

1. It's your belief that it I should not be allowed to discriminate. Is that not a form of discrimination as well? Isn't this whole topic in relation to me about the fact that you would discriminate, or choose to subject to censure and punishment, all those (Christians, or those of other religions or beliefs) who do not want to engage in trade with another person as a personal choice? So, if I'm saying I believe that it's a crime to commit sodomy, you're saying it's a crime to discriminate, right?

2. Is punishing murderers also a form of discrimination? Isn't it a determination that they as a class are all worthy of punishment?

3. I don't believe anyone should be allowed to discriminate for anything that is something they were born with. And yeah, I know some people are trying to prove that homosexuality is genetic. I still believe it is a life choice, not genetic, and it's going to take some effort to prove that to me otherwise. So Blacks, Chinese, Whites, Hispanics, etc... albinos, Pygmies in Australia, Downs Syndrome, all of those it is wrong to discriminate against as a class. Things people choose to do, I think most people do discriminate for or against and that's not entirely unethical.

[CloakNDagger]

And yet you once defended slavery: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21996&start=160

I was for a peaceful resolution like England, if possible. I think I later conceded that maybe it wasn't possible

[twin2]

. Is punishing murderers also a form of discrimination? Isn't it a determination that they as a class are all worthy of punishment?

:head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk:

[ShesCrafty]

You know, I'm getting tired of that. I can find lots, and I mean tons of reasons why the segregationists clearly couldn't read their Bible straight. Whatever they did under color of religion was just outright bigotry and twisting of non-definitive text. The sodomy deal, not so much at this point.

A child born into your brand of religion today is going to grow up in a world where gays have equal rights just like black people do. And they will think it's wrong that people would discriminate against gays fifty years ago, just like the people (including you) who grew up after the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s do today. And whatever group of people is fighting for equal rights in the future (let's say transgender people), that child who was born today in similar circumstances as you will be saying:

"You know, I'm getting tired of that. I can find lots, and I mean tons of reasons why the gay rights opponents clearly couldn't read their Bible straight. Whatever they did under color of religion was just outright bigotry and twisting of non-definitive text. The transgender deal, not so much at this point."

[CloakNDagger]

:head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk:

That's a question, not a statement.

[CloakNDagger]

A child born into your brand of religion today is going to grow up in a world where gays have equal rights just like black people do. And they will think it's wrong that people would discriminate against gays fifty years ago, just like the people (including you) who grew up after the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s do today. And whatever group of people is fighting for equal rights in the future (let's say transgender people), that child who was born today in similar circumstances as you will be able to say:

"You know, I'm getting tired of that. I can find lots, and I mean tons of reasons why the gay rights opponents clearly couldn't read their Bible straight. Whatever they did under color of religion was just outright bigotry and twisting of non-definitive text. The transgender deal, not so much at this point."

So their Bible is going to read differently? The text supported my position in the 1800s regarding slavery, too, they just didn't want to see it that way. So tell ya what, you start helping me see how my understanding of the text is wrong, and I'll be a lot further along.

[twin2]

That's a question, not a statement.

Well then....

:head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk: :head-desk:

[KittenMitten]

Discrimination

Houghton Mifflin

n.noun

The act of discriminating.

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

Source: Yahoo Link

I'm going to say that I believe we're primarily talking about the last definition, although the other definitions are also being loosely used here at times.

Gotcha, but can they prove it?

I see where you are going with your first question. Let me try a couple of different responses.

1. It's your belief that it I should not be allowed to discriminate. Is that not a form of discrimination as well? Isn't this whole topic in relation to me about the fact that you would discriminate, or choose to subject to censure and punishment, all those (Christians, or those of other religions or beliefs) who do not want to engage in trade with another person as a personal choice? So, if I'm saying I believe that it's a crime to commit sodomy, you're saying it's a crime to discriminate, right?

2. Is punishing murderers also a form of discrimination? Isn't it a determination that they as a class are all worthy of punishment?

3. I don't believe anyone should be allowed to discriminate for anything that is something they were born with. And yeah, I know some people are trying to prove that homosexuality is genetic. I still believe it is a life choice, not genetic, and it's going to take some effort to prove that to me otherwise. So Blacks, Chinese, Whites, Hispanics, etc... albinos, Pygmies in Australia, Downs Syndrome, all of those it is wrong to discriminate against as a class. Things people choose to do, I think most people do discriminate for or against and that's not entirely unethical.

I really do wish you could understand. I am sad for you. You don't have empathy or a heart. It must be so lonely to be you. I hope you can find your way to being human.

[formergothardite]

I have read lots about Romans 1 since leaving fundamentalism and Christianity and it seems pretty clear that it isn't a cut and dry as anti-gay Christians want people to believe. Reading that chapter and blocking out all the things I had been told it said and taking the context of the time/place/people he was writing it to makes it say an entirely different thing. It seems clear that he is talking about people who had left the faith to join another religion, one that involved religious sex. God eventually gave up on them and they forgot the teachings of God and became all around bad people.

You know CND, you have had to resort back into the classic racists arguments. This should concern you. They claim it is discrimination against them that they can't discriminate against black people. So is it?

Punishing a murder happens because they harmed someone. Gay couples are harming no one. To try and claim that that is discrimination shows how you really can't defend your discrimination and are now grasping at straws.

People aren't born Christian. Can we discriminate against them? Let's say you are the minority and nobody will let you shop anywhere. That is okay with you? What about people who choose to marry someone of another race. That is a choice. Can they be discriminated against by someone whose religion says that is wrong?

So consensual sex or having a loved one murdered? Which one would you pick?

[ShesCrafty]

So their Bible is going to read differently? The text supported my position in the 1800s regarding slavery, too, they just didn't want to see it that way. So tell ya what, you start helping me see how my understanding of the text is wrong, and I'll be a lot further along.

See FormerGothardite's post up above on how the bible reads differently to different people at different times. She explains it quite well. Why do you think your interpretation of the bible is so right and a racist's interpretation so wrong? Why do you think you are the special one that finally got it right after 2,000 years?

[KittenMitten]

:evil:

Logical would be useful. Since you are trying to prove a point. I really am trying to understand where you are coming from.

Not to nag, but I am waiting for your coherent or incoherent answer why I, as American as I presume you are, have to follow your bible rather than my beliefs which follow the Golden Rule.

[formergothardite]

So their Bible is going to read differently? The text supported my position in the 1800s regarding slavery, too, they just didn't want to see it that way. So tell ya what, you start helping me see how my understanding of the text is wrong, and I'll be a lot further along.

I really hope you are being honest and truly are interested but if you aren't perhaps others will read it and learn something. Anyway, you said earlier that you stick with the Old Laws that have serious punishments like death and that is why you drop most of the OT laws but keep others. So a woman has sex as a teen, just once, she regrets it, finds a man who she dearly loves, but is ashamed of her past, so she keeps it a secret. They get married, he finds out that she wasn't really a virgin. According to the OT she needs to be killed. I'm not sure if you are up for stoning the gays to death, but I'm assuming you would punish this woman as severely as you would punish a person who murdered someone. True. If not, why?

A woman you know is engaged to get married, she is raped, how would you punish the rapists?

A woman you know is not engaged, she gets raped, how would you punish the rapists? If you are going with the OT, this rapists should receive a fairly light punishment while the other person should be killed. Is this one of those laws you are sticking to or do you think both rapists should be treated the same? Why or why not?

What about people like me? I speak against God and debate people about it. In the OT I should be killed. Do you agree with this?

Answer these and we will continue on with this. I explained Romans 1 to you in another post.

[samurai_sarah]

I was for a peaceful resolution like England, if possible. I think I later conceded that maybe it wasn't possible

You were, and are, disregarding human rights.

[formergothardite]

I am pretty sure that there are more verses in the Bible that support slavery than there are that discuss homosexuality. CND, your culture is why you read the Bible and don't see it as supporting slavery and it is why you read the Bible and see it as being strongly anti-gay. If you had been raised in a culture that was accepting of gay people, you would not see the Bible that way. Your treatment of rape, Holocaust and murder doesn't make me think that at this moment you are willing to put aside your prejudice against gay people and read the Bible with an open mind, but maybe one day you will.

People who are not anti-gay can read the Bible and see it this way.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... dence.html

You have been trained to read the Bible and only see it in one light, just like people in the past were taught to only see the slavery parts of it.

[ViolaSebastian]

You were, and are, disregarding human rights.

As someone who was shocked by some of the things you were saying in that thread, and took you to task for it, you never conceded my point.

And phew...this thread took the fast train to Crazytown with stops in Blatant Homophobia and Questionable Exegesis. :pink-shock: The last time I read it was when it had two or three posts that were positive. I should have known something was up when it jumped to so many pages.

[church_of_dog]

1. It's your belief that it I should not be allowed to discriminate. Is that not a form of discrimination as well?

No one has said you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. What has been said is that you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in certain specific situations. It's only in those certain specific situations that discrimination is an issue, legally speaking. "Is that not a form of discrimination as well?" Yes, it sure is. It's a kind that's ok, though.

Isn't this whole topic in relation to me about the fact that you would discriminate, or choose to subject to censure and punishment, all those (Christians, or those of other religions or beliefs) who do not want to engage in trade with another person as a personal choice?

Nope. Only those who want to engage in trade with some people but not others, based on whether or not they fit into a protected class.

So, if I'm saying I believe that it's a crime to commit sodomy, you're saying it's a crime to discriminate, right?

You are free to believe that anything is a crime. Of course, what actually is or isn't a crime isn't up to each of us based on our beliefs -- it's written into our laws (in the US and most other countries, at least). However, assuming that you meant to say that you believe it's *wrong* to commit sodomy, you are again welcome to think sodomy is *wrong*. You are welcome to decide not to be friends with anyone who engages in sodomy. What you are NOT free to do, legally, is to establish yourself as someone who offers a product or service to the general public except for certain people, when your criteria for who you exclude is whether or not those people are members of a protected class.

Starting to get the picture now about protected class? You can choose to refuse service to someone because they are rude to you, because politeness is not a protected class. But you cannot choose to offer your service or product to some people but not to others, if the deciding factor is whether they belong to a protected class. You don't have to agree about whether the protected classes are the right ones -- the law has said what those are. (although as others have pointed out, as time marches on, we look back in shame and embarrassment to earlier decades when discrimination that seemed acceptable then appears so ridiculous and inappropriate now. There is no reason to think that dynamic won't continue in the future.)

2. Is punishing murderers also a form of discrimination? Isn't it a determination that they as a class are all worthy of punishment?

You bet it is. Being a murderer is not a protected class. You can refuse to do business with someone because they are a murderer, yes you can. But you can't refuse to do business with that very same murderer because of their membership in a protected class.

3. I don't believe anyone should be allowed to discriminate for anything that is something they were born with. And yeah, I know some people are trying to prove that homosexuality is genetic. I still believe it is a life choice, not genetic, and it's going to take some effort to prove that to me otherwise. So Blacks, Chinese, Whites, Hispanics, etc... albinos, Pygmies in Australia, Downs Syndrome, all of those it is wrong to discriminate against as a class. Things people choose to do, I think most people do discriminate for or against and that's not entirely unethical.

Your beliefs are mildly interesting. The idea that you, as a not-gay person (presumably), presumes to know how a gay person feels about the source of their sexual orientation, whether it's genetic or not, is somehow both astoundingly arrogant and ridiculously irrelevant all at the same time. And yet, since you are bringing up the issue of judging someone based not on who they inherently are but instead for their actions or behavior, let me point out to you that the couple buying flowers in the analogy upthread (as well as the actual couple in the lawsuit) -- unless that couple is engaging in a sexual act right in front of you, you are NOT judging them on their behaviors, you are judging them on your presumption about their behaviors. Did you know, CnD, that not all gay people even have sex? Gay people have the same range of personalities, habits, preferences and medical conditions that straight people have. Sure, most people getting married are engaging in sex or at least planning to, but unless they are doing it in front of you, you don't really know the specifics of their sex life. So if you were to discriminate as you claim to want to, it would be a lie for you to claim that it was based on their behavior, because the only behavior YOU'VE seen from them is a request for assistance in choosing flowers for their wedding. You're wanting to discriminate against them simply for asking you for assistance, in a way that causes you to make certain assumptions about them. What if that couple hadn't even had sex yet? What if they are asexual? What if they are limiting their sexual activity to only things which you personally would approve of? I understand that's not likely, but that's not the point -- the point is that you aren't judging them based on what you claim to be judging them on, you are making presumptions. You are free to do that when it comes to choosing your friends, but not when you are offering a product or service to the public. It's really that simple, and amazingly, the bible doesn't factor into this at all. The bible might be your personal guidebook, but it's not everyone's, and thus it has no place in determining the law of the land.