Thoughts on this decision?

Options
1235»

Replies

  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    Ok I'm having a bad day so I have to chime in LOL

    1. As a rational person, I agree with the IDEA that any business owner should be able to refuse services to whom they want.

    2. As a gay man, if you refuse me your services, I'm gonna sue you, because the law says I can't pee on you, you butthat.

    3. As a theologian, I have YET to see the rule/commandment that says "Thou shall not photograph two fully dressed people wearing polyester." Stop hiding behind "belief", because you feel icky about something. Be honest and say outright that you can't photograph us because all you're thinking about is sex, and that's too distracting.

    4. As a social worker, I can tell you - discriminate enough against ANYONE, and they're going to fight back at a certain point. We're not talking about double standards here. We're just saying we're tired of being second class just because we do things in the bedroom that some people don't approve of (and really shouldn't be concerning themselves with in the first place).

    Clearly I need to oppress you harder. :angry:
  • Ed98043
    Ed98043 Posts: 1,333 Member
    Options
    Funny how you never hear about christians refusing services to divorced people, or for that matter I wonder if the photographer ever refused to shoot pictures in a church that allows women to speak. All no nos in the bible. If its really only about a strong belief in the bible why not stick to all of it?

    EXACTLY. That's why it's hard to accept "it's against my religion" as a legitimate excuse for hatred and discrimination against LGBT people, because both the old and new testaments have a whole lot of forbidden things that none of the bible-thumpers ever mention. Such as people who remarry after divorce are committing adultery, or that a *kitten* and the next 10 generations of his family may not enter the church, that non-virgin girls must be stoned to death, and lots of other fun rules. So when some bigot innocently throws up their hands and says "It's not ME, it's THE BIBLE"...they're just full of ****. They pick and choose bible verses to fit their personal agenda.
  • soldier4242
    soldier4242 Posts: 1,368 Member
    Options
    Funny how you never hear about christians refusing services to divorced people, or for that matter I wonder if the photographer ever refused to shoot pictures in a church that allows women to speak. All no nos in the bible. If its really only about a strong belief in the bible why not stick to all of it?

    EXACTLY. That's why it's hard to accept "it's against my religion" as a legitimate excuse for hatred and discrimination against LGBT people, because both the old and new testaments have a whole lot of forbidden things that none of the bible-thumpers ever mention. Such as people who remarry after divorce are committing adultery, or that a *kitten* and the next 10 generations of his family may not enter the church, that non-virgin girls must be stoned to death, and lots of other fun rules. So when some bigot innocently throws up their hands and says "It's not ME, it's THE BIBLE"...they're just full of ****. They pick and choose bible verses to fit their personal agenda.
    It isn't like they were issued their religion either. Most believers do tend to follow the religion that was taught to them by their parents but you do have a brain and you can and should evaluated those teaching against reality and not the other way around. My parents raised me to be catholic and when I was a kid I didn't have a choice.

    After I was out of the house I did my own research and found that the bible is a collections of opinions written by the men that held them years ago. If a person reads the bible and it says that homosexuals are an abomination it is then up to that person to decide if they agree with that statement or not.
  • mrsjones2point0
    mrsjones2point0 Posts: 332 Member
    Options
    We have a similar lawsuit here locally with a Florist. The kicker of this case is that the owner of Arlene's Flowers had been serving these two men for years knowing they were a gay couple, they were loyal customers right up until the day they decided they would (legally in Washington) marry, she refused because her Christian beliefs are against gay marriage (but apparently were ok for her to supply gay men with flowers to one another on special ocassions).

    She's being sued by the WA state attorney general and the ACLU. Then a religious freedom group, Alliance Defending Freedom, countersued the state on behalf of the owner, saying her religious rights were being infringed upon.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers-case_n_3516294.html
  • erikmsp72
    erikmsp72 Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    Ok I'm having a bad day so I have to chime in LOL

    1. As a rational person, I agree with the IDEA that any business owner should be able to refuse services to whom they want.

    2. As a gay man, if you refuse me your services, I'm gonna sue you, because the law says I can't pee on you, you butthat.

    3. As a theologian, I have YET to see the rule/commandment that says "Thou shall not photograph two fully dressed people wearing polyester." Stop hiding behind "belief", because you feel icky about something. Be honest and say outright that you can't photograph us because all you're thinking about is sex, and that's too distracting.

    4. As a social worker, I can tell you - discriminate enough against ANYONE, and they're going to fight back at a certain point. We're not talking about double standards here. We're just saying we're tired of being second class just because we do things in the bedroom that some people don't approve of (and really shouldn't be concerning themselves with in the first place).

    Thank you. Yes. Amen.

    And for the record I am gay, Christian, and trained to be a pastor (although not yet ordained). "Gay" and "Christian" are not mutually-exclusive categories. In any case, the law about non-discrimination is secular law and should be followed or else the non-law-abiding folk should expect legal ramifications to their decision to break that law.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,031 Member
    Options
    it looks like that lgbt people want to force their will on others whose beliefs and faith goes against that. It looks like the lgbt people want it their way and everyone should just except it and they wont quit until they get their way. Hmmm, its funny how that works. In your mind its ok to force your beliefs on someone but if someone doesnt agree with your belief they are haters. Your double standards are obvious and that is all I have to say to you. Have a nice night.
    [/quote
    ]It's not a double standard to expect equal treatment before the law. Nobody says you have to agree with it. Just apply the law equally.

    Yes, exactly.

    Is illegal to discriminate in Australia for sexual identity (and other things like race, gender etc) - this does not mean people have to agree or approve of same sex relationships, only that they cannot discriminate in terms of service, employment etc.

    Incidentally same sex marriages are not legal in Australia either (although quite likely they will become so in the relatively near future) - but same sex relationships are.

    Is no different really to someone saying they do not approve of sex before marriage - fair enough, that is their belief - but they do not have the right to discriminate against those in de facto relationships. Or those in mixed race relationships or big age gap relationships etc etc.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,031 Member
    Options
    sorry, still not getting this quoting stuff right - but I think you can see what I am saying.

Categories