Ali#1, you were right about Arizona.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Winch101

If you want to have a rational debate on here QUIT referring to the Bible
Like it's a reliable source of information .....most people on here think it's
A fairy tale to say the least....if that is the basis for your stance you are right in there with the close minded bigots . If everybody who believes the bible is
Anti gay , Muslim , abortion etc.etc. Nice group ,stay away from my kids
I'll take my chances with the pedophiles , and speaking of them , this is where
CS usually throws some priests into the mix ...

Passing that Arizona law leads to witch burning , crucifying etc. Because
You are , as a human , flawed . Ego and control the Bain of your existence .

Good to know what your thoughts on people of Christian faith are, and let me guess, you don't see yourself as a bigot either?

[whammy]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

For the exact reason Ryry posted. Perhaps I have not been clear enough. I am for the bill passing, but not because I think people should have the right to deny services, but because I think that people have a right to their religious morals over another's demands for services.

My point is that people are hiding their bigotry as religious 'morals'. They would like to deny service to homosexuals because it is 'immoral' in their view, yet they don't do the same for plenty of other religious laws that are continuously broken from the old testament. It's selective religious morals. That is wrong.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by whammy

Sure, I don't think anyone's rights should be infringed upon. I don't think that religious people should pick and choose what they get offended by though.

So are you going to tell the world what they are allowed to be offended by then? Because according to you I can't choose.

As a side note I don't consider myself religious, but others might.

[Kaz Dog]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Freedom and the rule of law don't go hand in hand.

Yep, they do! You can not have Rule of Law without Freedom, and you can not maintain Freedom without Rule of Law.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by whammy

My point is that people are hiding their bigotry as religious 'morals'. They would like to deny service to homosexuals because it is 'immoral' in their view, yet they don't do the same for plenty of other religious laws that are continuously broken from the old testament. It's selective religious morals. That is wrong.

I think you are not giving some the benefit of the doubt. I do not see many people denying services based on this law. But what I do see this law doing is protecting those who would be forced by people with an agenda to provide services that violate their morals.

There was a case here in Alberta some time ago where a priest (pastor) had written an article that quoted passages from the bible that denounced homosexuality. He was brought before the human rights commission, and he has since been banned from publishing anything ever again. Where are his rights to free speech?

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Ahhhh, the "B" word. Synonymous with the term hypocrite.

I should look up the definition of both, but in my opinion bigotry is learned and hypocrisy comes more natural.

I think one can be a bigot without being a hypocrite.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I should look up the definition of both, but in my opinion bigotry is learned and hypocrisy comes more natural.

I think one can be a bigot without being a hypocrite.

I was more referring to the one crying bigot

[Winch101]

Just because a person doesn't agree with your beliefs or position
On a subject , that doesn't make them a bigot ,no more than it makes
You an idiot .
Religious people playing the bigot card is like natives playing the race card
Every time some one disagrees with their actions .

A humanist is able to follow his inner moral judgement . He or she doesn't
Need some other flawed human to tell him how he or she should be conducting
Themselves . And getting that info out of a book is even more ridiculous .

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Kaz Dog

Yep, they do! You can not have Rule of Law without Freedom, and you can not maintain Freedom without Rule of Law.

Rule of law takes freedom. Just ask the owners of Swiss Arms rifles.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

So are you going to tell the world what they are allowed to be offended by then? Because according to you I can't choose.

As a side note I don't consider myself religious, but others might.

I'd just like people to be consistent. If you are going to hold a line in the old testament about homosexuality so close to your core beliefs, then you should hold the other lines just as closely.

[CaberTosser]

I've never turned away clientele based on race, religion or sexuality, quite frankly I welcome everyone who is welcoming to me, but I have opted out a scant few times based on things such as unsanitary conditions or my belief in their intent & ability to pay me, or even people who were just extremely rude, argumentative over invoices and obsessive-compulsive in their unreasonable demands. A trail of unfinished work by previous contractors is usually a good clue . Does the law stipulate that I was prejudiced against them and that I should be held accountable for 'damages' or mental anguish?

Then again I've also turned down work that was either too big or where I'd be unable to finance a significant materials outlay (or if I had, I would be personally ruined prior to anything getting to court if things went south such as a client recievership)

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

So? You're only touching the tip of the iceberg when it comes to being a bigot. Read the definition of bigot, and do not insert any self serving conditions to the true definition. You will see you are in fact a bigot.

So before you call the pot black, make sure you realize the kettle is too.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

I don't think I fall into any of these definitions.

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

This is exactly why I see a need to allow service providers to be permitted to deny some services. But according to the law, and also according to some here, you broke the law, and you should be held accountable.

I just think there should be some protections for everyone. How to do this without violating other's rights is the difficulty.

To the best of my knowledge, the people I rejected weren't a protected group: then or now.

But, even if they were protected against discrimination by law, I still wouldn't have shot the wedding. I just would have been dishonest in the way I approached the situation to avoid being sued. I would have either a) told them I wasn't available, or b) jacked the price up to the point where I knew they wouldn't agree.

There is a second group I would reject, and that one could really get me into trouble.

[brownbomber]

I can see the point being lets not force a practising catholic doctor to preform a abortion. That said the lowest common denominator rules and people are gonna do the worst thing possible within the rules. We are all cool in my eyes and would not deny jimmy and joe a seat in my restraunt if I had one. I'm comfortable enough in my faith that I can believe what I do without feeling the need to be a bully. That's just me though.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

. And I think when you are licensed by the state as a business, take business deductions to income tax, and offer your services to the public, that's the line.

So what you are saying is if I want to refuse service to homosexual Muslims I first have to stop paying income tax & am not required to have a business licence?

Sign me up! When can I start discriminating?

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by whammy

I'd just like people to be consistent. If you are going to hold a line in the old testament about homosexuality so close to your core beliefs, then you should hold the other lines just as closely.

Homosexuality is noted in the new testament, and it references what is said in the old testament about it.

[Kaz Dog]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Rule of law takes freedom. Just ask the owners of Swiss Arms rifles.

Rule of Law is the equalizer in a free society, not a religious belief or rule by means of force/dictatorship. People in a free society may not like a law, but it exists so that everyone will get along.

On the Swiss Arms rifles - not done by legislation/law, but reclassification of regulations promoted by RCMP - I believe. This may be overturned by pressure on politicians. This is not over yet.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Homosexuality is noted in the new testament, and it references what is said in the old testament about it.

My comment still applies. Take one religious law, take 'em all.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I have found nothing in the words attributed to Jesus where he even addressed the issue of homosexuality. Paul did, but not Jesus.

I think would be the closest thing.


Mathew 19:2-9

And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Obviously, it doesn't talk of homosexuality, but I suppose He wouldn't have mentioned a man and woman exclusively, if He actually meant any two people. It seems He is reaffirming the original old testament model of marriage.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Kaz Dog

Rule of Law is the equalizer in a free society, not a religious belief or rule by means of force/dictatorship. People in a free society may not like a law, but it exists so that everyone will get along.

On the Swiss Arms rifles - not done by legislation/law, but reclassification of regulations promoted by RCMP - I believe. This may be overturned by pressure on politicians. This is not over yet.

The legislation of C-68 that gives the RCMP the power to do this is the law is it not?

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by whammy

My comment still applies. Take one religious law, take 'em all.

This is what I was referring to:

1 Timothy 1

New International Version (NIV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2 To Timothy my true son in the faith:

Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Timothy Charged to Oppose False Teachers

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

[recce43]

so i have morals and if i do not like a group or said lifestyle im a bigot. I guess iam a bigot but i dont really care what people think of me . Ilive me life how i like it i wil not bend over to one group or another . we have gay rights people pushing there lifestyles in gay parades and flying there flags. And Religious people pushing there stuff on us i say everbody can go pound sand

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

This is what I was referring to:

1 Timothy 1

That's fine. I still stand by what I said. You can't pick and choose - and it should be noted that First Timothy is thought to have been written well after Jesus' life, not in fact by Paul (even though it says it is written by Paul - that's a lie!!!!!).

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by whammy

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

I don't think I fall into any of these definitions.

Like I said, the true definition WITHOUT EXCLUSION OF SELF SERVING PORTIONS of the definition.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by whammy

That's fine. I still stand by what I said. You can't pick and choose - and it should be noted that First Timothy is thought to have been written well after Jesus' life, not in fact by Paul (even though it says it is written by Paul - that's a lie!!!!!).

The majority of the new testament was written after Jesus, what's your point? And if Paul didn't write it who did?

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Like I said, the true definition WITHOUT EXCLUSION OF SELF SERVING PORTIONS of the definition.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

I don't think that applies to me either, but you can believe it if you like.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

And then one needs to wonder why the gay couple took the issue to court to force a baker to bake the cake? Kind of sounds like they were using their agenda to make a point about their rights, and trampled the baker's religious rights in the process.

I think you touched on why this is such an issue. The church is under pressure from the LGBT community adopt gay marriages (or perform "same sex blessings"). Could they not get married elsewhere? Probably - but essentially what appears to be the goal is to have the church - as a whole - accept the practice, thereby providing validation. This is the crucial step in getting the Church to stop referring to the committal of homosexual acts as sin.

I'm sure it's quite intolerant, just as the old testament is. I don't think it's right for anyone to hide their bigoted views behind a religious book. It's cowardly.

Now let's take the church/religion out of the picture. The question we need to ask ourselves is, where do we personally draw the line, morally speaking?

Do you draw the line at pedophilia?

If so, why?

And what grounds do you have for that?

Would that make you a bigot in the eyes of those that consider pedophilia a valid form of sexual expression? (see this link...)

What about a person to draws the line at homosexuality, or, heaven forbid, extramarital sexual intercourse? Are they a discriminatory or bigoted because they choose to draw their moral "line in the sand" at a different level, irrespective of religious grounds?

Just something to think about.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

The majority of the new testament was written after Jesus, what's your point? And if Paul didn't write it who did?

It was written to serve the Christian church who have generally kept their views on homosexuality (from old testament laws) very close to their core beliefs while ignoring other laws from the same teachings.

[CaberTosser]

Bad thread title though; being as Ali#1 doesn't bother to apologize when he's been both insulting & incorrect, don't go reinforcing when he actually is correct.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

I think you touched on why this is such an issue. The church is under pressure from the LGBT community adopt gay marriages (or perform "same sex blessings"). Could they not get married elsewhere? Probably - but essentially what appears to be the goal is to have the church - as a whole - accept the practice, thereby providing validation. This is the crucial step in getting the Church to stop referring to the committal of homosexual acts as sin.

To be perfectly clear, this is not a debate about forcing the church to perform gay marriage.

Now let's take the church/religion out of the picture. The question we need to ask ourselves is, where do we personally draw the line, morally speaking?

Do you draw the line at pedophilia?

If so, why?

And what grounds do you have for that?

Would that make you a bigot in the eyes of those that consider pedophilia a valid form of sexual expression? (see this link...)

What about a person to draws the line at homosexuality, or, heaven forbid, extramarital sexual intercourse? Are they a discriminatory or bigoted because they choose to draw their moral "line in the sand" at a different level, irrespective of religious grounds?

Just something to think about.

What does pedophilia have to do with it? Pedophiles prey on underage people and terribly infringe on their rights.

We are talking about people choosing whether or not to serve homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.