Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/02/27 14:45:42
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Polonius wrote: the law provides an affirmative defense, in both civil and criminal cases, of religious belief when refusing service.
That's been on the books for a while, what this law actually did was allow corporations and other legal persons to claim that defence. Previiously only natural persons and religious organziations could claim it.
Why would a corporation need this?
Incoroproated entrepeneurs, actually. That was one of the turning points in the florist case: she was incoroporated, and the court found that as a corporation, she had no right to religious practice. Of course, she was the sole employee, which yeilds a bit of a legal fiction.
But again, a law that would allow a three person bakery from not making cake for a gay wedding is the same that would, say, allow a Burger Kind Franchisee to refuse service to anybody they found religiously offensive.
2014/02/27 14:57:47
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Kilkrazy wrote: Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.
It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.
There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.
No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.
Why would this be any different than a caterer refusing the cater a party with strippers? Or one that was for a porn star or some other immoral thing.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason. They can get their wedding cake or flowers somewhere else.
People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.
Eating shellfish.
Eating pork.
Cutting the hair at the sides of your head.
Having any form of contact with a woman on her period.
Not putting to death anyone who works on the Sabbath.
Having any form of visual disability.
Not putting to death anyone who's: touched a pig's skin, planted two types of crop in the same field, worn mixed material clothing.
Are you guilty of any of those sins? Should a good Christian refuse you service for these things?
You keep your religion, you worship as you see fit in your church and behave, within the law, as you see fit in your household. You go into business, you serve your customers, you make the willing choice to wait tables, you wait tables, not the tables you believe will be less offensive to the creator of the universe, you make cakes for weddings and advertize yourself as such, then you make cakes for weddings, if you can't make cakes for a wedding, don't go into the wedding cake business, you can't wait a certain table, get the feth out of the table waiting business...
2014/02/27 14:58:54
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Meh, live by the corporation die by the corporation.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 15:24:45
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Kilkrazy wrote: Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.
It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.
There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.
No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.
Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.
Yes because its awesome to crap on the beliefs of the majority of the earth's population. Way to go sunshine, and by sunshine I mean BIGOT.
Another shining example of why this law was attempted in the first place.
Wait, you're saying the majority of the earth's population are like this? Someone get me a goddamn rope because truly, there is not hope for civilization.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/27 15:33:07
2014/02/27 15:36:15
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Again your ignorance is showing. Muslims, Jews, and Christians start with the Old Testament - you know that book written by a dead civilization. Of course you could say the same for Budhists and Hindus basing their beliefs from dead civilizations thousands of years before.
You may disagree with them but your statement is just bigotry. Way to go.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 15:42:15
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
It is interesting that on the one hand it can be claimed by some that their religion is the majority religion of the earths population (which is incorrect - no single religion has that spot, though it could be said the majority of the earths population follows some kind of religion - even if it is "the wrong one" ), and yet at the same time shouts of being oppressed and needing special or additional protections ring out loud and clear from the same lips.
It is also interesting that there is a curious silence from those same people when it comes to how what they propose tramples over not only their target minority group de jour, but also over lots of other people as well.
Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star to make a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn, but refusing them a hotel room for a night as they drive through town on the way to a shoot? That's some oppressive bs.
The question that needs to be asked is whether the service you're being asked to provide directly relates to whatever it is you disapprove of, and whether your contribution involves any specific crafting for that exact purpose. So, in the case of the wedding cake, a person really should be able to refuse to spend their time and creative efforts making a cake for a wedding they oppose on religious grounds, but refusing to serve a burger and fries to a gay couple should not be tolerated at all.
.
This is exactly how I feel, but have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to articulate. Thanks, Seb!
The problem with this stance, however, is how the hell do you enforce that?
2014/02/27 15:50:25
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
iproxtaco wrote: What was my supposed statement, exactly? If you can divert your attention from that strawman for a few minutes, of course.
Here you go:
Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 15:50:58
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
This is exactly how I feel, but have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to articulate. Thanks, Seb!
The problem with this stance, however, is how the hell do you enforce that?
there is an easy way and a hard way.
The hard way is to create legal definitions for a broad group of professionals, artists, craftsmen, and tradespeople, and then a defined realm of area in which they can discriminate more freely on client selection. You create a body of jurisprudence and an administrative body that hears complaints.
The easy way is that you train people that select clients/jobs on how to decline jobs/clients they don't want without citing religion or being offended.
2014/02/27 15:53:59
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
I don't get these people, I never have. I was born and grew up in Oklahoma, "the buckle of the bible belt" and came back here after traipsing around the world for 7 years (never did make it to Tibet though).
The worst thing is that you can't have a rational discussion on religion with the people who say they're against A,B,C due to religious purposes (mostly some sects of Christianity). Using certain passages from the Bible to justify the evil acts that you perpetrate is sad. Are there passages in the Old Testament about homosexuality? Yes. But I tell them to read Ephesians 2:14-18 if they want to live by the old (and they're not Jewish).
As for Paul, he wrote about sex with temple prostitutes, not homosexuals (though it included that). He was telling people not to go out and get some strange on the side with men OR women. Besides, Paul was a disciple, not the mouthpiece of God and therefore fallible. He was also instrumental in the Council of Jerusalem where it was decided that gentiles (non-Jewish converts) were not beholden to observe the law (Old Testament restrictions) only Jewish converts were required to do so.
Anyway, I'm glad Jan Brewer vetoed the bill but I was fairly certain that she was going to. It's win-win, the protestors can claima victory for tolerance and the politicians can say they tried to keep Arizona safe for Christians.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/27 15:54:37
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2014/02/27 15:54:26
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Kilkrazy wrote: Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.
It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.
There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.
No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.
Why would this be any different than a caterer refusing the cater a party with strippers? Or one that was for a porn star or some other immoral thing.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason. They can get their wedding cake or flowers somewhere else.
People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.
Eating shellfish.
Eating pork.
Cutting the hair at the sides of your head.
Having any form of contact with a woman on her period.
Not putting to death anyone who works on the Sabbath.
Having any form of visual disability.
Not putting to death anyone who's: touched a pig's skin, planted two types of crop in the same field, worn mixed material clothing.
Are you guilty of any of those sins? Should a good Christian refuse you service for these things?
You keep your religion, you worship as you see fit in your church and behave, within the law, as you see fit in your household. You go into business, you serve your customers, you make the willing choice to wait tables, you wait tables, not the tables you believe will be less offensive to the creator of the universe, you make cakes for weddings and advertize yourself as such, then you make cakes for weddings, if you can't make cakes for a wedding, don't go into the wedding cake business, you can't wait a certain table, get the feth out of the table waiting business...
Also, did you know that there was church sanctioned (and required) abortions in the bible.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/02/27 15:59:06
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
iproxtaco wrote: What was my supposed statement, exactly? If you can divert your attention from that strawman for a few minutes, of course.
Here you go:
Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.
Right, and what do you think that means? I'll give you a clue; it doesn't mean what you've being saying it does. I do not believe what you think I believe.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/27 16:04:15
2014/02/27 15:59:15
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.
I don't see the appreciable difference.
I really think there's a huge, huge difference.
I hate smoking. I think it's vile and disgusting and hazardous to other people.
I have plenty of close friends that smoke.
Now, I know this is predicated on a choice, and again, I don't think homosexuality is a choice, but thats a pretty simple analogy. I mean, despite what popular media would have you believe, most Christians believe that sin is inevitable and that those sins can and should be forgiven. That's the whole, "why Jesus died on the cross" thing.
I think there's also a level of pragmatism that goes along with being faithful. Everyone likes to quote tons of the fire and brimstone sections of the Old Testament that, quite honestly, very few Christian institutions follow dogmatically, or hell, even preach. This is actually a pretty good article discussing it: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law, with full text below:
Spoiler:
The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance ask on their Web site (religioustolerance.org), "If we hold to Leviticus’ statements as being a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, do we then also obey the rest of the old law?"
They go on to explain with examples:
"If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married." (Deut. 24:5). Does ANYONE keep this law? Could you manage a whole year without a paycheck?
"Do not hate your brother in your heart." (Lev. 19:17). Don’t hate your siblings, even while growing up, or else you have broken the entirety of the law.
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Lev. 19:27). Don’t shave! Ever!
It seems that the Ontario Consultants wish to make the following point: Since Christians do not follow to the letter every one of the 613 laws found in the Old Testament, we should not expect those who suffer from same-sex attraction to observe Old Testament laws on homosexuality.
Meanwhile . . .
On another front, the Eternal Gospel Church in West Palm Beach, Florida (a Seventh-day Adventist group) takes out full-page ads in newspapers around the country condemning Sunday worship in favor of Saturday worship. One such ad reports, "Church officials met . . . to establish Sunday as the official religion throughout all of Christianity, and to excommunicate and persecute those who kept the seventh-day Sabbath."
This action is then pitted against Exodus 20:10, which requires keeping holy the Sabbath day—Saturday—not Sunday, the church says.
It seems that the Eternal Gospel Church believes that the early Church had no authority to designate Sunday as a Christian day of worship when God so clearly had already set aside Saturday for that purpose. Their stance, in contrast to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, apparently, is that at least some Old Testament laws are binding on Christians.
With all this confusion what are we to do? Scrap all Old Testament laws? Observe all of them? Pick and choose?
Jesus, the Law’s Fulfillment
The answer is: none of the above. Old Testament law, as such, is not binding on Christians. It never has been. In fact, it was only ever binding on those to whom it was delivered—the Jews (Israelites). That said, some of that law contains elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time. Jesus and Paul provide evidence of this in the New Testament.
Matthew’s Gospel enlightens us to Jesus’ teaching concerning Old Testament law:
[A Pharisee lawyer] asked him a question, to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (Matt. 22:34-40)
In saying this, Jesus declared the breadth of the new law of his new covenant which brings to perfection the old law. He explained further to his disciples:
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:17-19)
How could Jesus fulfill the Old Testament law without relaxing it? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment" (CCC 2053).
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture explains,
The solemnity of our Lord’s opening pronouncements and his clear intention of inaugurating a new religious movement make it necessary for him to explain his position with regard to the [Old Testament law]. He has not come to abrogate but to bring it to perfection, i.e. to reveal the full intention of the divine legislator. The sense of this "fulfilling" . . . is the total expression of God’s will in the old order . . . Far from dying . . . the old moral order is to rise to a new life, infused with a new spirit. (861)
How Jesus Perfects OT Law
Old Testament law included many dietary regulations which were instituted as a preparation for his teaching on the moral law. Jesus discussed these laws:
"Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)
The Catechism explains, "Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation . . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts . . ." (CCC 582). Paul taught similarly concerning other Old Testament law:
[L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)
In this passage we can see that Paul recognized that much of the Old Testament law was instituted to set the stage for the new law that Christ would usher in. Much of the old law’s value could be viewed in this regard.
Jesus’ teaching about the Sabbath indicates similar value in part of the Old Testament regulation of the Sabbath:
Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath." (Matt. 12:1-8)
Clearly, Jesus indicated that he—not the Old Testament—had authority over the Sabbath, and its regulation was not as rigid as the Pharisees thought. In fact, once Jesus would endow the hierarchy of his Church with his own authority (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), regulation of worship would become the domain of the Church.
The Law That’s Rooted in Reason
It is important to point our here that the obligation to worship is something all people of every place and time can know simply through the use of reason. It is knowledge built into the human conscience as part of what is called the "natural law." Paul makes note of such law when discussing those of his own time who were never bound by Old Testament law: "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts . . ." (Rom. 2:14-15a).
The Ten Commandments are often cited as examples of the natural law. Christians are obliged to follow the laws cited in the Ten Commandments not because they are cited in the Ten Commandments—part of Old Testament law—but because they are part of the natural law—for the most part.
Certainly we can know by reason alone that certain actions are immoral—e.g., to kill the innocent, to take what does not belong to us, to cheat on our spouses, etc.
Similarly, we can know by reason alone that we are obliged to worship our Creator. But can we really know in the same way that such worship should take place on Saturday every week? Of course not! That part of the Sabbath commandment is not part of the natural law at all but was simply a law imposed upon the Jews for the discipline of their nation. Other people had the authority to choose for themselves the time they set aside for worship. For Christians now, it makes sense to do this on Sunday.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,
The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship as a sign of his universal beneficence to all. Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people. (CCC 2176)
Old Testament law required, as a discipline, that the Jews worship on Saturday. Similarly, the Church obliges Catholics to worship on Sunday, the day of the Lord’s Resurrection.
Like the majority of the law found in the Ten Commandments, the Church’s teaching on the immorality of homosexual activity is part of the natural law. People of every time and place can know this through reason alone and are bound by it even without explicit teaching on it. It wasn’t absolutely necessary for God to include such teaching in Old Testament law, nor was it absolutely necessary to include it in the New Testament. Even so, the New Testament contains ample teaching in this regard. (For a fuller treatment of this issue, see "Homosexuality," This Rock, April 2006.)
The Law That Binds
So, to answer the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance and the Eternal Gospel Church, Christians are bound to the law of Christ which, of course, includes the natural law.
Old Testament law contains elements of natural law—e.g., the condemnation of homosexual activity—to which Christians are bound for that reason, not because of their inclusion in the Old Testament. Christians do not have liberty on these issues.
Also, Christians are not and have never been bound by Old Testament law for its own sake, and those elements of Old Testament law which are not part of the natural law—e.g., the obligation to worship on Saturday —were only ever binding on the Jews. Christians do have liberty on those issues.
I mean, I don't expect all the popular athetist loudmouths to have enough biblical expertise to know that in the NT all the "dietary restrictions" had been abolished. They're just google-fuing.
I think this passage from Mark is particularly important:
Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)
At the risk of sounding too crass, this could actually be a pretty decent "defense of homosexuality" passage if people wanted it to be
This is exactly how I feel, but have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to articulate. Thanks, Seb!
The problem with this stance, however, is how the hell do you enforce that?
there is an easy way and a hard way.
The hard way is to create legal definitions for a broad group of professionals, artists, craftsmen, and tradespeople, and then a defined realm of area in which they can discriminate more freely on client selection. You create a body of jurisprudence and an administrative body that hears complaints.
The easy way is that you train people that select clients/jobs on how to decline jobs/clients they don't want without citing religion or being offended.
I was thinking you potentially limit it to Service Contractors (like caterers, cake makers, photographers) and not B&M businesses, but that would cause a ton of problems, too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/27 16:01:34
2014/02/27 16:08:25
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
iproxtaco wrote: What was my supposed statement, exactly? If you can divert your attention from that strawman for a few minutes, of course.
Here you go:
Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.
Right, and what do you think that means? I'll give you a clue; it doesn't mean what you've being saying it does. I do not believe what you think I believe.
I'm going with RAW on this one. Its a bigoted statement and you're trying to walk it back.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 16:17:31
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.
I don't see the appreciable difference.
I really think there's a huge, huge difference.
I hate smoking. I think it's vile and disgusting and hazardous to other people.
I have plenty of close friends that smoke.
Now, I know this is predicated on a choice, and again, I don't think homosexuality is a choice, but thats a pretty simple analogy. I mean, despite what popular media would have you believe, most Christians believe that sin is inevitable and that those sins can and should be forgiven. That's the whole, "why Jesus died on the cross" thing.
That is a good analogy in many ways. My contention to it is that sexuality is an issue people feel strongly enough about that it interferes with their ability to separate someone's sexual preference from the person themselves. I also think that someone's sexuality is a defining feature of who someone is. I don't think you can separate the two. I don't think you should.
iproxtaco wrote: What was my supposed statement, exactly? If you can divert your attention from that strawman for a few minutes, of course.
Here you go:
Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.
Right, and what do you think that means? I'll give you a clue; it doesn't mean what you've being saying it does. I do not believe what you think I believe.
I'm going with RAW on this one. Its a bigoted statement and you're trying to walk it back.
Are you unable to answer a simple question? Or do mine eyes foresee the subtle signs of concession?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/27 16:22:49
2014/02/27 16:24:15
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Polonius wrote: the law provides an affirmative defense, in both civil and criminal cases, of religious belief when refusing service.
That's been on the books for a while, what this law actually did was allow corporations and other legal persons to claim that defence. Previiously only natural persons and religious organziations could claim it.
Why would a corporation need this?
Incoroproated entrepeneurs, actually. That was one of the turning points in the florist case: she was incoroporated, and the court found that as a corporation, she had no right to religious practice. Of course, she was the sole employee, which yeilds a bit of a legal fiction.
One of the primary benefits of incorporation is to legally remove yourself from the business. She may be the sole employee of Flower Corp, but she is not Flower Corp and Flower Corp is not her. If there is a suit against Flower Corp she is not liable for the damages, Flower Corp is. Employees are not expected to pay damages levied against a company. That's one of the primary reasons people incorporate their businesses, to protect themselves from legal actions against that business. If I slip and fall in her flower shop I can sue Flower Corp for pain and suffering, but I cannot sue the employee for damages. Her person and her personal property is safe from legal actions because she decided to legally distance herself from her business.
If you file the paperwork to legally separate you from your business and declare "I am not Flower Corp, I can't be personally liable for the actions of the business" then you don't get to claim that you and your business are the same person when it comes to stuff you care about.
2014/02/27 16:25:30
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 16:33:01
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
If you file the paperwork to legally separate you from your business and declare "I am not Flower Corp, I can't be personally liable for the actions of the business" then you don't get to claim that you and your business are the same person when it comes to stuff you care about.
That's true, although at times the legal fiction gets pretty toasty. I suppose she could say "As Flower Corp, I would be delighted to take your business. However, my designer will not be available to handle this contract. I will be hiring a subcontractor to do this." At that point, she's not refusing service, simply setting terms. And does a person have a right to the exact persont they want, or only the specific business?
The problem in the florist case was that the couple wanted the actual person, not the company, I would imagine. As anybody that took Contract remembers, "Specific Performance" is a sonofabitch to get. The courts simply hate making individuals do stuff.
Like always, I think there are more discrete ways to turn down a contract then to claim that you find their wedding sinful and offensive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/27 16:34:25
2014/02/27 16:38:39
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Of course in such a small company she would be not only the owner, but probably the director and employee as well. The three different roles are combined in the same person which means she is the company in practice though not in law.
Also, did you know that there was church sanctioned (and required) abortions in the bible.
That swell dame and all round joy to behold, Mrs Betty Bowers (America's BEST Christian!), was good enough to take the time to explain biblical views on Abortion, including the recipe.
2014/02/27 16:47:58
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
If you file the paperwork to legally separate you from your business and declare "I am not Flower Corp, I can't be personally liable for the actions of the business" then you don't get to claim that you and your business are the same person when it comes to stuff you care about.
That's true, although at times the legal fiction gets pretty toasty. I suppose she could say "As Flower Corp, I would be delighted to take your business. However, my designer will not be available to handle this contract. I will be hiring a subcontractor to do this." At that point, she's not refusing service, simply setting terms. And does a person have a right to the exact persont they want, or only the specific business?
Instantly problem solved. They can't demand a specific person as they are contracting with a corp and that specific person is not required to do free lance work. Even further that person could have contracted a non-compete type clause with the corp such that they agree not to do other work of a similar business while employed for corp.
People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.
I don't see the appreciable difference.
I really think there's a huge, huge difference.
I hate smoking. I think it's vile and disgusting and hazardous to other people.
I have plenty of close friends that smoke.
Now, I know this is predicated on a choice, and again, I don't think homosexuality is a choice, but thats a pretty simple analogy. I mean, despite what popular media would have you believe, most Christians believe that sin is inevitable and that those sins can and should be forgiven. That's the whole, "why Jesus died on the cross" thing.
That is a good analogy in many ways. My contention to it is that sexuality is an issue people feel strongly enough about that it interferes with their ability to separate someone's sexual preference from the person themselves. I also think that someone's sexuality is a defining feature of who someone is. I don't think you can separate the two. I don't think you should.
iproxtaco wrote: What was my supposed statement, exactly? If you can divert your attention from that strawman for a few minutes, of course.
Here you go:
Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.
Right, and what do you think that means? I'll give you a clue; it doesn't mean what you've being saying it does. I do not believe what you think I believe.
I'm going with RAW on this one. Its a bigoted statement and you're trying to walk it back.
Are you unable to answer a simple question? Or do mine eyes foresee the subtle signs of concession?
Clearly you don't understand what you yourself typed. Maybe you should have a conversation with yourself before you allow yourself to type such bigoted statements. Maybe you should remind yourself that if this continues you're going to get a good talking to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/27 16:51:12
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 16:50:19
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Of course in such a small company she would be not only the owner, but probably the director and employee as well. The three different roles are combined in the same person which means she is the company in practice though not in law.
Exactly.
She wanted all the benefits of being a sole-proprietorship, with none of the legal liabilities. There was no real reason to incorporate other than to gain legal protection that comes with her no longer being the business in a legal sense. And you don't get to claim that you are not the business when it suits you and then turn around and claim that you are when it doesn't.
2014/02/27 16:58:39
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Clearly you don't understand what you yourself typed. Maybe you should have a conversation with yourself before you allow yourself to type such bigoted statements. Maybe you should remind yourself that if this continues you're going to get a good talking to.
All I want is for you to answer a single question. I didn't think that would be a difficulty, but apparently I was mistaken. Something we have in common.
2014/02/27 16:59:35
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Clearly you don't understand what you yourself typed. Maybe you should have a conversation with yourself before you allow yourself to type such bigoted statements. Maybe you should remind yourself that if this continues you're going to get a good talking to.
All I want is for you to answer a single question. I didn't think that would be a difficulty, but apparently I was mistaken. Something we have in common.
I gave you the exact quote you used. You seem to think besmirching a large portion of the human population seems to be ok.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/02/27 16:59:40
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
I'm still not sure how tying some flowers together, or making a cake and putting two blokes on the top, or two women on the top is different from serving two men in a bar, or cutting the hair of two women, or indeed any other creative or non creative service.
Unless they are asking for a flower arrangement or cake to take the form of something nsfw (which is an entirely possible request from a straight couple), I'm not seeing grounds for refusing a same sex couple...
iproxtaco wrote: That is a good analogy in many ways. My contention to it is that sexuality is an issue people feel strongly enough about that it interferes with their ability to separate someone's sexual preference from the person themselves. I also think that someone's sexuality is a defining feature of who someone is. I don't think you can separate the two. I don't think you should.
I think that an interesting assertion. Quite frankly, I think sexuality is only a "defining feature" for homosexuals (gays? Which word are we supposed to use here). I can't say my sexual orientation would be in the top 5 things I'd list about myself if you' were asking about my "defining features..."
I think you only see that with really butchy lesbians and super flamboyant gay men. I have some gay friends that aren't "outwardly gay" that I question whether they'd use their sexuality as a "defining feature," too. I actually might ask them.
That was one of the things I really didn't get about that "kiss ins" that happened during the Chik-Fil-A boycotts. Are straight people making out at fast food joints all across the nation and I just dont know about it?
2014/02/27 17:07:24
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Heterosexual sexuality is often not a "defining characteristic" because it is the norm.
But if you look at other defining characteristics, you see sexual elements; jocks and macho men are defined in terms of their sexuality.
Hell, I don't define myself as "white" but you can be sure I feel pretty damn aware of my skin colour and associated cultural baggage whenever I go to certain places overseas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/27 17:08:20
SilverMK2 wrote: Heterosexual sexuality is often not a "defining characteristic" because it is the norm.
We define ourselves by our heterosexual status all the time:
1) Holding hands with my wife in public.
2) Sending her flowers at work.
3) Wedding/Couple picture at the desk at work.
4) Talk to our coworkers about what we did this weekend.
5) Ask our coworker "How's the wife/husband"
We make definitive declarations of our heterosexuality all the time, but like you said nobody really notices them anymore because it's "normal".
2014/02/27 17:15:29
Subject: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
SilverMK2 wrote: Heterosexual sexuality is often not a "defining characteristic" because it is the norm.
We define ourselves by our heterosexual status all the time:
1) Holding hands with my wife in public.
2) Sending her flowers at work.
3) Wedding/Couple picture at the desk at work.
4) Talk to our coworkers about what we did this weekend.
5) Ask our coworker "How's the wife/husband"
We make definitive declarations of our heterosexuality all the time, but like you said nobody really notices them anymore because it's "normal".
), and yet at the same time shouts of being oppressed and needing special or additional protections ring out loud and clear from the same lips.
