U
upant
Guest
what about the non-believers pushing their beliefs on Christians, it is coming to a point if you are a vocal Christian it will be hard to do business in the progressive world.
U
upant
Guest
they disagreed with the CEO’s views. what do his personal views have to do with the company product? Is one required to give up their beliefs to do business in the progressive world?
the airline is discriminating by refuses to do business with the company because of the CEO’s Christian views.
whether legal or not, it is religious discrimination,
J
Jen95
Guest
Two men wanting to get married. Are you okay with ten men / women / genderqueer etc getting married?
Because what if they all love each other?
And you can’t deny their love, can you?
Are you okay with a Muslim man marrying four women in the USA? Do they all get his benefits?
What about some rogue LDS group? What if they have polygamous marriages?
How do you sort this all out in court, on the off-chance these marriages don’t all last whole lifetimes?
Why couldn’t a Muslim family claim that polygamy is part of their freedom of religion?
Why can two men marry, but not three men?
Because what if they all love each other?
And you can’t deny their love, can you?
Are you okay with a Muslim man marrying four women in the USA? Do they all get his benefits?
What about some rogue LDS group? What if they have polygamous marriages?
How do you sort this all out in court, on the off-chance these marriages don’t all last whole lifetimes?
Why couldn’t a Muslim family claim that polygamy is part of their freedom of religion?
Why can two men marry, but not three men?
Last edited:
C
childinthefaith
Guest
Title of Post : “Do You Believe in IMPOSING Your Belief System on Non-Believers?”
Answer: No, I do not.
But then, you start out with the same sex marriage and premarital sex question. That is a total of three questions @K9Buck
Yes, I oppose “same sex marriage.” Vehemently. It is, IMO, a disgusting abomination, and clearly a misnomor as I wholly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. To be clear, I also mean one biological male and one biological female. To call any other union a marriage is blasphemous, as it is no more than a legal contract, not a valid sacrament. So, pick your arena - religious question or legal? I oppose it in both cases becasue in the same sex case it involves things that are against the natural law, not procreative, and lastly, in my faith, very much mortal sin.
As for premarital sex, that presents a more difficult response because typically it deals with those who are not legal adults. So, if it is for those under 18, that remains under the control of the parents.
Over 18 + a legal penalty? Except in the case of rape, I can not imagine the enforcement criteria, or the immediate lack of investigative resources to deal with that crime. What, change SVU to "P"romiscuous VU? Dunno. We license same sex people to “marry,” I can not imagine we could prosecute opposite sex people for doing what their bodies are designed for outside of marriage. I’d pray chastity, but am realistic enough to know that would never be 100% as a solution.
But, back to your original questions.
- Impost beliefs on others? No
- Same sex marriage? Why on earth that was ever passed by the SCOTUs I’ll never know. I’ll pray for them, but I could not force my beliefs on them during that ruling could I? Society is sick.
- Premarital sex? Children who live in a very disciplined home environment, and i mean like boot camp, requires two parents committed to maintaining the environment. If we were motivated and put forth the effort, we could make chastity work until age 18. After that, we could only pray that our teachings took hold. Here I will remind you that in the middlle ages, for example, and even into the early 20th century, it was considered quite a scandal to be pregnant out of wedlock. We allowed that change. We could, if we tried, change it back.
U
upant
Guest
the problem is Chic-Fil-A wasn’t allowed to open because of an owner’s belief. San Antonio is being investigated for banning Chic-Fil-A from their airport. this is a first amendment issue.
the business didn’t promote its beliefs. the business isn’t anti-gay. per the agenda, you can’t be Christian and be in the marketplace. you need the mark of the beast to do business in some cities today.
U
upant
Guest
it is the same example, the airport was shamed into removing Chic-Fil-A
it is non-believers pushing their beliefs on Christians, exactly as I stated in the swiss air example.
if you don’t follow the agenda you will be shamed.
U
upant
Guest
this isn’t the issue
we are not on the same page. these aren’t businesses that are just not being chosen.
swiss air was using the chocolates and dropped the company because they have Christian owners. swiss air was shamed into dropping the company.
chic-fil-a was approved to open at the airport and then was dropped by the airport because they have Christian owners. the airport was shamed into dropping the company.
at least in San Antonio it is being looked at as religious discrimination.
the LGBT agenda, shutting down Christians businesses that don’t accept the LGBT lifestyle
as pertaining to this thread, I am looking at the reality that non-believers are imposing their beliefs on Christians.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
In general, I don’t support imposing it. When it comes to certain specifics, I do support it. For example, Catholicism is the religion that introduced the concept of ‘universal human rights’ to planet earth, and I do think that if a government has ANY legitimate role, it’s defending universal human rights within its geographical boundaries (e.g. the human right to life, regardless of if a husband privately wants to ‘honour kill’ his wife, a mother wants to convenience-kill her child, or an invading army wants to slaughter the citizens wholesale).
That defence of life is actually a religious value. And yeah, I’m game for imposing it.
Other stuff, I’m continuing to try to learn and understand what the most reasonable and good position may be. Won’t try to pretend I have a comprehensive answer for this question before I do.
That defence of life is actually a religious value. And yeah, I’m game for imposing it.
Other stuff, I’m continuing to try to learn and understand what the most reasonable and good position may be. Won’t try to pretend I have a comprehensive answer for this question before I do.
C
CollegeCatholic24
Guest
As a Catholic, I strongly oppose both, but I also believe that premarital sex should not be criminalized while same-sex marriage should not be valid. Same-sex marriage shouldn’t be valid because people have changed the centuries-long definition of marriage just to be more ‘accepting’ of those who aren’t straight. For premarital sex, it should be allowed because it has always been allowed by American law. Both of these are based on the precedent set by the founding fathers and the following governmental leaders. There is not any new science to suggest that the definition of marriage(union between a man and a woman) was wrong.
U
upant
Guest
they are still discriminating against Christians, it doesn’t matter if it is legal or illegal. you can’t hold Christian values and do business with them.
you are on the wrong page, I am not arguing this
Could SA stop using an LGBT company? not in theory but in actuality?
these are not choices based on business matters but discrimination.
if it continues Christian business will have to agree to support the LGBT agenda or be put out of business.
U
upant
Guest
discrimination in the broad sense is unjust or prejudicial treatment and this is what’s happening. in the US it is illegal because of the first amendment and texas is suing the airport. I know the Swiss have a religious clause. the airline may be private but it flies out of public airports which may bring it under the jurisdiction of the religious clause, their action may be illegal or it may not. however, it is unjust and prejudicial treatment, therefore it is discriminatory.
it isn’t personal preference,
it isn’t choice
the companies had agreed to do business together but the airport and swiss air were shamed into backing out because of an agenda by one group of people. they should probably also be sued for breach of contract if they don’t honor their agreements.
E
Elf01
Guest
Why, in your view can’t a baker choose not ti do business with a gay couple then?
R
Rau
Guest
Both can be opposed. When the law proposes to recognise and acclaim - as it does - SSM, then that can be opposed too.
What’s the problem.
Last edited:
A
amazingcatholic
Guest
Absolutely not. My parents are trying to impose their beliefs on me. I do not like it so I try not to do it to anyone else. I try to explain why I believe what I believe, if someone asks, or an opportunity pops up. I do oppose same-sex marriage. Banning premarital sex would be ineffective, people would sneak around and just do it anyway.
U
upant
Guest
i believe they can choose not to do something against their faith.
this isn’t the issue with san antonio or swiss air. san antonio and swiss air are denying companies business opportunities because of the faith of the companies owners. it isn’t a simple I don’t like your product, management style, etc. it is a denial based on religious beliefs.
they both made it known they are not doing business with the companies because of their religious beliefs. could they say I am not doing business with the company because of the skin-color of the owner?
look at the root cause and see the discrimination.
it is discrimination.
P
Poet
Guest
If this is so, then it has to go both ways. If I own an airline or any business, I must also have the right to choose a supplier and business associates whose beliefs align with mine or my employees’. Therefore, I have the right to refuse to work with a printer or any other business whose owner or CEO has openly stated support for homosexual behavior.
Is this going to be upheld in court?
As to ‘its employees’ beliefs’ : This country is largely split down the middle. It’s statistically highly likely, almost certain, that about half those airline employees agree with the beliefs of the chocolatier, not with the airline.
What if half those employees choose not to do business with the airline anymore? How will they fare if half their employees walk out on them?
P
Poet
Guest
This becomes word games. One could equally phrase it that the airport is CHOOSING who do to business with, or not. The airline CHOSE not to do business with the chocolatier and the airport CHOSE not to do business with Chic-fil-A.
I would also like to know why an airline can CHOOSE who to do business with (or not) but a baker, florist, and videographers cannot.
Either we can all choose who to do business with or none of us can.
L
LovelyLadybug
Guest
I think we should “impose” our beliefs on other people so that we can help them get to heaven. Think about all the missionaries and saints who convert people to Catholicism. Don’t you think “imposing” their beliefs is worth it if they help people get to heaven? I do oppose so called “same-sex marriage” and I would support banning premarital sex. Jesus said to preach the gospel at all times and St. Francis said that as well. We’re not “imposing” we’re helping these people. I hope this helps!!! God bless!!! 
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Marriage is not a scientific definition it is a social one.
Last edited: