Do you agree with the bolded in SavannahGal’s statement:(I’m a her, although it couldn’t possibly matter)
I think SavannahGal expresses some of the distinctions I was meaning to make, an awful lot better than I did
Now that’s just plain delusional. Please tell me more about how terrible it is being in the “persecuted majority” because from where perceptions of me have only improved since I started RCIA.
Exactly - but my point clearly hasn’t been grasped. The person I was responding to is paranoid beyond reason and tried to twist their misconceptions about history to feed into their delusions/
After the courts let the ‘reasonable woman standard’ displace the ‘reasonable person standard’ for court cases, those in the perceived majority do not have equal standing before the law any more, as I explained in detail.
Lol, whatever. I guess I just cant go stomping gay people any more and that just infuriates me, lololol. /sarc
Your point is meaningless as was your ad hominem above and you accusation of irrational hatred.
Yes. It doesn’t invalidate what I have been saying, because it approaches the matter from exactly the opposite way around.
). But that’s very much the opposite thing from providing the original service to them.And once again, for a Christian it is not the same thing at all to support a heterosexual marriage vrs supporting a homosexual perversion of what they want to call marriage, but to a Biblical Christian is N OT a marriage at all.
The question is whether or not we accept the invitation. Worse still is to claim to follow Him without making that commitment,
Could you give an example where one of the bakeries being targeted had supplied gay faux “wedding” cakes to heterosexual, and refused to supply one to homosexuals?
Ok, I thought Sweet Cakes refused to provide a cake for the “wedding,” not due to the person’s orientation. Correct me if I’m wrong.Yes. It doesn’t invalidate what I have been saying, because it approaches the matter from exactly the opposite way around.
One can’t (or at least shouldn’t be) coerced by law into doing something - as long as not doing it doesn’t constitute harming anyone else (something like not educating one’s kids represents real harm to them, therefore education to some level should be compulsory). Similarly I don’t think it’s right for a court/legislature to force a bakeshop owner to bake a cake, or to decorate it in a particular way - which, if I understood SavannahGal correctly, was her point. (?)
However, refusing to provide a service or product for some people, when that same service or product is provided to others, is tangible unequal treatment and that, to my mind at least, is wrong.
Sweet Cakes in Portland OR refused to provide equal service (to take an instance we’re all fairly well aware of). While if I was one of the offended couples I’d simply go find a bakery that was willing to make my wedding cake, I don’t think it was illegitimate to ask for redress. And while I think the sum currently ordered for redress seems extortionately and ridiculously high (which perhaps calls into question the motives of the couples concerned; asking for a token $5 in damages would have been more appropriate), it is not the same thing as a court ordering a bakery to make a cake with a slogan or decoration they (the owners) find to be at odds with their beliefs.
I work for a counselling service. I would offer that counselling equally to anyone here or anywhere else, even if they were in the KKK, for instance. I might find almost everything about their beliefs abhorrent, but given I provide that service it should be provided regardless of any qualms I may have about the person I’m interacting with. If Congress passed a law saying counsellors had to go socialize out with their clients, I would have an issue with that (and professional ethical concerns
They did refuse to provide the cake for the wedding. Had the gay couple asked for a cake otherwise, not clearly in support of a gay wedding, there would not have been a problem.
This is why I’m wondering why people are turning this into refusal of service based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a protected status.
I suspect it’s the couples themselves (more likely, their lawyers) pressing for every cent they could get, rather than deliberately wanting to “punish” a Christian (but I remain open minded on that front because while gay people are just as lovely/obnoxious in the same proportions as in the heterosexual population, there are a few awful people in every walk of life as I’m sure we all have experienced…)
It is illegal in Oregon to discriminate in providing services on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (“public accommodations”). (Link is to the Human Rights Campaign page on Oregon’s LGBT rights laws, and whatever one might think about their motivations, on this issue they probably have their facts right about the law)
My apologies if I misread your post. I’m very happy to hear you are aware of the different legal issues at play. Many of our elected officials don’t seem to have that awareness and I hope you will run for office and replace them.
You’re creating a specious distinction and certainly one that would have no legal merit. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. Take a look at some wedding cake designs online. Most do not even have toppers these days. There is absolutely nothing that would distinguish them as “gay” or “straight”. And if the couple wants two brides or two grooms on the top of the cake, they can provide it themselves. Most couples purchase the topper separately anyway if they even choose to have one.
I have stated before that my views on killing are more strict than the Church’s. Since my standard exceeds that of the Church, I do not need that point of reference. Besides, the laws that Jesus came to fulfill rather than replace included the injunction not to kill. I don;t see how this particular item in the bible can be understood too many ways.
I don’t recall that I stated a priority when I said that I support no form of killing, maiming or otherwise harming any living thing. It means what it says, and I’m not sure how I could be more clear.
I don’t think heaven is a matter of scorecards.
Pope Francis recently denounced the “new tyranny” of unfettered capitalism and calls inequality “the root of social evil.” Subject of another thread but I would welcome some discussion on it. I wonder what alternative he might be thinking about. I bet it’s a mixed economy of some sort. But it’s certainly not unfettered capitalism. That’s off the table.
I listen to all parties and make my own decisions. Catholic yes, but a modern human too.
The problem with that particular argument is that the purpose for which Peter had drawn his sword was in fact defense. Jesus and the 12 were not launching an assault on the Roman guards that night. The passage is clearly a statement about violence and weapons. So defense is off the table. Offer another argument and we’ll discuss that too.
Rather than a matter of mental gymnastics, it’s only a simple matter of history really, but thank you for the vote of confidence anyway. I would offer that it requires a lack of historical context and knowledge of cultural syntax to be able to envision how a 1st century Palestinian Jew would have given a teaching on something that didn’t exist in fact or even in the minds of 1st century Palestinian Jews. The item of the day in Jewish Palestine was the number of wives a man had, and that is all.
I think Charles Dickens spent a good deal of his life writing about private and church run institutions and programs for the poor. The problems with that approach are how the government stuff came about in the first place. For our Tea Party readers, Charles Dickens was a writer in 19th century England.
That’s correct Ishii. Republicans who fight abortion but support the death penalty and unnecessary wars are selectively pro life in the same way that Democrats who oppose the death penalty and war but support abortion are selectively pro life. The difference is that the latter don’t tend to use Jesus as part of their reasoning or pretend to be the last vestiges of true Christianity, marching in the name of Jesus on some nebulous mission to uphold the values of the Saturday Evening Post. Yes, I do think Jesus would be baffled by it all.
No, Gary - you all but said that Republicans don’t care about the poor. I think its important to be open and transparent rather than say something in one post, then back peddle as if you were saying something else. And its important because to say of those you disagree with that they don’t care about the poor is to engage in unfair ad hominem which doesn’t help to have a civil, honest discussion.