Show that to me under a microscope. The cold deaf dumb universe’s physics don’t dictate it. We are free to hold different opinions on to what extent we are free to discriminate… So far my opinion wins the day. And I’m pretty happy about the SC pick.
It’s a dangerous, as well as ignorant, way of thinking to equate legality with right. Slavery was once legal.
Oh, so now rights are independent of society? I remember making that very argument. Seriously, I will get back to you. Fun talk.
Right as in right and wrong.
You have not proven your claim that, from within the evangelical perspective, “you will always be guilty of some incongruity or hypocrisy.” You would have to deal with his argumentation and interpretations from within that perspective to demonstrate that he has actually acted incongruously or hypocritically on this issue. And even if you did prove that, it would not justify forcing him to violate his conscience on this matter simply because he acts incongruously in other areas of his life.
1 Like
Again, we already limit religious expression.
Would you provide a taxonomy of the forms of religious expression we limit?
Not on this issue. We’ll see. I’m confident.
Human sacrifice. Animal sacrifice. Child marriage. Pedophilia. Kids can be taken from parents to receive medical care beyond prayer. Racial discrimination. then you have the various punishments in the Bible.
It took a few centuries to end slavery on this side of the globe.
In this case I’m feeling pretty confident the right thing being will happen more immediately. Especially with the SC nomination.
I mean, if you are limiting it to that, then all parties are still free to decide that for themselves.I’m not so interested in arguing that. Neither one of us can employ the scientific method or something and 'prove" our hypothesis. But the legal right, aha!
Thank you for the clarification on your meaning. I am unsure of the relevance of these items in the present case, for the following reasons…
-
Neither human nor animal sacrifice, nor child marriage, nor pedophilia, nor the exclusive use of prayer as medicine, nor racial discrimination are advocated within the New Testament or mainstream Christianity; in fact, most of them are condemned explicitly or implicitly within the Bible. As for legal retribution in the Old Testament, he Israelite theocracy is dead, and the New Testament does not try to resurrect it or support the use of its punishments. While some Christians supported U.S. laws punishing homosexuals for their behavior, the rationale for the decriminalization of homosexuality is the constitutional separation of church and state, not the government’s right to infringe upon religious freedom.
-
All but one of these examples (racial discrimination, debatably) are dissimilar in kind to the issue of refraining from participating in an activity perceived as sinful. The government declaring, “you cannot do X,” is not the same thing as saying, “you must do Y.”
-
The case of racial discrimination would be analogous and relevant if the baker refused to sell the couple something exclusively because they were gay. But that is not the issue; the baker simply refused to make them a particular cake for a particular purpose.
zecarlo, I am curious about how you view cases of, say, Catholic high schools firing homosexuals who’ve decided to come out? And yes, there have been firings of unwed mothers too. Among other things. But still, see KingKai’s point. Is there some distinction you make? Or, not?
If a church or (closely affiliated organization) owns property that it rents out for marriages?
You make discrimination sounds like some ultimate ‘sin’ in which the state must intervene. How far, personally are you willing to go?
The federal government had no right to intervene between two people doing business. People had a right to discriminate based on whatever they wanted to, or none at all. The civil rights act assumed the federal power (title 2 and 7 in particular) to get involved in a business interaction between 2 people. There is actually still a decent chance that titles 2 and 7 will be overturned because the right to associate as you wish in private business is very plausibly protected by amendment 1 as a property right even if religious freedom and freedom of speech don’t hold. People have a right to discriminate based on whatever standard they want in private matters. We shouldn’t even have to give reasons. Perhaps the baker should have just said, I don’t want to work with you, and my reasons are my own.
Slavery was arguably not legal. It was allowed to exist because of unjust court rulings such as Dred Scott. An objective interpretation would have found chattel slavery to be unconstitutional.
But, wasn’t the argument that the government shouldn’t regulate religious interpretation? The Bible says lots of things that can be interpreted in different ways. Who decides which one is correct? The Bible was used to justify slavery and war.
Your post reminded me of this.
An LGBT activist group, Campus Pride, has asked for corporations to boycott graduates from some private religious colleges. Don’t recruit from these colleges. Make their degrees worthless.
In this case, it wouldn’t matter what my individual views are. Personally, I would not discriminate against anyone in employment, or housing, or in any other way I can imagine. I’d bake a cake for a gay couple. BUT I graduated from a school on the “Shame List.” BYU has an honor code, and any sexual relations outside of traditional marriage (LGBT or otherwise) can be a cause for campus discipline. Sexual orientation is not a sin in itself, but it would require celibacy. If you want to have sex outside or marriage, or are actively living an LGBT livestyle and want to marry a same-sex partner, you would not want to attend BYU.
As I understand it, the policy means this group would recommend that no business ever hire me, regardless of my personal attitudes toward discrimination of any kind.
Is this discrimination based on behavior? Or just an intolerance of religious belief? I believe there is at least one Jewish school on the list. Certainly there would be Muslim schools if there were more private Muslim universities.
Edited for clarity
2 Likes
I think it’s a damn shame, and a rather un-Christian thing to do. The church is a hospital for sinners–not a hotel for saints.
How about that Supreme Court?*
.
.
.
*Added for thread relevance
2 Likes
But that’s just it, I think these topics are relevant. These are questions being raised presently. State recognized homosexual marriage is making these questions relevant.