Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Jarold]

> Right. The truth is, they don't discriminate against others. They have a rule that says the head of their local chapters should be believers in Christ.

I find it hard to believe there are no specific complaints that have come up about the christians behavior here.

> I know that they also teach the Bible, which means that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

And if they're promoting this viewpoint publicly, or are advocating it in a setting where there are people who don't hold that view, then they are probably are discriminating.

> trying to persuade them that God exists, that He loves them, and how they can be saved from sin. No discrimination takes place.

And persuade them that they are sinners because they are gay, is discrimination. It's also rude. How do you know this god actually feels this way? Because someone wrote it into a book when it was much more common to discriminate?

>>Such as? I don't get it. What were they doing wrong?
> They were kicked off of U Iowa for requiring their leaders to be Christian

I'm not sure of the rules, but if the rules are that you can't exclude anyone in officially sanctioned clubs or whatever, then this requirement violates that.

> Well, then do the research before you judge.

I'm not really interested enough to, but it's your claim, you should support it.

> The point isn't house calls, but if you have a business that serves the public, are you ever allowed to draw lines based on conscience and conscientious objection?

The reason the photographer is a bad analogy, is because they don't have to serve everyone that contacts them in the first place. How can you determine why they didn't want the business? This is why this analogy is difficult.

> How would anybody feel if someone from Westboro asked a gay photographer to photograph their wedding

Same objection. There is no requirement that they do that. It would be different if the photographer had a studio open to the public to come in and have pictures taken. In that case, it would be wrong for the photographer to turn down service on a walk in because they're from a shitty church.

> That photographer, in my hypothetical situation, should have a right to say no, and the customer should go elsewhere.

They do have the right to say no. This isn't a walk in, it's a house call.

> You don't seem to be grasping the idea that sometimes values come into conflict.

I absolutely do understand that values come in conflict. But the mere fact that you open a store for walk in business means you can't turn someone away because of those values. If you don't want to deal with all of the public, then opening a bakery isn't the right thing for you to do.

> The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) considers the cross to be hate symbol.

Wasn't it used to murder christ?

> The courts, including the Supreme Court of the US, disagree with you.

Doesn't make it right.

> My question is: Who is really the hater here? Who is really discriminating? Who is bigoted?

Those that want to push their beliefs onto other where those beliefs infringe on their rights. Wanting to be treated equally with other people is not discrimination.

[jimwalton]

> I find it hard to believe there are no specific complaints that have come up about the christians behavior here.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. If you just assume Christians are at fault, maybe that's prejudice on your part. But the burden of proof is on you to find out whether the Christians were at fault or not. If you claim that, "Oh, they must have been," you have to substantiate that.

> And if they're promoting this viewpoint publicly, or are advocating it in a setting where there are people who don't hold that view, then they are probably are discriminating.

Well, we can't assume and then assume their guilty on the basis of our assumptions. If you think they're promoting this view publicly, you should have some evidence before you hold this position. That's only responsible.

> And persuade them that they are sinners because they are gay, is discrimination

Are they doing this? You can't just assume it. You should have evidence before you hold this position.

And, by the way, it's only discrimination if you actually discriminate. To hold a belief is not discrimination if there is no front where that surfaces or has effect. For instance, I've never been an employer, I don't run a store or run a businesses, and so my view (whatever it may be) is never on the playing field. I'm never in that situation, so it's never discrimination. Just for analogy's sake, suppose I thought (which I don't) that (oh I'll make something up) that if I were a business owner in Indonesia I would never hire an American to work. Well, I've never been in Indonesia, and I don't own a business there, so how is this discrimination if I never actually discriminate against someone? The belief doesn't make it discrimination.

Suppose I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Suppose I run a college group on a campus. Suppose we never teach that (we never put it on the curriculum), it never comes up, and everyone is welcome to attend my group, and everyone is welcomed with a hug. Am I discriminating? I say I'm not.

> I'm not sure of the rules, but if the rules are that you can't exclude anyone in officially sanctioned clubs or whatever, then this requirement violates that.

Do you mean to say that a rabid Republic should be allowed to be the leader of the campus Democrats? A KKK activist should be allowed to run the local chapter of the NAACP? Are you really saying that a Christian group should be required to possibly allow an atheist as its chapter leader? In my humble opinion, that's crazy.

>> Well, then do the research before you judge.
> I'm not really interested enough to, but it's your claim, you should support it.

I did support it. The group didn't do anything. I have done the research.

But it's off-putting that you aren't interested enough to find the truth, but you are more than ready to judge the Christians as at fault. That's very troubling to me.

> The reason the photographer is a bad analogy, is because they don't have to serve everyone that contacts them in the first place. How can you determine why they didn't want the business? This is why this analogy is difficult.

You're being evasive. You know what the point is here.

> They do have the right to say no.

But you're saying a cake baker does not have the right to say the same "no" based on the same conscientious objective. That's a double standard.

> But the mere fact that you open a store for walk in business means you can't turn someone away because of those values.

OK, suppose a black family owns a cake store, and the KKK comes in and wants a cake decorated with a black person hanging by a noose from a tree and it says "Kill all n*****rs." It's a store that accepts walk in business. Should the owner be required to decorate and sell this cake?

> Wasn't [the cross] used to murder christ?

Of course it was. In those days the cross was not a hate symbol, but the symbol of state executions. But the FFRF says the cross is a hate symbol. That's just hate rhetoric from the FFRF.

> Doesn't make it right.

As I've said, someone is going to end up being discriminated against. There's no way around it when we have conflicting values. Somewhere the decision has to be made. Obviously you think it's the Christians that should be discriminated against, and they should keep quiet about it. That's doesn't make it right, either.

> Those that want to push their beliefs onto other where those beliefs infringe on their rights.

The LGBTQ+ community is pushing their beliefs onto Christians far more than the other way around. The court case law and current events show that to be true, infringing on the religious rights of Christians' free expression. What makes this right in your mind, since you believe that pushing your beliefs on another group and infringing on their rights is wrong? Christians just want to be able to live according to the principles of their religion, but the gay activists are doing many things to discriminate on Christians on many fronts. According to your statement, this is wrong and it is discriminatory.

You seem so disturbed about discrimination against gays, but not the slightest bit about discrimination against Christians. To me, that just glares with hypocrisy and is a contradictory double standard.

[MarcosUve]

Do you think whether gays or lesbians think about religion?

[jimwalton]

I know they think about religion. They write to me all the time and want to talk about, gripe about it, rant about it, or clarify it. Many of them do think about religion. Some have been and continue to be hurt by it, some have questions, some are very angry, and some are struggling.