"Heterosexuals Only"

[dawny0826]

What makes you so sure of this?

It seems to me that these sorts of "religious freedom" laws are in conflict with existing laws, but I think it's far from certain how the conflict will be resolved. Which law takes precedence will probably have to be sorted out by the courts.

As of now, there haven't been any changes to these laws. Check it out for yourself.

These "religious freedom" laws are no more in conflict with existing laws now than they were two weeks ago, as AZ residents were protected before under the US consitution, which provides Americans the right to manifest their religious beliefs in practice and observation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As of now, there haven't been any changes to these laws. Check it out for yourself.

Obviously, I'm talking about the situation that will occur if the Arizona governor ratifies the bill. I assumed you were as well.

These "religious freedom" laws are no more in conflict with existing laws now than they were two weeks ago, as AZ residents were protected before under the US consitution, which provides Americans the right to manifest their religious beliefs in practice and observation.

It seems to me that this Arizona bill goes quite a bit beyond the protections of US constitution.

 

[Ingledsva]

There are some who believe that you cannot directly contribute to sinful action. A homosexual wedding would be an "abomination" and they could not directly support it.

I agree that this bill drips of hypocricy, but, I also take issue with people forgetting that people, Christian or otherwise, have the consitutional right to practice these belief systems, regardless as to how outlandish some may construe them and regardless as to how much they are hated in the process.

In a practical appliction, I fail to see how in many scenarios discrimination would have to factor in at all.

"I'm sorry. We're booked on these dates, but, I'd like to refer you to an excellent photographer in the area who can meet your needs."

or "I'm sorry. I'm not available on this date, but, I have an excellent photographer who can meet your needs."

As for restaurants, housing and other establishments, the current anti-discrimination, anti-segregation, equal employment and fair housing laws in the state are not voided by this law. So, anyone who feels that they are being discriminated against can file complaint as per process. Unless one being accused could demonstrate that their actions are justified as per a deeply held religious belief, they may not qualify for injunction.

This law isn't necessary, as such laws are already in place and anti-discrimination laws should also cover the religious.

I assure the non religious are chock full of their fair share of hateful, bigoted hypocrites too.

Let's stop with the first sentence - and examine it.


How are these hypocrite Christians going to check ALL their OTHER patrons for ALL the OTHER SINS before providing services?

If they do not check ALL other patrons for SINS and then turn THEM away, - then they are just homophobic hypocrites, and every one of them needs to be sued!


A good lawyer could win in every such case. All he would have to do is bring up the FACT that the CHRISTIAN Bible says its leader CHRIST/God interacted with sinners. Therefore so-called "Christians" cannot use said reasoning as stated in the bill, in defense of their Christian "religious rights," not to even interact in normal daily commerce, with Gays, or anyone else their religious laws say is a sinner.


Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.


Luke 15:1-2 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”


1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.


Romans 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”


Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


Matthew 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



*

 

[dawny0826]

Let's stop with the first sentence - and examine it.


How are these hypocrite Christians going to check ALL their OTHER patrons for ALL the OTHER SINS before providing services?

If they do not check ALL other patrons for SINS and then turn THEM away, - then they are just homophobic hypocrites, and every one of them needs to be sued!


A good lawyer could win in every such case. All he would have to do is bring up the FACT that the CHRISTIAN Bible says its leader CHRIST/God interacted with sinners. Therefore so-called "Christians" cannot use said reasoning as stated in the bill, in defense of their Christian "religious rights," not to even interact in normal daily commerce, with Gays, or anyone else their religious laws say is a sinner.


Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.


Luke 15:1-2 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”


1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.


Romans 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”


Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


Matthew 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



*

I wouldn't vote in favor of these laws if provided the opportunity. I'm a Christian who is not obligated to defend my own holy book. I know what it says. I know how I treat people in my day to day life.

I'm also a Libertarian. I support homosexual marriage. I support indiviudal freedoms. I also support religious freedom. I respect the Christian who does not support homosexual marriage.

I'm not going here with you. You can have this argument with someone who holds those viewpoints and allow them to explain why they believe as they do.

Have fun.

 

[Salvos por Gracia]

How is a gay guy buying stuff from you going to harm you?

I agree with Kryptid. This is why I think this Kansas bill is non-sense.

 

[Mycroft]

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Could you imagine?

God:

"You have led a good life. You have been faithful in your belief of me. You have given to charity, preached my gospel and kept the ten commandments. You are a model Christian, my son. But....there was this one Christmas in 1997 when you ate a Quail. Off to Hell with you, wretched creature!"

Somehow it just doesn't seem to ring true to me.

 

[Ingledsva]

I wouldn't vote in favor of these laws if provided the opportunity. I'm a Christian who is not obligated to defend my own holy book. I know what it says. I know how I treat people in my day to day life.

I'm also a Libertarian. I support homosexual marriage. I support indiviudal freedoms. I also support religious freedom. I respect the Christian who does not support homosexual marriage.

I'm not going here with you. You can have this argument with someone who holds those viewpoints and allow them to explain why they believe as they do.

Have fun.

How is treating Gay people with the normal respect and services you give other "sinners," disrespecting Christians whom don't support Gay marriage?


It isn't! And that IS THE POINT!



*

 

[ChristineES]

I don't understand this law. As I said earlier, not even Christians are taught to do this sort of thing (as business people). As Christians, we're supposed to be loving to everyone. This law rather disappoints me, in fact I am totally dismayed over it. George Takei said he was boycotting the whole state of Arizona, and I can't blame him for it.

 

[Nakosis]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

What's your take on this? Do you think it should be a business owners right to display a sign on their front window that says "Heterosexuals Only"? (Not that they would actually do that. But essentially gives them the right to do so)

In California homosexuality is a protected right according to the state constitution.

If they had not passed that law I don't know if there would be any legal recourse to discrimination.

The US constitution is pretty vague on some issues. I believe purposely so. While the supreme court can interpret it one way or another, it pretty much a matter of personal bias.

 

[dawny0826]

How is treating Gay people with the normal respect and services you give other "sinners," disrespecting Christians whom don't support Gay marriage?


It isn't! And that IS THE POINT!



*

What do you not understand about my position?

I don't support this bill. But, I do respect the right for people to believe as they want to believe. You need to have this argument with someone who views homosexuality to be a sin and would vote in favor of such legislation if provided the opportunity.

 

[Ingledsva]

What do you not understand about my position?

I don't support this bill. But, I do respect the right for people to believe as they want to believe. You need to have this argument with someone who views homosexuality to be a sin and would vote in favor of such legislation if provided the opportunity.

Actually I'm arguing against your stand that they have a right to discriminate against people - under religious rights - when no normal religious right is being infringed.


The Bible does not say - don't sell to Gays. Jesus supped with, and hung out with sinners.


It is quite funny that Christians claim Jesus is the BE ALL-End ALL, and perfect,- but they want to be different then what he did and taught - and say that prejudicial homophobic crap came from "HIS" religion!


Guess what? It isn't in Jesus Christ's religion - so the so-called Christians, can't claim selling to Gays is infringing their CHRISTian religion!


*

 

[ChristineES]

Even if a Christian views something as a sin, it still isn't right to turn away someone from their business because of such a reason. It is, pure and simple, discrimination and that is not acceptable in a business.

 

[averageJOE]

Five other states are now going to attempt to pass the same kind of law that was struck down in Arizona and Kansas.
After Arizona: 5 Other States Considering Anti-Gay Laws - Yahoo

 

[Ingledsva]

Five other states are now going to attempt to pass the same kind of law that was struck down in Arizona and Kansas.
After Arizona: 5 Other States Considering Anti-Gay Laws - Yahoo

Yep! Including Oregon, a state I visit on vacation every year.


We love vacationing out on the Oregon coast, - so I'm hoping they defeat the bill, and we can continue to RV there.


If it passes we will skirt the state and spend our money elsewhere - in protest.



Thank goodness it was struck down in Arizona, - and we can continue going to the yearly big RV meet-up in Quartzsite, and spend time in Lake Havasu, etc.



*

 

[dawny0826]

Actually I'm arguing against your stand that they have a right to discriminate against people - under religious rights - when no normal religious right is being infringed.

How have I condoned discrimination? Please, be specific, so, that I have an opportunity to fairly address your concerns.

This was my first contribution in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3666672-post42.html

The Bible does not say - don't sell to Gays. Jesus supped with, and hung out with sinners.

No ****.

 

[dawny0826]

How is treating Gay people with the normal respect and services you give other "sinners," disrespecting Christians whom don't support Gay marriage?


It isn't! And that IS THE POINT!



*

I have stated in this very thread that I am a Libertarian. I also stated (did I not?) that I would not support such legislation if provided an opportunity and that I do support homosexual rights.

You don't need to preach to me about religious hypocrisy. I believe in love and that we should love and respect others and that when we do, we fulfill the law to the fullest, as per Christ's instruction.

That doesn't mean however, that I believe that the rights of the religious are null. I can give a hoot about the opinions and rights of other people who think differently than I do.

 

[Nakosis]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

What's your take on this? Do you think it should be a business owners right to display a sign on their front window that says "Heterosexuals Only"? (Not that they would actually do that. But essentially gives them the right to do so)

This reads a lot different then the Arizona bill. It's pretty direct...

I little hard to believe that a Christian would see this as justified. Way off track from the spirit of Christ. I'd hope most people would be ashamed to support such a bill.

 

[Mycroft]

True story: I was once told by a Jehova's Witness to turn away from my wicknedness after I informed him that I was Cisgendered.

Oh how I laughed.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have stated in this very thread that I am a Libertarian. I also stated (did I not?) that I would not support such legislation if provided an opportunity and that I do support homosexual rights.

You don't need to preach to me about religious hypocrisy. I believe in love and that we should love and respect others and that when we do, we fulfill the law to the fullest, as per Christ's instruction.

That doesn't mean however, that I believe that the rights of the religious are null. I can give a hoot about the opinions and rights of other people who think differently than I do.

Again - it is not a religious right to discriminate against Gay people.


Since it is obviously not a sin according to JESUS to interact with sinners, - HE DID SO, - then interacting with sinners - CANNOT - be used as an excuse for this bill's Gay discrimination - using Christian religious Laws.


How far do those "opinions and rights of other people"/discrimination against others, - that you respect - go???


Can they turn away ALL other religions - refusing to serve them - since they are supposedly being misled from the true God and going to Hell??


Can they turn away black people claiming - as some Christian religions do - that - Cain's punishment mark - was to be turned black, hence black people are under punishment?


Are they going to stop being HYPOCRITES and turn away ALL sinners from their doors - thus going broke - as ALL are sinners - according to the BIBLE??


I am saying you should not be supporting this so-called "religious right" - because it isn't one!



*

 

[dawny0826]

Again - it is not a religious right to discriminate against Gay people.

It's not. it is however, a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have freedom of religion, which includes practice and observance.

I think in the majority of instances, you and I would be in agreeance, that there would be no justification for denying service to someone who is a homosexual, save to discriminate.

However, I appreciate that Americans from all walks of life, have the ability to challenge others when they feel their rights have been impinged upon.

Though I imagine that you would have a hard time wrapping your mind around the concept of a religious person being discriminated AGAINST, I assure you, that happens too. Their freedoms and rights are important to me as well.

I do not feel that the KS and AZ bills are necessary to preserve freedoms. And local, state and federal governments have the responsibility to ensure that our constitutional freedoms remain in tact, anyway.

It would bother me as an American if a religious organization, one with a specific mission, were being forced by the government to provide service that stretched outside the scope of it's mission of intent and scope. I find this to be in confliction with the rights of that organization as per the constitution.

I don't care to argue that piece with you. If you disagree with me, that's fine.

Since it is obviously not a sin according to JESUS to interact with sinners, - HE DID SO, - then interacting with sinners - CANNOT - be used as an excuse for this bill's Gay discrimination - using Christian religious Laws.

Yes, Jesus did interact with sinners. In some examples, he had a very specific reason for doing so for the betterment of that particular person or group.

Don't kid yourself that Christ condones sin. Christ taught us to approach people with love and acceptance, but, not to embrace sin.

The individual has to interpret this as they will. For a lot of "us" (Christians), we acknowledge that all people are with fault and that it's hypocritical to elevate any one "sin" above the other as it's all a blemish in God's eyes and that we can best reflect Christ's love through kindness and compassion.

Others of course, take from other instruction in the bible, perhaps in or out of context, and apply it to their daily lives. I found the link below, which I thought would be helpful in perhaps explaining the common viewpoint of those who "rebuke" homosexuality.

I encourage you to research and draw your own conclusions.

Judge Not: Should we Oppose and Rebuke Sin and Religious Error?

How far do those "opinions and rights of other people"/discrimination against others, - that you respect - go???

I suppose it's contingent upon the individual, their personal convictions and their own percpetions of what constitutes "discrimination".

Can they turn away ALL other religions - refusing to serve them - since they are supposedly being misled from the true God and going to Hell??

Considering that the bill was vetoed in AZ, I don't think that this is legally possible, if it were possible before the bill was conjured, given current discrimination law, in the state.

I can't answer as to the other pieces, since this isn't what I believe.

Can they turn away black people claiming - as some Christian religions do - that - Cain's punishment mark - was to be turned black, hence black people are under punishment?

I'm not a racist person and disagree with segregation, so, I can't answer as to the thought processes and justification behind such behavior. Considering anti-segregration laws that are place in the state of AZ (perhaps you should brush up on those, if you're worried), I would say...no.

Are they going to stop being HYPOCRITES and turn away ALL sinners from their doors - thus going broke - as ALL are sinners - according to the BIBLE??

As the bill was vetoed, I'm inclined to say no. It would be asinine for you to assume that a). All Christians were in support of the bill in the state of AZ and b.) All business owners in support of the bill would deny service to homosexuals.

I am saying you should not be supporting this so-called "religious right" - because it isn't one!

You're misrepresenting my statement. Go back and read again.

I stated that we the religious have contitutional freedoms. FACT. I have not proported that the religious have the consitutional "right" to discriminate.