Nope. It’s those who push discriminatory and unneeded legislation.
There are plenty of things I disagree with others on that are not rooted in hatred and bigotry. For example, I don’t like wine and others do. The difference is that I don’t try to make it illegal for them to consume wine.
I like wine. I will not ask you to drink wine, if you tell me you don’t. If I invite Mormon friends for dinner, I do not serve wine or coffee. If I meet them at a restaurant, probably I will drink wine and coffee. It will depend on the circumstances. Not if I’m the only non Mormon at the table. I don’t expect to be served wine or coffee when they invite me to their homes for dinner. As far as I can tell, my Mormon friends really don’t care what I drink… at my house or at a restaurant.
Since I’m looking at the world through white heteronormative eyes, I’m sure I am frequently blind. I am trying to see. That is my one of my main life goals going forward. My kids are a huge help.
adding: I have been on this board a very long time. I joined because someone posted their kid just found out he had a gay roommate and many chimed in to agree how distressing that must be. I was about the only one saying, “hey wait – the gay kid is the one at risk here”
The world changes. I am happy.
Good luck to all your kids as they begin their college experiences!!! This won’t even be an issue for our grandkids.
Actually I’ve been wondering: has there been corporate pushback in Mississsippi and Kansas?
Or is that one of those cases of “we expected so much better from you, NC, because you know better, whereas we didn’t expect much from MS/KS because, well, err…”
This has been a very therapeutic thread, most people have been supportive and concerned about our LGBT family.
Facebook can be very toxic and frankly hateful, so thank you everyone.
Best wishes, sly.
I am a young person still in grad school. It is my dearest wish that my children will look on this time the same way that my generation looks at interracial “issues” of our past.
They will, romani. It’s only a matter of time before SCOTUS settles all of these questions once and for all, and I’m confident they won’t settle in favor of bigotry.
This has been a wide-ranging thread, so I apologize for responding to several different things that have been brought up. The issues that interest me the most are those involving conflicts of rights.
[/quote]
There certainly could be. If he chose, a baker could sell only cakes and cookies with “Jesus loves you” iced on each item. If that’s what he chooses to sell, I don’t think any customer would have the right to insist that he make a cake or a cookie without that message. (This points out why the baker example is kind of a goofy place to draw the line: we don’t normally think of bakers as sending a personal message with cakes, but they could do so.) I think a baker who simply stopped making custom cakes, but who simply sold the “Christian” cakes he makes to all comers, would not be in violation of any antidiscrimination laws.
Does the Old Testament condemn all homosexuality, or only male homosexuality?
I would say that the Old Testament does not bother explicitly condemning female homosexuality. That is not the same as approving of it.
But what difference does it make? I just find it hard to think that there are many people who are going to say, “OK, I still believe in the inerrancy and total authority of the Bible, and its total applicability to the modern world, but you have convinced me, through complicated arguments based on extra-Biblical texts, that it doesn’t actually say what I’ve been taught it says about this topic.” Wouldn’t it be much more likely that somebody would say, “Sure, the Bible condemns homosexuality, but I don’t think those rules can survive our modern understanding of human sexuality?”
The problem isn’t “Jesus loves you” cookies. The problem is wedding cakes. These are bakers who will sell wedding cakes to adulterers, fornicators, the unbiblically-divorced, and atheists – but not gays.
Atheists don’t believe that any of the Bible’s teachings are mandatory; at least, not because they’re in the Bible. Do the Christian bakers refuse to sell their cakes to atheists?
BTW, we can debate about what the Bible really says about homosexuality, but I hope you’d agree that nowhere does it single it out as the sin above all sins, which is what some evangelicals do. That is not supported by scripture.
Ran onto this issue a month or so ago, and there is an additional issue here - what about the rights of minors not to exposed to images not appropriate for their age.
An anatomical male n his 30s entered the locker room of an establishment in a town over from me. It is an open bathroom with group showers etc. Typical locker room. Well, all hell broke loose given the fact that there were 5, 10 and 15 year-old females in the nude, taking showers etc.
The transgendered male was ceremoniously kicked out by the Moms in the locker room. And then the Dads of these young girls showed up and railed at the manager because a couple young girls were definitely traumatized by this event.
The most intriguing questions I head from the upset parents were along the lines of this post above (paraphrased): “Why does the rights of a male who thinks he is female trump the rights of young girls not to be exposed to full-grown anatomical males?” As one Mom said (paraphrased), “If I walked in my 8 year-olds room and she was looking at a magazine full of naked men, I would take that from her thinking it inappropriate. Why should I then be fine with live nude anatomical males changing and showering next to her?” Where are her rights to privacy and feeling uncomfortable as she uses the bathroom?"
Given those questions and the rage of the Dads, it was not hard to see why they backtracked pretty quickly. And that policy was quickly changed to males who think they are female should use the singular family bathroom; same for females who think they are male.
I thought we weren’t supposed to get into discussions about religion on CC… but I want to add that the term homosexuality wasn’t even in the vocabulary back in the days of the bible.
If you are referring to the word abomination (which most people today throw in LGBT faces as proof) That word wasn’t in the vocabulary back then either… it was translated into vocabulary in the King James version. The original word was used in an unclean meaning or dietary restrictions… It says eating shrimp, wearing mixed fabrics and cutting hair is an abomination…
@Hunt The Bible advocates stoning to death children who are disrespectful and rebellious to their parents… yet we don’t ever take that seriously bc of the need by our government to protect the rights of others… Do you think we should allow a religious exemption to those believers who take that seriously? No, bc it would hurt another’s rights… Well its the same thing w bakers… have your religious views but don’t harm others by them.
The bible advocates many things that we as a society do not ever adhere to, For Pete’s sake no one even adheres to one of the 10 commandments about keeping holy the sabbath day… i.e. no stores open… everyone shops today on Sundays!
@runswimyoga, I don’t think you’re actually disagreeing with anything I said.
Well, if I were a lawyer defending a cake baker, I would argue (assuming that this was true) that my client would sell a cake to anybody, but that he would not inscribe a message onto a cake that he disagreed with. Thus, he wouldn’t make a cake that said “God is Dead,” just as he wouldn’t make a cake that said, “Happy Wedding, Mary and Sue.”
And let me ask you this: would it make the baker’s case stronger or weaker if he also refused to sell any wedding cakes to people who had been divorced and were remarrying?
So many here seem to be missing the entire point - it is not the cake; it is the message and belief sent by what is written on the cake or displayed on the cake.
I am quite sure that the “adulterers, fornicators, the unbiblically-divorced, and atheists” are marrying the other sex, which is the point. The issue is marriage and the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. To compare that specific belief to something else, which does not go against that principle is a non-sequitor, as does not matter to the issue. Comparing apples and oranges.
^ the point is that they are claiming “not making cakes for same-sex weddings” as a sincerely held religious based belief, when they routinely make cakes for situations equally ( or more) disproved of by the religious texts and traditions they are citing. Many see the hypocrisy as undermining the sincerity of their beliefs.
It’s like a kid who suddenly has moral objections to attending school only on days he has gym class.
Let me rephrase this even more simply, leaving out the flashpoint of “thinks he is female.”
Do persons using a bathroom or locker room designated as for “Women” have a reasonable expectation that persons will not exhibit adult penises in that room? Do they have a privacy right that is violated if a government entity permits that room to be used by persons with penises?
Before answering this question, I would note that the fact that YOU would not be offended or troubled by seeing a penis in the ladies’ room is not dispositive of this issue. What is the argument that it is unreasonable for anybody to be troubled or disturbed by this?
I am saying that there are many things that our government won’t ever give a religious exemption to that are advocated in the Bible (stoning people for one selling slaves for another) so the argument that bc something is against or is taught in ones religion (or that it is or isn’t in the bible) should have ZERO impact when it comes to using that as an excuse to take away civil rights of others.
You are free to practice your religion to the point that it doesn’t effect my civil rights.