A great day for freedom and liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

I think being forced to bake a wedding cake for a wedding you have religious objections to is as wrong as asking that baker to show up and perform the ceremony. However, Non religious accommodation would be required.

Oregon and its $135,000 fine is outrageous, disproportionate, cruel and unusual.

---

Knew I could count on you. :)

The problem is that many if not most who are for gay marriage immediately forget the "let people do what they want" part when that question comes up, and dismiss the religious views of others.

No one should be able to stop someone from pursuing their happiness with something like being married to who they want, but neither should anyone be forced to embrace it and perform services for it against their faith.

I know it's a fuzzy area b/c refusing to serve someone b/c yo don't want to versus b/c of your faith is a gray area, but the alternative of fining some poor nice woman $135,000 because she wont' participate in what she thinks is a sin is too abhorrent to not try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8

This quote is false, it is modified version of a quote from his Farewell Address. It is never been shown that he said "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible", this comes from a Biography written in 1852 about him and is never seen in any other publication. The real quote does support the concept of religion being necessary but it never says WHICH religion. There is no mention of God or a creator, simply a generic religion and morality.

---

I stand partially corrected I guess. :happy0001:

Yet, we have a pretty good idea it was our God, the One of the Christian faith.

Make no mistake though, I am a supporter of the separation of church and state. But the moral conscience of this country has been guided by Christian values since the beginning, mostly in agreement with other versions of the same, as well as other religions.

Yet even as a distinct minority the Secular humanist religion tries to operate as the only truth and therefore not a religion.
And we must be aware that it covertly targets the separation of church and state as a loophole to subvert, divide, and eventually extinguish Christianity from the American way of life..

I'll try again..



"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

..George Washington

One other thing I'd like to make clear. I understand that certain rights should be afforded everyone no matter their sexual orientation. My argument is against any law that clearly exists in opposition to Christian values and God's will in general.

And I do not consider a gay or lesbian individual any less a fellow citizen because of my stance.

Should the law have been related to adultery, covetousness, or bearing false witness, my answer would be the same. And while everyone is repeatedly in violation of one or the other of those, a national law should not be written regarding them either way.

To Christian gays or lesbians I say this (really to us all) we should not flaunt our forgiveness for sin by ignoring or perverting God's law in any way.

Thomas

Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist, which is of course not a form of Christianity. (In fact, Jefferson was arguably anti-Christian.) George Washington, however, was an Episcopalian, which meant pretty much then what it means now. It is, whatever else you say about it, a form of Christianity. So when Washington talks about God, we can suppose he means the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of Jesus Christ, rather than the Great Architect and Designer of the Universe that Jefferson would have meant. How devout Washington was remains in dispute, but that when he said God he meant the Christian God really is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicat

Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist

---

Did he do Washington's wooden teeth?

Oh, a deist? Nevermind.

Back on topic--Catholic priest here in Birmingham, Monsignor Mulling, had an interesting piece he authored for his church bulletin at Our Lady of Sorrows. The Birmingham News (al.com, at least) picked it up, and thought some might want to read it.

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2...iolates_r.html

IMO this is where things will take the wrong turn:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...-lesbians.html

Hit with a huge fine for not performing a personal service they see as a sin to perform, then hit with a gag order so they can't exercise their 1st amendment rights either. The Attorney General in Oregon is a strong advocate for the LGBT cause, so strong he's willing to use the power of the state to force people to conform to his value system.

It's not going to be two people getting a marriage license that becomes the issue. it's going to be what that license then empowers them to demand of others. Do churches have to allow gay weddings? Do photographers have to come and participate in what they see as a sin in their faith? Those are the tougher questions.

Protected status was easier to accept when it was saying you can't refuse to serve someone in a restaurant due to their race, there was no religious objection there in any major American faith saying having black or latino people in your diner is a sin. There isn't really one to serving a gay couple per se either, but many do see one if they are required to serve the wedding of that gay couple. In their faith that's an accessory to a sin.

Do we tell them tough, it's no different than refusing to serve a black person in your restaurant? Do we force them to take wedding photos or face huge fines? Do we force the churches to allow the weddings? The problem is there is another whole Amendment out there saying that people have the right to pursue their faith as they see fit, not as the state or others see fit, and they have some scripture there that can be interpreted to say they are violating their faith to so participate.

Also dying to watch the bigamy case make its way through, boy will that be fun. No way to turn them down now.

I have a question in this discussion, and here it is: my Dad was a firefighter, and owned a bar & a grocery store. In his bar, posted on the front door, over the bar in plain view, and over the door leading out to the restrooms, was a sign that said "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone". I only saw my Dad use that sign to refuse service to anyone maybe a couple of times. The bar was a privately owned business, just as the bakery in Oregon is. As a private business owner, I would believe that both my Dad and the bakery owners have a right to refuse to serve anyone as long as there is a good reason. In my mind, the bakery owner has a valid reason as to why they do not want this person's patronage. It the bakery owner's business, how they make a living, and as such, it is their right as private businesspeople to vendor to whomever they damn well please. Can't get the cake you want there? Guess what..........there's another bakery down the street or the next block over.
This is where this situation is all wrong: the customer in question is wrong for taking this to the point it has gone to. And it is none of the damn government's business as to whom the bakery chooses to serve or not serve. The state of Oregon is wrong for being involved and levying any kind of penalty against the bakery. Somebody's rights and civil liberties are being trampled on here, and it is NOT the people wanting the cake, it is the vendor selling the cake. This is government overreach at its worst, and a clear violation of the rights of the business owner to deal with whomever they want to deal with for patrons.
So now, it's okay to destroy another person's livelihood because they can't get want they want from this particular vendor, and especially since there are other vendors available that will meet their needs? That, my friends, is a classic example of tyranny. That is exactly what it is.
That's just how I see this. A "protected group" using the government to impose its will on those who don't wish to deal with them as a product vendor.

I guess Spock had it wrong in the "Wrath of Khan" movie...........""the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"..........and I know that's not what he said, just further illustration of the absurdity of this entire situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrell KSR

Back on topic--Catholic priest here in Birmingham, Monsignor Mulling, had an interesting piece he authored for his church bulletin at Our Lady of Sorrows. The Birmingham News (al.com, at least) picked it up, and thought some might want to read it.

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2...iolates_r.html

---

Thanks for posting that Darrell. The Monsignor makes interesting and very valid, I believe points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

IMO this is where things will take the wrong turn:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...-lesbians.html

Hit with a huge fine for not performing a personal service they see as a sin to perform, then hit with a gag order so they can't exercise their 1st amendment rights either. The Attorney General in Oregon is a strong advocate for the LGBT cause, so strong he's willing to use the power of the state to force people to conform to his value system.

It's not going to be two people getting a marriage license that becomes the issue. it's going to be what that license then empowers them to demand of others. Do churches have to allow gay weddings? Do photographers have to come and participate in what they see as a sin in their faith? Those are the tougher questions.

Protected status was easier to accept when it was saying you can't refuse to serve someone in a restaurant due to their race, there was no religious objection there in any major American faith saying having black or latino people in your diner is a sin. There isn't really one to serving a gay couple per se either, but many do see one if they are required to serve the wedding of that gay couple. In their faith that's an accessory to a sin.

Do we tell them tough, it's no different than refusing to serve a black person in your restaurant? Do we force them to take wedding photos or face huge fines? Do we force the churches to allow the weddings? The problem is there is another whole Amendment out there saying that people have the right to pursue their faith as they see fit, not as the state or others see fit, and they have some scripture there that can be interpreted to say they are violating their faith to so participate.

Also dying to watch the bigamy case make its way through, boy will that be fun. No way to turn them down now.

---

I know the reaction from many religions and their members would be one of defiance and a "streets of Moscow" stance against any participation. That's just the fact of the matter.
Most would consider it a part of the end times prophecy of having to renounce their faith or be condemned, and many (although against our instruction) would go into a full rebellion against their persecutors.

I get discriminated against virtually every day for being NOT a Christian. Many, if not most, of my countless GLBT friends have been discriminated against their whole lives, as have GLBT folks before them FOR CENTURIES, because they were seen as a "sinner in the eyes of god".

Forget that the Christian god sees EVERYONE as a "sinner"... somehow people like me (non-religious), people like homosexuals who want to live happily and peacefully, or people who dare to, *gasp*, speak the scientific truth of, say, evolutionary science, are just BAD people, or part of some ridiculous "movement" to destroy the most powerful social institution in this country, worthy of being pointed out AMONGST all other sinners, unworthy of the perfect love of christ as seen through the eyes of absolutist biblical literalism, forever immutably immoral, with GLBT folks spoken about in the same gasps as pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.

Never mind the MANY flaws and inconsistencies in the bible, a book I actually do NOT dislike, find great beauty and wisdom in, and continue to find "inspiring" for certain ideas.

Never mind how I ALWAYS sit in silence while the pompous-ass born-again relative at my family reunions COMPLETELY IGNORES that MY family are NOT religious, yet LOUDLY calls EVERYONE to "pray before god" EVERY freaking YEAR.

Never mind how I have lost MANY potential friends, some relatives, and some business connections through the years based on the simple KNOWLEDGE that I am Agnostic and/or NOT hardcore right-wing Christian. I want to be clear about this... Christians are "called to" bring new believers into their faith, so they NEVER think it is a bad thing to loudly proclaim their religious views around me or whoever else is around, yet I NEVER do that unless the conversation goes in that direction, and even then only if I feel VERY comfortable with the folks I am talking to because you know what happens?.... I am JUDGED (a MAJOR sin, right???), sneered at with moral indignation, and sometimes MUCH worse.

It's okay though because I am in the VAST minority. It's okay though because christians "know" they are "right" and always speak as if christians are the PINNACLE of morality and what defines morality, NEVER to be questioned.

This is the land of the FREE, yet biblical literalist christians, as PEOPLE, NOT gods, think it is okay to point fingers at gay men in the privacy of their bedrooms and scream "SINNER!!! YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!", the subtext of which from my experiences and the MANY stories told to me by my GLBT friends is "we don't care that so many of you commit suicide due to banishment from your biblical literalist families, suffer extreme verbal and physical abuse at the hands of your biblical literalist parents, or suffer from insane broomstick RAPINGS in Catholic school locker rooms wherein the literal life-and-death FEAR of reprisal locks the victims' lips in a hellish prison, knowing that reporting it will ONLY make it MUCH worse".

So finally this country says it's okay for these horribly abused members of a minority, based on WHO THEY CHOOSE TO LOVE (yes, sex is a part of that for you, them, and everyone, AND it's NOT a "lifestyle choice", which is a VERY condescending and judgmental CHOICE of phrasing... it's a LIFE of a HUMAN BEING, no better OR worse than ANY "sinner" here or elsewhere, no more or less DESERVING of HUMAN judgment than ANY other TYPE of "sinner" here or elsewhere) to be afforded the legal, financial, emotional, and SOCIETY-defined RIGHTS that everyone else has and we get the most dominant social force in the country (christians) acting as if they are being forced to "be gay like those awful awful people" via a secondary "acknowledgment" that such folks EXIST, not as less than the "good people" as defined by the "good people", but as EQUAL to the "good people" because America insists.

The marginalization of the extreme biblical literalist right has been of their OWN doing... by NOT seeing the writing on the wall when these social issues are going in an inevitable direction and not even ATTEMPTING to budge an inch towards understanding, which of course yields a FAR more fervent EFFORT by those who feel strongly that they are NOT getting their PROMISED rights. By continuing to REFUSE to acknowledge the biological reality of GLBT folks as human beings, and only seeing them with less than contempt, the biblical literalist extreme has shot themselves in the foot as they so often do.

You wanna know the hard truth as to why Evangelical literalists lose SO many of their flock, percentage-wise, to more liberal wings of Christianity, to other faiths, other forms of "spirituality", and even to the "WORST" possible belief systems, in their views, Agnosticism and Atheism?

Because it's VERY unappealing to insist upon blind faith... NOT simple faith in a creator and/or "special spirituality" of certain humans and their philosophies, without even a cursory examination of the day-to-day realities of their actual lives, the social framework that exists within their lives, and the inevitable (and often extraordinary degree of) CHANGE that is a FACT of how our world operates... but faith in a centuries old notion that humans can be believed if they SAY they are divinely inspired. I don't care WHO you are... THAT is a LOT of faith... faith in a human to tell us EXACTLY how life should be (and that the unprovable concept of "god" should be unquestionably believed, first and foremost) and EXACTLY what we humans should ALL believe, i.e. ONLY christians get a nice "after-life"... the rest of ya... get F*CKED by Satan, right???

I am not trying, with this statement, to change the views of a biblical literalist reader or poster on this thread. I am just saying that ol' fire and brimstone might be the cat's jammies to SOME folks, but it sure as hell ain't to MOST folks and THAT is where you LOSE people, especially the young people who are capable of thinking critically beyond ONE translation of the bible as they grow and evolve into adults.

Gay people are not drawing believers away from god. They are just being who they were biologically built to be, which to biblical literalists still means they are NEVER allowed to have sex like their brain tells them to... until they die, I suppose. Absolutists who believe THEY have the be-all, end-all translation of a very complex set of scriptures, and who demand unquestioning conformity based upon those translations, have done all the work of drawing believers away from their narrow view of the Christian bible, and they have been doing this for YEARS.

For those whom this statement angers, I say welcome to the party.

Casual, and actual, discrimination is something that myself and other Agnostics/non-religious/non-christians, many of my family and friends, and ALL of my GLBT loved ones have a sh*t-ton of experience with, and almost ALWAYS most prominently this discrimination is at the hands of those who say "my way or the highway" to, who? Episcopalians (in the news)? Presbyterians (in this thread)? Any and all who are not of one specific brand of christianity who are more "open" to social discourse, scientific reality, and a concept of country that is not EXPLICITLY defined by ONE view of "what Christ would do?"?

I believe our GREAT country and evolving society will figure out the problems, some of which I am technically sympathetic with, if not emotionally moved by, that have been entailed in this thread by those who see the full and deserved measure of gay rights as the evil that precipitates tyranny and other inflammatory "we're all going to hell in a hand-basket" because a man kissed a man in public and they exchanged rings and signed some papers.

These legal issues will be sussed out... you may not like the results, but hopefully there will be a better understanding of the intricacies of what it ACTUALLY means to be an equal American in TODAY'S America, thus leading to SOME degree of acceptance that is not dripping with judgment. I have been browbeaten my whole life to understand the bible as the embodiment of perfection of ink on paper, "THE TRUTH. PERIOD." Pardon me if I don't find it easy to sympathize with the view that what I experience, on a human level here on Planet Earth, should have NO bearing on how I feel the society I live in should exist, in peace, under or NOT under god. ALL men. ALL women. ALL humans.

JMO and not meant to insult ANY particular poster on this thread or board.

Peace.

I'll say this Krank, there are certainly different motives for Christians to witness of what they believe. Some admittedly not so admirable...which is a result of human frailty.
But there are also those who TRULY believe in Jesus the Christ, Son of the Most High, and truly care that their good friends might miss the peace and great hope of eternal life in Christ.

Still, let's forget about the law and such for a moment.

I'd ask that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when folks witness about Christ and lump them all into one pile of self righteous religious megalomaniacs.
Because, I'm telling you for sure that I know Christ personally, and that God is who the Bible says he was/is/ and will be.

That's hard to believe (for a non believer) I understand, but it is as true as I can state it. Lot's of things happened to me and my family over the years and my earnest search yielded some amazing experiences that I'm not ready to share on a forum like this.

Yet my point is only this, if it is Real to a person, how can that believer in good conscience avoid sharing it to those they care about and respect?
Some are sincere in their sharing and not judgmental at all because honestly..their wants, desires, and actions did not magically change upon becoming Christian.
A lifetime of conforming to the image Christ portrayed will not erase the whole of a human weakness and the sin which is inherent to all of mankind.
And it is the tendency of many of us as Christians to joyfully judge others as being worse than we are, to feel more acceptable ourselves
.
Thankfully, we are judged by our mind's intent and our faith, or in other words for what we believe. And while making a true effort, for what we would do, if lacking the human tendency to do otherwise.

But I digress..

Basically, I just hope you don't discard the message entirely because you want so badly to shoot the messengers. At times we deserve it.
:trink39:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

I get discriminated against virtually every day for being NOT a Christian. Many, if not most, of my countless GLBT friends have been discriminated against their whole lives, as have GLBT folks before them FOR CENTURIES, because they were seen as a "sinner in the eyes of god".

---

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ide_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

Doc gets post of the day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ide_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

---

Another example of the intolerant left demanding tolerance for things they choose, while being intolerant of others.

Here is how they know:
they ask
"What church do you attend?" Where do your kids go to Sunday School?". "Here is a map of all the stakes". ...but surely you believe?

For LGBT, they can tell when couples hold hand or kiss or have the same address or dance or cohabitate in a house they own together.

The average everyday person is not going to think a thing about somebody asking them those kinds of questions. You and I and many others here would, and I am the one that will start answering their questions with questions of my own. It's not hard to discern if someone is up to no good.........if you're paying attention to the subject matter and have any critical thinking skills at all.

If they're coming at you like that where you live and/or work, or if you're out together socially, take it for what it is: it's a sign that they have malice in their hearts for you and yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian?

---

Joke I read a few months ago:

Q: An atheist, a vegan, and a lesbian walk into a bar. How do you know which one is which?
A: They tell you, over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ide_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

---

Doc, it's the way I do it. If you want to ask me a question on my faith I will answer.

I am a Christian and most of the time I try to live a life that hopefully people can tell that. However I am not a goody too shoes. Usually one can tell if someone is a Christian and strong in their faith by their actions but not always.

If you are then great, if not you are an adult and can make your own decisions. I was 40 before I accepted Jesus as my Savior and trust me when it all came together there was no denying what happened.

I have my faith and don't like when people ridicule me or other Christians for it. The thins some say about the Bible, Jesus, a God, faith, the Church, Christians, the ridicule, the whole ball of wax I want to hit them but I try to turn my back to them

I find those who ridicule the most, call names, complain about how Christians supposedly act, how backward we are, how the world is changing and we better get with it, all the garbage they throw out, how they know better are usually exactly what they call Christians. When you listen to them, read their words, how they are progressive and understanding is really false, they are what they accuse others of being. Works almost every time and is really laughable. And they don't even know that they are like that.

Gay parades are offensive to me, men sucking other men's number and sticking it where they do is offensive to me and certainly not natural. For all the progressives who think it's natural, fine go do it with your buddies.

Doc, I enjoyed being with you and your family, didn't matter to me if you are a Christian or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Here is how they know:
they ask
"What church do you attend?" Where do your kids go to Sunday School?". "Here is a map of all the stakes". ...but surely you believe?

For LGBT, they can tell when couples hold hand or kiss or have the same address or dance or cohabitate in a house they own together.

---

I can't tell you the last time somebody ask me what church I attended. I can say was at least more than 5 years ago. When sitting at a table and somebody say "lets pray", I sit quitely and respect THEIR beliefs by saying nothing. Note, my beliefs may or may not be to pray. My preference is to not let that cat out of the bag so to speak. To me that is between me and God. I see no advantage in any type of confrontation.

As for sexual orientation, sure, folks are going to know. I guess but when you make it obvious like the folks above its hard to take them serious when they complain about being singled out. Reminds me of the kid with the tatoo on his face who asks you "what are you staring at?". As I said, I'm fine with people doing their own thing so long as it doesn't interfer with others doing theirs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

Doc, it's the way I do it. If you want to ask me a question on my faith I will answer.

---

I guess thats the gist. I don't ask. I believe your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. They are none of my business. Your sexuality goes in that catagory as well. I've found over the years that it has served me well because I don't get asked my religion. Other things I don't discuss is politics. Found its one of the best ways to lose a client. Or come in with your same sex partner, just roll with it and don't make a big deal because making an issue isn't going to change anything, right? I also don't tell racist jokes, political jokes, or religious jokes at work. Interesting though, dirty jokes are fine.
:trink39:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I guess thats the gist. I don't ask. I believe your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. They are none of my business. Your sexuality goes in that catagory as well. I've found over the years that it has served me well because I don't get asked my religion. Other things I don't discuss is politics. Found its one of the best ways to lose a client. Or come in with your same sex partner, just roll with it and don't make a big deal because making an issue isn't going to change anything, right? I also don't tell racist jokes, political jokes, or religious jokes at work. Interesting though, dirty jokes are fine.
:trink39:

---

We operate our business the same way. We have lots of "gay" customers, often have to turn the air cooler they flame so badly. I don't talk church at the store unless I am asked, same with politics.

Had a lesbian work for us once, fooled us at first because she talked about her boyfriend. Didn't take me long to figure her out and run her off. But what was funny my neighbor stopped in one day. After 5 min he asks to go outside to talk. Outside he asks me why I hired a lesbian. I laughed and asked how he could tell that quick,. We have 6 employees, black and white. I know for sure which are Christians but 2 I don't know and won't ask. It's their business

You already know I will tell a dirty joke and enjoy Bourbon Street

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I can't tell you the last time somebody ask me what church I attended. It can say was at least more than 5 years ago. When sitting at a table and somebody say "lets pray", I sit quitely and respect THEIR beliefs by saying nothing. Note, my beliefs may or may not be to pray. My preference is to not let that cat out of the bag so to speak. To me that is between me and God. I see no advantage in any type of confrontation.

As for sexual orientation, sure, folks are going to know. I guess but when you make it obvious like the folks above its hard to take them serious when they complain about being singled out. Reminds me of the kid with the tatoo on his face who asks you "what are you staring at?". As I said, I'm fine with people doing their own thing so long as it doesn't interfer with others doing theirs

---

Doc, I seldom get asked where I go to church and I seldom ask anyone where they go unless it is obvious they are Christians. If I ask I just ask "if" they go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ide_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

---

Your post SEEMS to have the embedded assumption either that I foist my Agnosticism on others without reason or that I should say nothing if others foist their religious beliefs on me. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

We all lead different lives, have different opportunities for conversation, both in amount of potential conversations and what those conversations may or may not get into. We also have different potential encounters depending upon our jobs, where we live, what hobbies and other non-professional activities we prefer, so the amount of possible instances wherein religion may or may not come up can vary quite a bit from person to person.

If a religious person brings up their faith in a conversation, I don't just immediately blurt out "oh I'm Agnostic". Depending on what the reference is about, the conversation may or may not go in direction wherein I prefer to bring up MY beliefs. The truth is that I rarely bring up my beliefs before a religious person starts talking about theirs. If their reference is just about "what I did today", no big deal. If their reference is about inviting me to their church this Sunday, I really don't have much choice but to politely say "sorry, but I'm Agnostic", which sometimes yields politeness back and sometimes not so much.

Not really sure what else to tell you. I really don't care about anyone's parade, but I will say that Gay Pride Parades are way more entertaining than Easter Parades and such. Just an aesthetic preference. The politics of what folks prefer along those lines is meaningless to me, personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I'll say this Krank, there are certainly different motives for Christians to witness of what they believe. Some admittedly not so admirable...which is a result of human frailty.
But there are also those who TRULY believe in Jesus the Christ, Son of the Most High, and truly care that their good friends might miss the peace and great hope of eternal life in Christ.

Still, let's forget about the law and such for a moment.

I'd ask that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when folks witness about Christ and lump them all into one pile of self righteous religious megalomaniacs.
Because, I'm telling you for sure that I know Christ personally, and that God is who the Bible says he was/is/ and will be.

That's hard to believe (for a non believer) I understand, but it is as true as I can state it. Lot's of things happened to me and my family over the years and my earnest search yielded some amazing experiences that I'm not ready to share on a forum like this.

Yet my point is only this, if it is Real to a person, how can that believer in good conscience avoid sharing it to those they care about and respect?
Some are sincere in their sharing and not judgmental at all because honestly..their wants, desires, and actions did not magically change upon becoming Christian.
A lifetime of conforming to the image Christ portrayed will not erase the whole of a human weakness and the sin which is inherent to all of mankind.
And it is the tendency of many of us as Christians to joyfully judge others as being worse than we are, to feel more acceptable ourselves
.
Thankfully, we are judged by our mind's intent and our faith, or in other words for what we believe. And while making a true effort, for what we would do, if lacking the human tendency to do otherwise.

But I digress..

Basically, I just hope you don't discard the message entirely because you want so badly to shoot the messengers. At times we deserve it.
:trink39:

---

king, this won't answer every part of your post, but simply put... the vast majority of Christians that I encounter in my life are nice and tolerant folks. Most of them who are friends or family I love as much as anyone within those realms of my life.

My problem is with Biblical literalism and how it has seemingly influenced an absolutist mentality concerning folks who do NOT subscribe to either such literalism or even not subscribing to their faith at all.

Because of that stark viewpoint, complex human realities such as one's sexuality or one's gender are either misunderstood and/or strongly disavowed with out proper education on such matters.

I can only tell you that SOME extreme biblical literalists have participated in very disturbing instances that were definitively discriminatory, at the very least, against MANY of my GLBT friends. The stories I have been told are plentiful and can be terrible, but none of this has been a secret within the gay community for a long time, keeping in mind, just so you know, that I have also known plenty of GLBT who are dedicated Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. Those folks have sometimes had the most difficult road, but like anything, that depends on the specific path their lives have taken over time.

Don't worry about me. I never actively campaign against religion, but I do speak up when I believe innocent people, particularly if they are people I care deeply for, are suffering at the hands of an intolerant and overly strict interpretation of scripture. I also do not believe most Christians are bad or delusional or anything like that. Christianity, on the whole, can have a mixed bag of good and bad PR from the perspective of those of us who are non-religious. I try to remember that individuals can be louder than the group sometimes, but that doesn't mean they are saying anything worthwhile in terms of representing the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

king, this won't answer every part of your post, but simply put... the vast majority of Christians that I encounter in my life are nice and tolerant folks. Most of them who are friends or family I love as much as anyone within those realms of my life.

My problem is with Biblical literalism and how it has seemingly influenced an absolutist mentality concerning folks who do NOT subscribe to either such literalism or even not subscribing to their faith at all.

Because of that stark viewpoint, complex human realities such as one's sexuality or one's gender are either misunderstood and/or strongly disavowed with out proper education on such matters.

I can only tell you that SOME extreme biblical literalists have participated in very disturbing instances that were definitively discriminatory, at the very least, against MANY of my GLBT friends. The stories I have been told are plentiful and can be terrible, but none of this has been a secret within the gay community for a long time, keeping in mind, just so you know, that I have also known plenty of GLBT who are dedicated Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. Those folks have sometimes had the most difficult road, but like anything, that depends on the specific path their lives have taken over time.

Don't worry about me. I never actively campaign against religion, but I do speak up when I believe innocent people, particularly if they are people I care deeply for, are suffering at the hands of an intolerant and overly strict interpretation of scripture. I also do not believe most Christians are bad or delusional or anything like that. Christianity, on the whole, can have a mixed bag of good and bad PR from the perspective of those of us who are non-religious. I try to remember that individuals can be louder than the group sometimes, but that doesn't mean they are saying anything worthwhile in terms of representing the group.

---

Thanks for the response Krank. Interesting points made.

I'm reminded of one certain scripture . It reads, and I paraphrase somewhat..

Many will come to me in that day and say Lord, haven't we cast out devils and done many great things in your name. To which I will respond; depart from me you workers of iniquities[, I never knew you.

I'm a firm believer that as for professing Christianity, the measure we might use in judging others, will be equally applied to us.
Christ didn't come to condemn, but to save us from condemnation. Nor to judge us, because the law had already done that. And so I believe God.

This my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased...hear Him.

Thanks for listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

Your post SEEMS to have the embedded assumption either that I foist my Agnosticism on others without reason or that I should say nothing if others foist their religious beliefs on me. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

We all lead different lives, have different opportunities for conversation, both in amount of potential conversations and what those conversations may or may not get into. We also have different potential encounters depending upon our jobs, where we live, what hobbies and other non-professional activities we prefer, so the amount of possible instances wherein religion may or may not come up can vary quite a bit from person to person.

If a religious person brings up their faith in a conversation, I don't just immediately blurt out "oh I'm Agnostic". Depending on what the reference is about, the conversation may or may not go in direction wherein I prefer to bring up MY beliefs. The truth is that I rarely bring up my beliefs before a religious person starts talking about theirs. If their reference is just about "what I did today", no big deal. If their reference is about inviting me to their church this Sunday, I really don't have much choice but to politely say "sorry, but I'm Agnostic", which sometimes yields politeness back and sometimes not so much.

Not really sure what else to tell you. I really don't care about anyone's parade, but I will say that Gay Pride Parades are way more entertaining than Easter Parades and such. Just an aesthetic preference. The politics of what folks prefer along those lines is meaningless to me, personally.

---

I'm not making any assumptions at all. Just a simple question out of curiosity. In my life the topic does not come up. Is it because of the people I associate with don't want to invite me anywhere or do they assume I'm a devil worshipping pagan not worth salvation? Of course that does not bother me in the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I'm not making any assumptions at all. Just a simple question out of curiosity. In my life the topic does not come up. Is it because of the people I associate with don't want to invite me anywhere or do they assume I'm a devil worshipping pagan not worth salvation? Of course that does not bother me in the least.

---

Cool.

Somebody invite this devil worshipper to a Black Sabbath concert, and FAST!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

Cool.

Somebody invite this devil worshipper to a Black Sabbath concert, and FAST!

---

In my younger days, I covered almost every song on their first few albums. Even "fairies wear boots" War Pigs of course, Black Sabbath, Black sabbath, Paranoid, Children of the grave.. etc..Seriously. :)

Specialized in BS, Uriah Heep, and Grand Funk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Pedro,

While you know I agree with you deeply on your view of the Founders and the importance to prevent tyranny in its many forms, I will add that the worrisome part of the gay marriage situation isn't the issuing of a marriage license, it's the protected status thinking that is inextricably tied to it, and in its own way is a tyranny of the majority just with a different minority being repressed.

The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. clearly a punitive judgement b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class", you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone. OK, that's fine, she was FINE to bake a cake for a gay person, the original complainant was a regular customer who is gay, she just objected on basis of her faith for participating in any way in something she sees as a sin.

The gay marriage thing doesn't worry me, but the fact that churches all over the country are rewriting their rules to have to find ways to prevent what they see as a sin before their God occurring in their own church is very disturbing.

The courts need to protect from that tyranny as well. Want to get married? have a ball. Want to not be part of it b/c you think being part of it is committing a sin? That should be OK too.

---

So it turns out the fine for failing to bake a cake was entirely WRONG. They were not fined for refusing to bake the cake. They were fined because they shared the home address/contact information of the couple opening them up to harrasment from the religious right.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oreg...-home-address/

Quote:

---

the bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8

So it turns out the fine for failing to bake a cake was entirely WRONG. They were not fined for refusing to bake the cake. They were fined because they shared the home address/contact information of the couple opening them up to harrasment from the religious right.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oreg...-home-address/

---

How about those that claim to be Christians who are gay, are they the religious left? So now I can talk all I want about the religious left just as you liberals do about Christians who are conservative, you love to make it sound so dirty so we are going to dirty the water here for your side. The hateful, meanspirited, religious left, can't wait to parade around in their flaming outfits, making fun of everyone who does not bow down to their 'way' of life. I realize you hate Christians and can't wait to criticize at every opportunity, have fun.

Now how about the business in Indiana that were targeted by your gay friends, the mean spirited, religious left? They had to leave their business, live in a hotel and hide out from the media, and the death threats to their family. why, because they said they would not sell to a gay marriage, they could come in and buy all they want as regular customers but they were not going to serve their needs for their wedding. Why don't you talk about that one? But that wouldn't fit your little agenda now would it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

How about those that claim to be Christians who are gay, are they the religious left? So now I can talk all I want about the religious left just as you liberals do about Christians who are conservative, you love to make it sound so dirty so we are going to dirty the water here for your side. The hateful, meanspirited, religious left, can't wait to parade around in their flaming outfits, making fun of everyone who does not bow down to their 'way' of life. I realize you hate Christians and can't wait to criticize at every opportunity, have fun.

Now how about the business in Indiana that were targeted by your gay friends, the mean spirited, religious left? They had to leave their business, live in a hotel and hide out from the media, and the death threats to their family. why, because they said they would not sell to a gay marriage, they could come in and buy all they want as regular customers but they were not going to serve their needs for their wedding. Why don't you talk about that one? But that wouldn't fit your little agenda now would it.

---

Nice strawman argument. I don't condone death threats of any kind for ANY reason. I was equally out-spoken about the situation in Indiana as well. I might disagree with their thinking but NO ONE, and I do mean NO ONE deserves death threats or to fear for their safety. It doesn't matter if they are gay, straight, homophobe, flamming homosexual, racist, multiculturalist, communist or capitalist, no one deserves that.

As for hating Christians, it would be strange to hate Christians considering I am one myself. I just view my relationship with God as a deep and personal one. I have fluctuated into agnosticism at points and even at one point into atheism. I don't claim to be perfect, I am a sinner in God's eyes and always will be. I just pray for forgiveness and hope that one day he understands that I am just a man doing the best that I can.

I also believe strongly in the separation between church and state. I do NOT ever want to live in a theocracy. Theocracys are invariably horrible horrible things, maybe the only thing worse is Stalinism. Christian theocracies are no different, they have almost always, without fail become horribly unchristian as the state bends the laws of christ to fit the state. Instead, I believe the laws of the land are the laws of the land, no need to taint religion by mixing it with politics. Let them be what they may providing the most freedom possible. Then let the people decide for themselves what their religious views are and work within the laws. I don't believe my salvation is predicated on denying others happiness (even if said happiness is a sin). My salvation is based on God accepting my personal relationship with him. This is my belief, you might believe differently.

Also, I am libertarian, not liberal, a huge difference.

Yes there ARE religious left. They aren't necessarily gay, they tend to focus on helping the poor and unfortunate as Jesus instructed (often via socialism and things like that). They view helping their neighbor, the poor and the marginalized as being the most important of Jesus instructions. As such, they believe that anything that helps the poor is worth the cost.

This will end up in Court. Laurel Bowman-Cryer chose to divulge the information by submitting the complaint form. The Oregon Labor Commission is not a civil court and shouldn't act as such.

Quote:

---

Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed the complaint in January 2013, after she and her mother had met with Aaron Klein – who refused them service and quoted an anti-LGBT verse from Leviticus.

She filed her complaint by smartphone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

In my younger days, I covered almost every song on their first few albums. Even "fairies wear boots" War Pigs of course, Black Sabbath, Black sabbath, Paranoid, Children of the grave.. etc..Seriously. :)

Specialized in BS, Uriah Heep, and Grand Funk.

---

king, I specialize in BS too. Just ask anyone in my family.

Seriously though, those first four Sabbath records still hold up. I particularly like the first, "Black Sabbath" and the third, "Master of Reality".

Hmm. I'm not taking sides on this (at this point) one way or another, but there's a lot of loosey-goosey characterization of what occurred.

This is the Order from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

It's 122 pages long, with gosh-awful footnotes and single spacing, and by no means am I pretending to have read it. I read "at" it. But I read enough to get a decent idea of what they did.

First, they did not "fine" them at all. There is no fine. There is no punitive element to this case at all. Instead, it is damages awarded, $60,000 to one of the victims, and $75,000 to the other victim. Per the Order, "The Commissioner held that both A. Klein and M. Klein violated O.R.S. 659A.409." Specifically, "The Commissioner awarded Complainants $75,000 and $60,000 respectively, in damages for emotional and mental suffering resulting from the denial of service."

That's the Order. Damages awarded for denial of service.

Now, let's look at the statute itself. It's interesting. Although the Order characterizes it as a "denial of service" damages, let's read the statute:

Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]

(I'm assuming that's current enough, but I didn't get it from Westlaw or Lexis, and made no attempt to make certain it is current).

I think this is where the confusion lies.

It's not a violation to divulge the Complainant's address--it is a violation to publish THAT you're going to discriminate. And by publishing their complaint, they clearly were showing that's what they were doing.

That's how I read it. Again, I didn't pretend to read all 122 pages and footnotes. But it seems clear there's enough misinformation going on that I thought it deserved going to the source (the Order), which is easily available to media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8

So it turns out the fine for failing to bake a cake was entirely WRONG. They were not fined for refusing to bake the cake. They were fined because they shared the home address/contact information of the couple opening them up to harrasment from the religious right.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oreg...-home-address/

---

Everyone has an opinion.
“You have your rights, no one is taking your rights away. You are demanding special rights to determine which rights your can strip from others or infringe on others based on your religious beliefs.” Is this not what the “Same-sex” issue is doing. They are using the court system to dictate their views onto the public. If you think the public is for gay marriages, you haven’t talked to many people outside your own group. You want to put “religious beliefs” as a Christian only religion. Anyone can have a “religious belief”, even atheists.

The baker who refused to bake a cake is another point. As was stated, “The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. Clearly a punitive judgment b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class"; you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone.” This is an infringement on the baker’s right to refuse service to anyone. However, because they are in a “Protected class” they take the baker to court and the baker gets a$135,000 fine. Was that the only baker in town? Didn’t the customer have a right to go elsewhere? Then the court ordeal was simply because “I’m in a protected class” and I’m going to sue you.” If that happened to a customer that was in the public, “UNPROTECTED class”, it would never seen the inside of a courtroom.

Summary, this country was founded on laws that were made for the masses, not just a small group. Now we have small groups that want to use the courts to advance their cause. This country did quite well with man/woman marriages for over two hundred years. Don’t you think there was a reason for it being that way? Look at the problems gay marriages have caused already. Governments have to rewrite laws to accommodate the court decisions. As was started earlier, “This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Meaning there is more to the movement than just gay marriages. Gay marriages have opened an assortment of problems of which we haven’t seen the last.

Very well said Edward and I have not thought of it in exactly the way you put it. But IMO this ruling has opened the door for so many things

Christian businesses and pastors/churches will be a target simply because gays can now go after those groups with open season and as you said the court has given them protected class ruling. What would happen if the business or pastor turned the tables and sued the gays for trying to force them to do something they don't want to do? Will the court look at them with favor?

And what about the man in Miss who this week was fined $10,000 because of an unnatural sex act with his horse. If gays want to marry, and what they do is certainly not natural, how can the court say a man can't marry his horse? Or a man wants 3 wives, a woman wants 2 husbands, a dad wants to marry his daughter or son? I mean the court says gays have the right to marry, why shouldn't these others? Where do you stop it? Will the religious left say no? They would not have any good reason.

Now I want to thank doc and citizen for their reasonable discussion without rants or name calling. As a Christian I appreciate that

I also want to say that after discussing with many learned Christians in the last week, for those like doc and citizen people like Pedro are really more like the antichrist in that they claim to be a Christian but give false testimony and false witness to what the Bible says. He and those like him want the Bible to be want they want and reflect their beliefs but it is not that way.. Either you accept Gods word and Jesus teaching or you reject it. Much like pres Jimmy Carter, they reject the parts they don't like and act is if it isn't in the Bible. Carter says Jesus would want gays to marry but admits he has no scripture to base it on. Pedro says the ruling is a great and wonderful day and he ignores and rejects scripture. Some like to say it's only in the Old Testament but ib I Corinthians 6:9-10 in the New Testament it says....do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL offenders nor thieves nor greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Zholy Spirit who is in you, who. You have received from God. You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
In Galatians 5-19 it says....the acts of sinful nature are obvious sexual immorality...I warn you as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of a God.

The New Testament is blunt in talking about homosexuals, however if they repent and truly mean it and live a new clean life they can be washed and live in a Gods grace.

There are various scriptures that are open to debate but not homosexual sin. They can go to church all they want, they and the liberal Chridtian left lime Pedro can make all the claims they want but they have no scripture to back their claims. For those that are not Christians or you are believers but don't want institutionalized church do not believe those like Pedro, they do not speak truthfully, they give false witness and testimony. They have bought the lie

As Kingcat said. God has said many will call His name on judgement day but He will declare He does not know them

If not accepting the literal word of the Bible makes one an anti-christ, I'm in big trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

If not accepting the literal word of the Bible makes one an anti-christ, I'm in big trouble.

---

Not what I said, you are much smarter than that.