Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
If they tried to do this to me I would get in my car ride to the nearest prison and see if the prison warden will organise me a cell. Like anyone doing God's works should be manipulated in such a petty way? Stand up for what you believe in brothers and sisters.

A business is expected to observe the law on businesses! The horror!
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

1

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile
If they tried to do this to me I would get in my car ride to the nearest prison and see if the prison warden will organise me a cell. Like anyone doing God's works should be manipulated in such a petty way? Stand up for what you believe in brothers and sisters.

A business is expected to observe the law on businesses! The horror!

Exactly.

The sad part is, this isn't a black and white situation.  There is room for discussion over whether businesses should be granted the freedom to operate as they see fit, and there are a lot of legal issues to untangle.

But no, we have to leap straight to "this is Christian persecution"!

I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSM, and according to the article they aren't.  This is a specific instance of a for-profit organisation wanting to receive the same rights as a church.  We can have a discussion over whether they should be granted those rights, but to leap to anything else is an overreaction.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

2

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
If they tried to do this to me I would get in my car ride to the nearest prison and see if the prison warden will organise me a cell. Like anyone doing God's works should be manipulated in such a petty way? Stand up for what you believe in brothers and sisters.

A business is expected to observe the law on businesses! The horror!


How childish, really. So, if that is actually a meaningfull and satisfying response, then is the following equal:

"People were trialed and killed by the Inquisition, people were burned for witchcraft, cities were conquered for their pagan faith. But they had to observe the Papacy Law on Christianity! The Horror!"

In communist countries, to object to the proletariat could lead to your death. It was an OFFICIAL LAW, just as these law on buisinesses. Would your response hold true, to all these who thought this law was dictatorial and tyranical? The response that it was part of the law of the country?


This is absurd, lol.
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

3

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
How childish, really. So, if that is actually a meaningfull and satisfying response, then is the following equal:


This is a red herring... The issue is not that the law itself is unfair, but that done people want to be exempt from it. Was the law opposed before SSMs were legal? I do not think so. Are you against the law as such? Do you think that businesses should be allowed to refuse services e.g. to Christians?
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

4

Free Will

  • ***
  • 2105 Posts
  • "Love your neighbor as yourself." How terrible???
    • View Profile
How childish, really. So, if that is actually a meaningfull and satisfying response, then is the following equal:


This is a red herring... The issue is not that the law itself is unfair, but that done people want to be exempt from it. Was the law opposed before SSMs were legal? I do not think so. Are you against the law as such? Do you think that businesses should be allowed to refuse services e.g. to Christians?

In this day, yes, businesses ought to be free to refuse service to whomever they like on the basis of sincerely held, long established religious doctrine.

"No atheists allowed"?

"No Christians allowed"?

"No sodomizers allowed"?

Why not?

I don't see that as a problem at all.

The problem arises when people are forced under threat of law to compromise long standing religious faith.

Christianity has no such problem dealing with fascists and tyrants.  It arose in one of the most depraved cities of its day, Rome.  Christians were tortured and brutally murdered in public for their faith.  In the end, the pagan sodomizers fell, and Christianity blossomed and spread.

We welcome persecution.  We point to it merely to expose the extreme hypocrisy of the unbelievers.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 08:56:34 am by Free Will »
--This user has been banned for creating sock puppet accounts and general deceptive conduct.--

5

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
In this day, yes, businesses ought to be free to refuse service to whomever they like on the basis of sincerely held, long established religious doctrine.

"No atheists allowed"?

"No Christians allowed"?

"No sodomizers allowed"?

Why not?

That is at least consistent. However, I have doubts whether the same FOX reporters, if the did a material on Christians walked out of a restaurant, would praise the owners...

Quote
The problem arises when people are forced under threat of law to compromise long standing religious faith.

But, as has been seaid before, they are free to perform the same ceremonies as a religious organization and they can discriminate against whomever they want.

Quote
We welcome persecution. 

It must be hard for you then today. So many Christians, so little persecution...
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

6

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Or, have no "marriages" recognized be the state, and only contracts recognized by the state. This will solve a lot of problems, and only possibly anger pro-gay bigots and theocrats.

Given that what the state recognizes today does not fit your definition of marriage, this is exactly how the situation is today. You should be happy...

I'm starting to think that you never really listen to what I have to say. I mean, I've been posting on this topic across multiple threads, explaining my position in various ways, and you still don't get it.

The state currently references the same thing that we reference when we talk about marriage. That's the issue. Because they define marriage in one way, and they reference the same exact thing, they criminalize anyone who does not adhere to their definition. Therefore we have problems like this one here.

So why in the world would you ever think that "I should be happy"? Anyone who has a inkling of sense to comprehend my point would never say something so wrong.
“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal

7

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
I'm starting to think that you never really listen to what I have to say. I mean, I've been posting on this topic across multiple threads, explaining my position in various ways, and you still don't get it.

The state currently references the same thing that we reference when we talk about marriage. That's the issue. Because they define marriage in one way, and they reference the same exact thing, they criminalize anyone who does not adhere to their definition. Therefore we have problems like this one here.

So why in the world would you ever think that "I should be happy"? Anyone who has a inkling of sense to comprehend my point would never say something so wrong.

Your mistake is, as has been pointed out, that they do not reference the same thing. Let us take a civil marriage, the young bridge is in it for the money, the old groom is in it for sex. Is it "marriage" as you reference it? I do not think so.

And the claim about criminalization is false. I can call myself a priest of FSM and declare any couple, a threesome or a foursome to be married. Will the state intervene? I seriously do not think so...
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

8

neil

  • ***
  • 1420 Posts
    • View Profile
If they tried to do this to me I would get in my car ride to the nearest prison and see if the prison warden will organise me a cell. Like anyone doing God's works should be manipulated in such a petty way? Stand up for what you believe in brothers and sisters.

A business is expected to observe the law on businesses! The horror!

When God's Law and human law conflict I choose God's Law. You should too. Maybe if you worshiped your government as God then it should not be so, but I dont.
“Forgive, O Lord, my little jokes on Thee
And I'll forgive Thy great big one on me.”
― Robert Frost

9

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
I'm starting to think that you never really listen to what I have to say. I mean, I've been posting on this topic across multiple threads, explaining my position in various ways, and you still don't get it.

The state currently references the same thing that we reference when we talk about marriage. That's the issue. Because they define marriage in one way, and they reference the same exact thing, they criminalize anyone who does not adhere to their definition. Therefore we have problems like this one here.

So why in the world would you ever think that "I should be happy"? Anyone who has a inkling of sense to comprehend my point would never say something so wrong.

Your mistake is, as has been pointed out, that they do not reference the same thing. Let us take a civil marriage, the young bridge is in it for the money, the old groom is in it for sex. Is it "marriage" as you reference it? I do not think so.

And the claim about criminalization is false. I can call myself a priest of FSM and declare any couple, a threesome or a foursome to be married. Will the state intervene? I seriously do not think so...

You are mistaken. They do reference the same thing. That's why you have law suits like this. Maybe you lack understanding of what is meant by "referencing". For example, Muslims believe in God in one way, and Christians believe in another way. They have theologically conflicts because they are referencing the same thing.

Secondly, are you ignoring the topic of this thread?
“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal

10

TheCross

  • ****
  • 5350 Posts
  • Follower of christ.
    • View Profile
If they tried to do this to me I would get in my car ride to the nearest prison and see if the prison warden will organise me a cell. Like anyone doing God's works should be manipulated in such a petty way? Stand up for what you believe in brothers and sisters.

A business is expected to observe the law on businesses! The horror!


How childish, really. So, if that is actually a meaningfull and satisfying response, then is the following equal:

"People were trialed and killed by the Inquisition, people were burned for witchcraft, cities were conquered for their pagan faith. But they had to observe the Papacy Law on Christianity! The Horror!"

In communist countries, to object to the proletariat could lead to your death. It was an OFFICIAL LAW, just as these law on buisinesses. Would your response hold true, to all these who thought this law was dictatorial and tyranical? The response that it was part of the law of the country?


This is absurd, lol.
+1,nuff said.
Gal 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

11

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile

You are mistaken. They do reference the same thing. That's why you have law suits like this. Maybe you lack understanding of what is meant by "referencing". For example, Muslims believe in God in one way, and Christians believe in another way. They have theologically conflicts because they are referencing the same thing.

Secondly, are you ignoring the topic of this thread?

Even accepting that Christians and Muslims are referencing the same thing (which I don't), there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that state marriage and Christian marriage are referencing the same thing.  They just happen to have the same name as the originate from the same traditions.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

12

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile
If they tried to do this to me I would get in my car ride to the nearest prison and see if the prison warden will organise me a cell. Like anyone doing God's works should be manipulated in such a petty way? Stand up for what you believe in brothers and sisters.

A business is expected to observe the law on businesses! The horror!


How childish, really. So, if that is actually a meaningfull and satisfying response, then is the following equal:

"People were trialed and killed by the Inquisition, people were burned for witchcraft, cities were conquered for their pagan faith. But they had to observe the Papacy Law on Christianity! The Horror!"

In communist countries, to object to the proletariat could lead to your death. It was an OFFICIAL LAW, just as these law on buisinesses. Would your response hold true, to all these who thought this law was dictatorial and tyranical? The response that it was part of the law of the country?


This is absurd, lol.
+1,nuff said.

Really?  Nuff said?

Comparing burning people to holding business accountable to anti-discrimination laws is "nuff said"?

Look, if you want to argue that businesses should get the same rights as churches, then by all means go for that, but this isn't persecution as far as the information we have been given goes.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

13

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
You are mistaken. They do reference the same thing. That's why you have law suits like this. Maybe you lack understanding of what is meant by "referencing". For example, Muslims believe in God in one way, and Christians believe in another way. They have theologically conflicts because they are referencing the same thing.

Secondly, are you ignoring the topic of this thread?

Words reference "the same thing" if there is a relation of identity between what they reference. As I have shown above, the two might not even overlap. Another example: are people who have divorced due to irreconcilable differences and entered civil marriages with other people married to their new partners in your opinion? Many Christians claim they are not, the state claims they are. As people cannot be married and not married at the same time, those Christians obviously must reference something other than the state, even if the name is the same.

And I do not ignore the topic of the thread, I have answered it extensively - if for the couple mentioned marriage is a religious matter, they are free to establish a religious organization and limit their practices as they see fit. However, if they want to offer their rites as services as understood by the local law, the services must comply with regulations covering all services. Demanding that a service facility observe the regulations which all other service facilities must observe is not persecution, it is denying a privilege. It seems the two are quite often confused...
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

14

JFS

  • ****
  • 8172 Posts
    • View Profile
How childish, really. So, if that is actually a meaningfull and satisfying response, then is the following equal:


This is a red herring... The issue is not that the law itself is unfair, but that done people want to be exempt from it. Was the law opposed before SSMs were legal? I do not think so. Are you against the law as such? Do you think that businesses should be allowed to refuse services e.g. to Christians?

If I was a pagan during the Inquisition, I would want to be exempt from the law with a penalty that burns me at the stake.....just saying.

No red herring there.  Pure fact.
"Influencing people for the good of myself is manipulation; influencing people for the good of the kingdom is motivation." -Alistair Begg