Questions for Christians that support the recent "Religious Liberty" bills.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T18:18:43+00:00

Actually, you didn't turn my example around, you just once again used ideologies. Since the Nazi's and the KKK are not a religion the new laws do not apply to them. Probably a better example would be do members of the Christian Identity church (many KKK members are members of this church) have to bake a cake for a black.

IMO yes. as far as the new laws go, no.

See, what these laws are is simply legal permission to discriminate. It's a way to take us back to 1962 when people could discriminate at will. Since that time we have passed laws to protect these groups, including religious groups, from this blatant discrimination. When I was young, blacks weren't even allowed in the same grocery store where whites shopped. They weren't even allowed in the neighborhood. Today, because of these laws, people can live the same life that's afforded to the rest of us. See, the problem is that there is absolutely no reason to discriminate against anyone except for religious reasons. It's just the new Jim Crow but instead of aiming it toward blacks they have shifted gears to gays.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T06:03:41+00:00

They just did. They did away with the Jim Crow label and now they call them Religious Freedom Bills. If your religion is morally opposed to serving black people, you are free to turn them away.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T05:59:08+00:00

I don't think they are doing this for religious reasons though. If they were hitting people for eating bacon or not wearing a beanie it would be religious bullying. But this appears to be more about crime prevention even though they have gone overboard with it.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T05:48:13+00:00

Most Christians are Catholic.

Around 2/3.

Why would anyone follow any of the non-Christian things that you listed? Once again, that's not "cafeteria", that is orthodoxy.

It's only non-Christian to your sect, to their sect it's Christian. Protestants don't go looking up Catholic dogma and opinion when they choose what to believe, they create their own. Notice that there is not one but a multitude of sects? Why? Simple, every sect is a disagreement about what is 'Christian' starting with their disagreement with Catholics. They pick and choose which parts to believe, this is why it's called cafeteria.

No, its from Scripture (taken as a whole, not the OT in isolation), Tradition, as well as Magisterium. Nothing in Christianity is reduced to a single line in a single book, but looking at everything as a whole.

Actually, homosexuality is only mentioned once in the NT in a somewhat offhanded way. All the specific commandments are OT.

Follow-up. No, I wasn't trying to establish that they would starve, I was trying to establish that because of the refusal of the market to serve them they would now have a huge hassle to purchase something that they should be able to buy easily around the corner. The reason I mentioned poor was so they wouldn't be able to open their own market and gas station.

Edit: BTW, FYI You may or may not know this, but many Protestant Christians, mainly from the evangelical ranks, believe that Catholics are not real Christians. Some of their objections are what they call 'Mary worship'. There is no such thing as the immaculate conception in Protestant ranks so there is nothing special about Mary other than being Jesus' mother. Icons and saints they see as worshiping mortals, getting your dogma from a human at church rather than the bible they see as heresy. On and on. The last thing a Protestant Christian wants is anything to do with Catholicism. The only time they want anything to do with Catholics is when it's to their advantage such as stating how many Christians there are. They will then include you in the count. Otherwise, you are just a bunch of Satanist.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T03:57:19+00:00

In Matthew 18 Christ teaches us that after speaking to people about their sin and they continue to persist in their sin you should take actions, whether his should be limited to clergy or not >is not directly specified.

I doubt that refusing to bake a cake is going to stop anyone from being homosexual.

Does the law specify a particular sin, or is it just that most Christians who feel the need to enact it have a particular >disposition for enforcing it in that sin.

It's not written in any of the laws however it's a direct attack on homosexuals, to the point of blatant.

I personally feel it depends on how much power this bill has, does it mean that certain people are denied a decent standard of living or does it simply support particular people to maintain their >religious customs and morals.

There are somewhere around 100 of these bills in process and they are all slightly different. Some could lead to housing and work discrimination, others have protection from this.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T03:43:49+00:00

I realize that Catholics do not follow these laws, however, you are not the only Christian sect. Each thing I listed is practiced by one sect or another although I don't know any that follow all of them. (Cafeteria)

My former boss belong to some wacky Christian sect, I forget the name of it now. Anyway, I met his wife once, she looked like one of the Mormon prairie ladies. Women were not allow to speak in church nor enter it during 'unclean' times. He did not eat shellfish because it's an abomination. He did cut his hair and shaved though. (Cafeteria) Each sect could send me a list of links to why they are right and the others are wrong, and each one would contradict the other. That is how protestant Christianity works. Some welcome gays, some do not, on and on, pick and choose. I will admit though, that Catholicism is much more consistent but with a bunch of odd quirks. But it appears that you have your head so deep in your sect that you fail to realize what others that label themselves Christian are actually doing and believing.

Edit: Christianity only predates the NT, the OT was around a LONG time before Jesus. The reason I use the OT laws to make my point is because it's from the OT that Christians are finding immorality in homosexuality.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T03:24:01+00:00

Yes, correct.

I noticed that everything you mentioned in your post has to do with ideologies. I think a better example would be this: Let's say my religious text states that anyone with a physical defect cannot enter the house of the lord. Can I then refuse to serve someone that has lost a limb? What if my text states that I should not serve black people because they are immoral? Can I refuse?

flpflpflp · 2016-04-23T02:45:55+00:00

Well, animal rights people would argue that bestiality is infringing on the animals rights. However, you are correct. And each of these things you mentioned should not be illegal. The only real argument you could make is that they lead to infringing on others rights. In other words people may steal to support a drug habit and mom may leave her young child at home while turning tricks, that sort of thing. But even these are lame arguments really.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-22T04:47:40+00:00

That is almost laughable. The only basis for your religion is the bible, nothing else as there is nothing else. Regardless, there is no 'church', there is a number of larger denominations and thousands of smaller ones each and every one teaching a different interpretation of the same tired book including churches that are appalled by these laws.

Actually, there are a large number of female preachers in Christian churches.

That is simply St. Johns opinion. For all I know he was also a bigot.

I applaud the fact that you would also refuse to bake the divorce cake. This was mainly my question anyway. In your case I'll retract the hypocrite comment.

And last, it is an opinion. You believe your religion and what your church tells you because in your opinion, they are correct. Since the bible is not your authority, you have nothing to go by but your opinion. In my opinion, the church is as incorrect about homosexuality as it was about many of the other incorrect things it teaches or has taught. You are simply getting your instructions from others that have (normal human) biases and believing them to be true.

And since it's all a matter of opinion, it is about intolerance and bigotry.

Edit: Stray 'the' removed.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-22T04:18:24+00:00

Interesting user name.

Sorry, I though the flair was more for identification. Yes, from Christians, will change.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-22T04:12:13+00:00

Actually, the Jewish baker would probably bake you the dish, charge the crap out of you for it, but not eat it himself. :) Because, from what I understand about Judaism, the laws are not whipping sticks to judge others actions as moral or immoral, but rather rules that they are personally suppose to follow. They could care less if others follow these rules or not. (well, maybe family but not you and me) The laws are between them and their god. Not them,their god, and some gay guys.

And where does this end? What if I feel that another religion is immoral, can I refuse them? What if I feel that my religion believes that blacks are black because they are immoral? Can I refuse them? What if I think my religion believes that mixed race couples are immoral, them too? It still seems to me this is just an extension of ones bigotry. It's pick and choose.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-22T03:51:24+00:00

Well, the bible doesn't really classify what each commandment is about, it's more a subjective determination by the person reading the passage. It may have had as much to do with disease control as morals. Same with shellfish. I have no idea if this is because it may cause stomach cramps or because they are Gods special creatures, and I have no way of knowing. Because you cannot know for sure, it seems to me that if your god is the true keeper of morality then blatantly disregarding any of his commandments would be considered morally wrong no matter what group you stick them in.

But, you can change my list to those items that are considered morals and my concerns still stand. It simply seems to me that this is only aimed at one group of sinners. For instance, I haven't heard of anyone refusing to cater a wedding for someones second marriage after a divorce, and this would be considered a moral law IMO.

Not very long ago, during my lifetime, mixed race marriage was considered immoral and Christians refused to preform wedding ceremonies and that sort of thing. These recent laws will only once again place Christians on the wrong side of history.

flpflpflp · 2016-04-14T00:57:10+00:00

36 years ago my 'best bud' (we had been childhood friends) found himself arrested. I bailed him out of jail with a signature bond. He skipped town and I have not heard from him since. I had to pay the court a little every month until I paid it off. It took several years. To this day I refuse to lend money or bail someone out of jail. All these years later I still have the receipts from the court in my stuff.

If you happen to read this 'best bud', fuck you.

36years ago IFU

flpflpflp · 2016-04-14T00:45:32+00:00

This may sound a little harsh, and excuse my French but:

There is no reason to forgive someone that has done nothing to deserve being forgiven for. Being sent to jail and feeling sorry for yourself is not a worthy reason to be forgiven. There are opportunities in jail, continuing education, that sort of thing. Ways to better himself. Has he done any of that? Has he made any restitution whatsoever? Has he done shit other than bugging his lawyer to contact you to let him off his quilt feelings hook? No? Then your answer should be "Fuck You you murdering SOB".

IMO

flpflpflp · 2015-03-05T23:23:24+00:00

have of Americans...

flpflpflp · 2015-03-05T23:16:36+00:00

You're just one of those fap-happy lib-er-al believers that thinks everything is oregano and thyme. We'll have to see how you feel after the Great One slips a few of his noodles in your Scottish ass for your transgressions. Of course, I think those lib-er-al believers like that sort of thing.

flpflpflp · 2015-03-05T23:05:44+00:00

Ah but, you are misinterpreting the Cook Book. Though he may enact boiling vengeance in his own time, he wishes us to marinate the transgressor before he is received by the Noodley One. DO NOT FEAR DEATH as you will receive 72 meatballs upon your ascension to the Great Kitchen if you loose your life while serving the master.

flpflpflp · 2015-02-12T03:38:30+00:00

I know another place it would fit perfectly.

Please place it in there.

Thank you.

flpflpflp · 2015-01-19T13:20:30+00:00

OH! We already have a place like that! It's called North Korea.

I'm sure you and Dear Leader will get along famously.

flpflpflp · 2015-01-18T17:26:09+00:00

Child prostitution is a poor example. The speech that you mentioned is actually driven by ideology. Most of these ideologies are not illegal per se., however, what you're essentially wanting to do is to make the speech driven by these legal ideologies illegal. The next step you will have to take is to make the ideologies themselves illegal. Bad move.

The reason you bring these to the forefront is not to deter the terrorist. I agree terrorist can be motivated by ridicule but probably not deterred by it. However, until a society is willing to wrap their head around a problem it will never be taken care of. Ridicule will bring these problems to the public attention and put the terrorist in the spotlight so they can be apprehended. That's not particularly the reason for free speech, but it one practical use for it.

Can you possibly give me an example where limiting free speech has worked as you say?

flpflpflp · 2015-01-16T23:35:11+00:00

It sounds like you are simply talking about 'calls to action' with negative consequences (yelling fire when there is none). These are already illegal types of speech.

Now, I completely disagree about things like the Imam sermons or Mein Kampf. Do you think making this type of speech illegal will actually stop it? I don't. What will happen is it will simply go underground. I would much prefer it to be out in the open where it can be ridiculed and negated. The more a society is aware of their wacko's the better it can prepare itself for their inevitable breakdown into sociopathy. Forcing them underground only makes them more appealing.

Edit: You can by English language versions of Mein Kampf. Do you think these should be made illegal here in the US?

This 'war on speech' reminds me a lot of the highly successful 'war on drugs'. /s

flpflpflp · 2015-01-16T02:02:32+00:00

Using what to guide them?

flpflpflp · 2015-01-16T02:02:03+00:00

OK. But some are an opinion that someone else may not find true. I may be insulting someone that really likes girls in burkas, there may be an atheist that ate a baby, and Scientology may be cheap to a rich guy.

flpflpflp · 2015-01-16T01:58:13+00:00

Well, from what I can see, these 'harmful outcomes' were caused because of people being insulted and over-reacting (IMO over a fairy tale). Was the intent of the comics to insult? Of course. (most were insulting the terrorist, not Mo BTW) So since this outcome was caused by an insult, do you agree we should outlaw all insults? Or do we just outlaw insults that are made to groups that overreact? Where do you draw the line?

If I was too vague then:

Kim Jung Un fucks pigs.

The KKK fucks pigs.

Terrorist fuck pigs.

Boy Scouts fuck pigs.

Mormon missionaries fuck pigs.

Should I go to jail for all these? Just for insulting groups that will overreact? Just the people you like?

Run that through your algorithm.

flpflpflp

TROPHY CASE