Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

[Sam]

to the fearmongerer, sure.

Or to anyone actually reading the text of the law. Were you not complaining about overly-broad laws with unintended consequences? Here's one right here.

Yes, Sam, it is. People vote with their wallets in such cases.

No, it's not. We're not talking about how likely it is that people apply the bill in this way. We're talking about what the bill would allow were it to become law.

Yeah, and how long do you think that would really last? How long do you think such an establishment would stay in business?

How long did sunset towns last? Get a nice group of like-minded people together and you can create communities of discrimination that last a long time.

I think the hype is downright silly.

So you oppose what the bill allows for but you think it's hype to talk about what the bill allows for?

Yes, and I think you grossly misrepresented the teachings of Paul on the "weaker brother" concept.

I didn't bring the "weaker brother" concept into the discussion at all. How, then, could I misrepresent Paul on the matter?

[Cow Poke]

I didn't bring the "weaker brother" concept into the discussion at all. How, then, could I misrepresent Paul on the matter?

I know you didn't bring up the "weaker brother" concept. That's how I know you totally missed what Paul was teaching there.

[Sam]

I know you didn't bring up the "weaker brother" concept. That's how I know you totally missed what Paul was teaching there.

So I did not "grossly misrepresent" Paul, as you wrote. Rather I missed Paul's point.

But I didn't miss Paul's point. And unless you're going to argue that Christians should refrain from all actions that some other Christians might find sinful (such as officiating an interracial marriage), even the new argument you're bringing to the table doesn't hold water. The point was to show that participating in a purportedly sinful activity (such as eating food at a celebration feast in an idol's temple) is not, according to Paul, necessarily sinful. You and others have argued that participating in the purportedly sinful activity of celebrating a gay marriage by providing non-essential things like cakes and flowers is necessarily sinful. You wrote that it makes the bakers and florists complicit in the celebration. But, according to the implication we get from Paul, such things are not necessarily sinful.

The "weaker brother" provision, even if it was the main thrust of Paul's exhortation, is irrelevant to point made above.

[Sam]

Shorter version:

You're basically arguing that it would be sinful for me to sell a gay couple a cake for their wedding even though it would not be sinful for me to go and eat that cake at their wedding.

[Cow Poke]

So I did not "grossly misrepresent" Paul, as you wrote. Rather I missed Paul's point.

Fair enough. I apologize.

But I didn't miss Paul's point.

Yeah, ya did.

And unless you're going to argue that Christians should refrain from all actions that some other Christians might find sinful (such as officiating an interracial marriage), even the new argument you're bringing to the table doesn't hold water.

Paul didn't say refrain from ALL --- he said be careful, then he even used the point that HE would refrain from meat FOREVER if it he believed it would cause somebody to fall. That was the CONCLUSION of the discussion in 1 Cor 8---
[13]*Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

The point was to show that participating in a purportedly sinful activity (such as eating food at a celebration feast in an idol's temple) is not, according to Paul, necessarily sinful.

That part ya got correct - SO FAR. But he doesn't stop there. In fact, he teaches that not everything that is lawful is expedient.

You and others have argued that participating in the purportedly sinful activity of celebrating a gay marriage by providing non-essential things like cakes and flowers is necessarily sinful.

YOU try telling the bride or the mother of the bride that "things like cakes and flowers" are "non-essential". Lemme know when you get out of the hospital.

You wrote that it makes the bakers and florists complicit in the celebration.

Well, that's not EXACTLY what I said, but, yeah --- by taking part in the PREPARATIONS of the wedding, I'm even more involved than simply attending.

But, according to the implication we get from Paul, such things are not necessarily sinful.

You really REALLY don't get what Paul is saying. EVEN THOUGH they are not sinful, there are cases where they should be avoided.

The "weaker brother" provision, even if it was the main thrust of Paul's exhortation, is irrelevant to point made above.

The whole reason Paul is handling this is because the Corinthians had raised the issue that it was a problem. The weaker brother principle is not a "provision", it's the essence of the teaching. You CAN eat meat that's been offered to idols, but there are circumstances where it's not acceptable.

[Sam]

I can respond to this but you gotta bring it over to the other thread; splitting the same argument across two threads will shortly become unmanageable.

[Cow Poke]

Shorter version:

You're basically arguing that it would be sinful for me to sell a gay couple a cake for their wedding even though it would not be sinful for me to go and eat that cake at their wedding.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I didn't say it would be sinful -- I said it would send the message that I was endorsing what I considered to be sin. (If I didn't say it that way, I'm saying it now. ) And I certainly did NOT say it would be sinful for YOU to do it. It would ALSO be sending the wrong message by my attendance at the wedding, that I was endorsing what I considered to be sin.

And this isn't the main point, but I think you're purposefully downplaying the role of the cake in the wedding -- I've paid for THREE weddings, and believe me -- the cake is FAR from a "non-essential" part of the wedding.

[Cow Poke]

I can respond to this but you gotta bring it over to the other thread; splitting the same argument across two threads will shortly become unmanageable.

Well, yeah, but I'm about "give out" on this, Sam.... you're gonna see what you want to see, and you've just (unintentionally, I believe) misrepresented what I said concerning it being "sinful" to sell a cake.

I think you might me more hardheaded than me.

[Sam]

Well, yeah, but I'm about "give out" on this, Sam.... you're gonna see what you want to see, and you've just (unintentionally, I believe) misrepresented what I said concerning it being "sinful" to sell a cake.

I think you might me more hardheaded than me.

Well, if that wasn't what you were saying, I do apologize. It is how the tangent began, however, and was what Teal was saying explicitly. This is why we need to consolidate the argument into one thread. I will reiterate on this thread, however, that we're dealing with two different arguments:

1) Whether participation in a purportedly sinful activity (such as a celebration of a gay marriage) is necessarily sinful — that is, a violation of God's law in principle.

2) Whether participation in a purportedly sinful activity (such as a celebration of a gay marriage) might be sinful, given the beliefs of a "weaker brother."

If (1) is affirmed, then (2) is irrelevant. If (1) is denied, then (2) becomes relevant only in the same way that any other licensed act is relevant. And one can justly argue that would apply to any number of acts we all perform on a daily basis (e.g., celebrating an interracial marriage, buying a Bentley, working on the Sabbath). As a matter of crafting policy, the "weaker brother" argument is, I believe, virtually worthless. It would preclude the government from enforcing pretty much any number of laws, including anti-discrimination laws.

—Sam

[Paprika]

I think this thread is more appropriately titled.

Indeed. If the liberals didn't try to make examples of Christians both in the USA and in other countries, I doubt such a strong defensive reaction would have occurred.

[Cow Poke]

Well, if that wasn't what you were saying, I do apologize.

No prob.

It is how the tangent began, however, and was what Teal was saying explicitly. This is why we need to consolidate the argument into one thread. I will reiterate on this thread, however, that we're dealing with two different arguments:

1) Whether participation in a purportedly sinful activity (such as a celebration of a gay marriage) is necessarily sinful — that is, a violation of God's law in principle.

Sam -- I lost count -- do you profess to be a Christian? (Not judging at all, I promise -- just asking because I don't remember)

Well, I believe that homosexuality is sinful, yes. And 1 Thes 5:22 teaches "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Even absent that verse, my involvement in a gay wedding would imply my approval of something I believe is the "officiating" or official "commencement" or official "recognition" of a sinful lifestyle.

2) Whether participation in a purportedly sinful activity (such as a celebration of a gay marriage) might be sinful, given the beliefs of a "weaker brother."

I think you're missing the point. The "weaker brother" principle does not teach that it's ALWAYS wise to eat meat that's been offered to idols. Even though it could be considered "legal" or "allowable" in many circumstances, it's not always acceptable.

If (1) is affirmed, then (2) is irrelevant. If (1) is denied, then (2) becomes relevant only in the same way that any other licensed act is relevant. And one can justly argue that would apply to any number of acts we all perform on a daily basis (e.g., celebrating an interracial marriage, buying a Bentley, working on the Sabbath).

Meh... if I believed interracial marriages, buying a bently, and working on the Sabbath were sinful, there'd be a problem.

As a matter of crafting policy, the "weaker brother" argument is, I believe, virtually worthless.

So, who brought it up? Didn't YOU? I mean... didn't you bring up 1 Cor 8, in an attempt to justify selling cakes to gays? (If I'm wrong, I apologize -- but it seems this was your argument, not realizing that 1 Cor 8 was a "teaching", not just a disjointed "it's ok to eat meat offered to idols".

It would preclude the government from enforcing pretty much any number of laws, including anti-discrimination laws.

—Sam

Not sure what you mean by that -- the government certainly can, and DOES, enforce anti-discrimination laws. I can't refuse to hire somebody on the basis of their being gay -- in fact, AGAIN, my executive assistant was a Lesbian Atheist Jew. And a GOOD FRIEND! But if she decided to "marry" her "significant other", she would totally understand my declining to attend the "marriage".

[Sam]

Over to the other thread with this post, please, CP. I'm only going to deal with this argument over there.

[Cow Poke]

Over to the other thread with this post, please, CP. I'm only going to deal with this argument over there.

Feel free to cut'npaste what ya need to ... I'll respond wherever.

[Juvenal]

How long do you think such an establishment would stay in business?

Chick-fil-A.

Oh, they refuse to serve lunch to gays? Yeah, that totally torpedoes my whole argument.

Dear CP,

You're arguing like someone backed into a corner. Ya know, all defensive-like, stiff and vulnerable. There's better positions to engage in conversation, positions that let you think things through a mite more comfortably.

Your argument, such as it is, doesn't call for a torpedo. A mildly-stiff wind does just fine.

Chick-fil-A pretty much proves a business can antagonize a sub-population without taking a hit if in doing so they can appeal to folks who don't much like that sub-population. Businesses have posted signs from "Whites only" to "No Irish need apply," successfully, since time out of mind.

And everybody said, "Amen."

As ever, Jesse

[Darth Executor]

Chick-fil-A pretty much proves a business can antagonize a sub-population without taking a hit if in doing so they can appeal to folks who don't much like that sub-population.

It's not a good example when said population is very easy to antagonize. Express the mildest disapproval and it sets off like projectile diarrhea.