Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Flowers and the Wedding -- Just the FACTS, please

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Sexual orientation and sexual action are different things - even assuming sexual orientation is a non-malleable element of a person, like their race. Sexual action, customs surrounding sexual unions, customs around sexual relationships - these are all human decorations or social conventions or choices. I can't refuse you service for who you are, but I sure as heck can decide what kind of custom or service I participate in, or what sort of sexual ACTION I deem moral or immoral or am willing to condone or support. As we discussed previously in other threads, this business of gay weddings pits two normally disjoint, unconnected elements of life at odds with each other. Who I am does not normally define my morality. What my morality is doesn't normally define who I am. I can be black and moral, or white and immoral. The two are normally orthogonal elements.

    But with the issue of the gay wedding, sexual MORALITY and WHO I AM become connected. It is a completely unique situation, and using misaligned analogues to drive discussion (e.g. the civil rights movement or artistic freedom) are putting square pegs in round holes. And we are all choosing arguments that let us have our way, and we ignore the rights and impacts of those other elements not addressed in our preferred analogue. I have a right not to be forced to do or participate in what I believe is immoral, especially as regards sexuality (a right guaranteed by my freedom to exercise my religious beliefs). And I also have a right to BE what I am ( a right guaranteed by the prohibition against discrimination). It is WRONG to dismiss EITHER right as we attempt to come to terms on this issue.

    And we will never resolve this issue by appealing to inferior analogies. We are dealing with sexual morality vs human identity in a way that does not come up in any other situation. And any approach that dismisses the legitimate conflict of rights that arises uniquely here is simply unacceptable.

    Jim
    My position on homosexuality is a fairly simple one, and aligned with most of my other positions. Sex is a morally neutral act - like breathing or eating or walking. It is the context that determines its morality. A man imposing sex on a woman (rape) makes the sex act immoral. An adult imposing sex on a child (or anyone else who lacks the capacity to make an informed, reasoned, choice) makes the act immoral. A person with power using that power to coerce another to have sex makes the act immoral.

    Two consenting adults, engaging in sex, does not make the act immoral. I do not have moral prohibitions against pre-marital sex. So when someone says "those two consenting adults can morally have sex, but those two consenting adults cannot" and the ONLY difference between the two couples is their genitalia (i.e., different or same), then the morality is not about the act - it is about the specific people engaging in the act - in this case the specific genitalia they bring to the encounter. That means morality has just been determined by someone's genetic make-up. Therefore - this is NO different then saying "those two consenting adults can morally have sex, but those two consenting adults cannot" when the difference is race - or height - or eye color. It is inappropriate discrimination against a group by membership in a class.

    Hence my position on the florist and the baker and anyone else who adopts an "anti-gay" agenda, for whatever their reason.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      In all of this, I can't help but think back to my days testifying in the Texas Senate on the Pastor Protection Bill.

      There was a young gay man who was there to testify, also, and most of us were pretty surprised when he announced his intention to speak FOR the bill.

      He went on to explain that some of his friends had been meeting to discuss ways to request weddings in Churches that had a "Christian Wedding" policy, so they could be rejected and sue the Church. Let's not pretend that there's some of that going on.
      I'm sure there is. "Some people do bad things" is not an argument against the position I have taken. In the scenario you outline, my position would be in support of the church. No religious body should be forced to engage in religious ritual that violates their beliefs. Likewise, no person should be prevented from expressing their beliefs - no matter how obnoxious I might find them. The discussion here is about the public marketplace - not actions within the confines of a church or a private home or even verbal statements in public. If the florist wants to post "we prefer not to do gay weddings on their signage - the first amendment protects them. When they cross the line to refusing service - it does not.

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      This whole notion that gays and lesbians can't POSSIBLY be inconvenienced in finding an alternate source for their flowers or cakes, so the Christian must be forced to give up his or her livelihood is just nuts.
      No one says they can't. I AM saying that they cannot be required to in the public marketplace. Otherwise, we are back to Jim Crow, and the white man was perfectly justified to refuse service to the black man because "they can go elsewhere."

      Separate is not equal. This has been affirmed many times.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        According to the latest information from the scientific front, sexuality is not pre-determined, not genetically, not by in-vitro hormones. Childhood experiences can, apparently, have an influence.
        Yes - they can. We are all the product of nature AND nurture. No argument there whatsoever.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by myth View Post
          Indeed. And your anti-Christian bigotry is duly noted.
          Then I would be bigoted against my wife?

          No, Myth - despite the accusation - I am not anti-Christian. I am not anti-black or anti-white or anti-heterosexual or anti-homosexual or anti-Jew or anti-Muslim and the list goes on.

          I stand solidly against bigotry in all of its forms in all of its contexts. It does not matter to me who is engaging in it - I will call it out and stand against it. I will not do violence, and I will not endorse or solicit violence. But I will name it and do everything I can to haul it into the light. And I will stand with those who work to make our laws inclusive and applied equally to all.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #95
            If the florist wants to post "we prefer not to do gay weddings on their signage - the first amendment protects them. When they cross the line to refusing service - it does not.
            Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.

            “The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”


            So - it is possible for a baker to refuse to make a cake when doing so endorses things he disagrees with - in Europe, anyway. Perhaps in America - given that people are extended the right to freedom of speech - if refusal was based not on the orientation of the would-be customer, but on the message that baking the cake would endorse, a baker who disagrees with given sentiments might be able to live in peace.
            The same would apply for florists and photographers, among others. And it is within the parameters that you yourself set with regard to refusing a KKK supportive message.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Then I would be bigoted against my wife?

              No, Myth - despite the accusation - I am not anti-Christian. I am not anti-black or anti-white or anti-heterosexual or anti-homosexual or anti-Jew or anti-Muslim and the list goes on.

              I stand solidly against bigotry in all of its forms in all of its contexts. It does not matter to me who is engaging in it - I will call it out and stand against it. I will not do violence, and I will not endorse or solicit violence. But I will name it and do everything I can to haul it into the light. And I will stand with those who work to make our laws inclusive and applied equally to all.
              I imagine you make some exceptions for her, since you're married and all. No, seriously though, your love for a woman who happens to be Christian isn't a license to treat Christians however you want. Given your marriage to a Christian, that makes the bigotry you've displayed here all the worse. I submit a few points for your consideration:



              1) You assume that people who refuse to support gay marriage are bigots using Bible passages to justify their bigotry. While I'm sure there are people who do this, I don't know any of them. You need to seriously consider the opposite: that there are Christians who honestly believe homosexual acts are a sin against God, but have no personal bias against homosexuals. Personally, I'm on the fence regarding the Biblical basis for homosexuality as a sin. I have nothing personal against homosexuals, and I think it doesn't make any logical sense that God would be so against homosexuals, but the Biblical passages are pretty clear. If I were to do anything to take a stand against homosexual marriage, it would be out of a sincere belief behind the Biblical support for it because I personally find those passages in the Bible to be rather inconvenient.

              If you aren't bigoted against Christians, then stop assuming the worst possible motive for their actions and/or statements. Just because your wife doesn't feel the same doesn't make other Christians any less sincere in their beliefs.

              2) If you weren't so intolerant of Christians, you'd perhaps be more wiling to discuss or explore options that would allow Christians to function in our current business society without being forced to take actions which are at odds with their religious beliefs. Your blithe suggestion that the florist could just stop serving weddings at all is both ignorant and useless.

              I think it's worth mentioning that, unlike the during the civil rights movement over racism, Christians refusing to serve homosexuals are in the minority here. This isn't a climate in which homosexual couples are unable to find businesses to provide them with goods or services. You continually state that there are limits to people's rights. A homosexual insisting on compelling a Christian florist to service their wedding is also intruding on the Christian florists' rights. And what's more, it's completely unnecessary. It has the appearance of targeting Christian businesses just because the homosexuals disagree with their beliefs.
              "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by carp
                No, Myth - despite the accusation - I am not anti-Christian. I am not anti-black or anti-white or anti-heterosexual or anti-homosexual or anti-Jew or anti-Muslim and the list goes on.
                And yet, in your own words, you don't give a fig what the bible says, but scripture is the final authority of the believer, hence, you are absolutely anti-Christian, regardless of your wife's beliefs.

                We are bound to take God's word as our authority. As Peter said, "we have to obey God rather than men". What you say, what the government says, what any person says is right and hood and lawful is not unless it lines up with what God says.


                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Then I would be bigoted against my wife?
                  That's not really a fitting argument - we don't know your wife, or what she believes, and it's entirely likely that you can overlook her Christianity, whatever that may be, because you love her.

                  That's kinda like "I have a friend who's black" as proof you're not racist.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Now there's an interesting thought. I actually have no problem with someone who starts a business to serve their particular religion - and only does business within the context of that religion. It would be the equivalent of someone who opens a bookstore that only stocks Christian books. There is no bigotry there - the business is focused on the religion. I can complain if you won't sell me a book because I am black or gay, but I cannot complain if you do not stock books about homosexuality or the black experience.
                    I find it interesting that you think a Christian bookstore wouldn't sell books about "the black experience".
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      This has been answered in previous posts. If I don't make KKK cakes - I don't need to make KKK cakes for anyone.
                      That's just dumb, and you're avoiding the question. The question was - would you decline to make a cake with the F-Bomb and N-word on it. I can understand why you're avoiding the issue, because you'd have to admit, "yes, I'd decline that" because you would refuse to be forced to do something you felt was unconscionable. I believe you WOULD decline that request, but just can't bring yourself to admit it, because of the implications.

                      If I make wedding cakes, I need to make wedding cakes for anyone who asks (unless I have a business reason - like out-of-supplies or out of baking capacity).
                      That has not been in dispute - that somebody can come in and purchase the wedding cakes the baker offers.

                      If I provide wedding flowers, I need to provide wedding flowers for everyone.
                      Also, not in dispute -- anybody coming into the shop can buy anything that is offered for sale.

                      If the KKK hired you to come to and decorate their venue for their annual meeting, would you accept?
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I've actually answered that in various threads various times, but I just responded again in this one.
                        Your "response" was more of a "bob and weave" routine.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Your "response" was more of a "bob and weave" routine.
                          Nothing new, from carp.


                          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            My position on homosexuality is a fairly simple one, and aligned with most of my other positions. Sex is a morally neutral act - like breathing or eating or walking. It is the context that determines its morality. A man imposing sex on a woman (rape) makes the sex act immoral. An adult imposing sex on a child (or anyone else who lacks the capacity to make an informed, reasoned, choice) makes the act immoral. A person with power using that power to coerce another to have sex makes the act immoral.
                            That may be how YOU view it, but that is NOT how the major monotheistic religions define it. And we are allowed to live according to and in free expression of our RELIGIOUS beliefs by the constitution. And that is where the conflict arises, but it is a conflict where the two guaranteed rights of the constitution come into direct, and perhaps irresolvable conflict.

                            Two consenting adults, engaging in sex, does not make the act immoral. I do not have moral prohibitions against pre-marital sex. So when someone says "those two consenting adults can morally have sex, but those two consenting adults cannot" and the ONLY difference between the two couples is their genitalia (i.e., different or same), then the morality is not about the act - it is about the specific people engaging in the act - in this case the specific genitalia they bring to the encounter. That means morality has just been determined by someone's genetic make-up. Therefore - this is NO different then saying "those two consenting adults can morally have sex, but those two consenting adults cannot" when the difference is race - or height - or eye color. It is inappropriate discrimination against a group by membership in a class.
                            It doesn't matter that you have a personal morality that doesn't have the conflict I describe. The constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom, and all three of the major monotheistic religions who's teachings drive over 95% of the actions and beliefs of those practicing religion in the US do not. And those people are GUARANTEED by the US constitution to be able to live according to those same religious dictates.

                            Hence my position on the florist and the baker and anyone else who adopts an "anti-gay" agenda, for whatever their reason.

                            Technically, these are not 'anti-gay' agendas. They are 'anti-same-sex-act'. No-one is forced to engage in any sexual practice unless they are raped. These protests are against customs and actions they believe are immoral. They are not against any person or type of person. And the fact is, the only way to resolve the dual conflicts between the guarantee to freedom to exercise one's religion, and the freedom not to be discriminated against is to recognize the difference between how one chooses to act and who one is. A gay person can, if they want to, never participate in any same sex act. And there are people who because they have same-sex attraction but religious beliefs that such acts are wrong that do in fact chose not to act them out. And, in fact, straight people can chose to participate in same-sex acts (and some do).

                            So a gay wedding is a ceremony that explicitly sanctions a same sex act. As such, religious people that believe such acts are wrong have every right not to be part of such a ceremony as to participate in such a ceremony is to violate their religion.

                            And the constitution guarantees that a religious person has the right not to participate in any custom or act that violates the dictates of their religion. So the constitution effectively guarantees that person the right not to participate, even at their place of work. So, if a business has no employees that are willing to participate in the ceremony, that business simply can't provide that service.

                            So as I said in previous threads. A gay person should be able to buy any good provided by any merchant. But they can't require that merchant to produce that which violates that merchant's religious teaching. In the florist's case, they should be able to buy any flower arrangement they want to use however they see fit. But they can't force that florist to create a display for the purpose of decorating their gay wedding. She has to sell them the flowers, but they have to figure out how to set them up (or hire someone sympathetic to their position - which honestly in this day and age should be a piece of cake - pun intended )

                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-08-2019, 11:13 AM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              If the KKK hired you to come to and decorate their venue for their annual meeting, would you accept?
                              Or rather, do you have the right to refuse? Increasingly, the answer seems to be no.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Then I would be bigoted against my wife?

                                No, Myth - despite the accusation - I am not anti-Christian. I am not anti-black or anti-white or anti-heterosexual or anti-homosexual or anti-Jew or anti-Muslim and the list goes on.

                                I stand solidly against bigotry in all of its forms in all of its contexts. It does not matter to me who is engaging in it - I will call it out and stand against it. I will not do violence, and I will not endorse or solicit violence. But I will name it and do everything I can to haul it into the light. And I will stand with those who work to make our laws inclusive and applied equally to all.
                                But you do engage in bigotry - you refuse to treat with respect the morality of a Christian. You refuse to acknowledge that a Christian person can believe that certain sexual actions are wrong without being hateful of a person that commits those acts. It's exactly the stereotyping and bigotry you claim to be against.

                                In an ideal world, if I think its ok to have a beer, and another religious person does not, then when we sit down to have a drink, he has a coke, and I have a beer, and neither of us think evil about the other.

                                There is little difference here. If a person is gay and thinks it is ok to engage in same-sex acts, and another person is not gay and thinks it is wrong to engage in same sex acts, then neither one will try to forcefully impose their belief on the other and will respect the other person's position.

                                Demanding that a Christian participate in a ceremony sanctioning same-sex acts by making a specialized, personalized cake, or setting up a floral display to decorate that ceremony, the person demanding that is forcing their morality onto the Christian, and not only that, is disrespecting the Christian in no less the same way than they have been disrespected over the years for being gay.

                                Ideally, we respect one another's morality and moral differences as long as what we do does not hurt others. That is what being tolerant means. It does not mean forcing everyone to adopt the same views at the same time. Not providing a floral arrangement or cake for your wedding doesn't hurt anyone, as long as both parties have it in them to respect the other's moral position.


                                Jim
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-08-2019, 01:20 PM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X