Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
How can someone not be capable of these things with another person of the same sex?...I am a married male, and I have all of these things with my best friend, Rob. We've been best friends for 20 years, and I do not plan on ever not being his best friend.
Then I go to someone who is more aligned with my ideas for the cake. Why would I go to someone for service who doesn't want to serve me? Am I trying to exert my own power over them that they MUST be my servant against their will?
Come on, Bill. Until you went and asked for a cake, you had no idea that the baker would refuse to serve you. Even if you went somewhere else, you'd still feel hurt. You weren't asking for equipment to make a bomb. You simply wanted a cake to commemorate a happy moment in your life, but you were denied because of your sexual orientation. There's no power play involved here. All you seek is equality, not dominance.
This is an argument from outrage. When people align themselves with others, it is usually because they share similar values. When one party abandons that common value, the other has every right to withdraw, and to let the first know why. If the first sees it as a threat, then the first is displaying a victim's mentality.
If the company is founded on the deity's principles, would you want them to reject those principles just for your own power play? That sounds an awful lot like bullying.
That's life. When people see a geek with a knockout, they automatically and primarily focus on terms like "gold digger".
When you identify yourself primarily by your sexuality, it is going to be the focus of discussion.
No they aren't. Unless you make your sexuality an issue.
From what I can see these days, it is the homosexual who is making a public spectacle of their sexuality, including press conferences to announce it.
No they aren't. Unless you make your sexuality an issue.
From what I can see these days, it is the homosexual who is making a public spectacle of their sexuality, including press conferences to announce it.
Finally, those who “have press conferences to announce it” don’t want it to be an issue beyond that. That’s why the Missouri lineman said "I just wish you guys would just see me as Michael Sam the football player instead of Michael Sam the gay football player.”
if the prevailing deity says it is sinful, then society will continue to see you as a sinful individual. If it means so much to you to be accepted by a society without being a bully about it, then you may choose to not engage with another in an act that society sees as sinful. But choosing to engage in sinful behavior will result in you being considered a sinful person, regardless of if you are engaging in that behavior 24/7.
The next several parts of your response assume a certain interpretation of certain passages, and debating that interpretation is outside the purview of this thread. I’ll therefore set them aside for now.
Where was anyone denied access to the bakery as an individual client? Charities are a different animal, as they are typically ideology based. And what church turned away an individual person?
Is it their fault that you identify yourself by that behavior?
It makes it obvious that you don't get what our objection really is, nor why we hold to it.
Is it genuine love to allow your teenager to do drugs? Is it genuine love to let your teenager engage in behavior that you see as destructive? Is it genuine love to not discipline your children when they deviate from your standards? Is it genuine love to even have standards?
Comment