Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This could actually be a bit blurry depending on what is considered "good law". Some people may not recognize what congress passes, and the executive branch of government signs off as valid law for whatever reason. What you are referring to as legally binding is based upon contract enforceable under claims to authority which may or may not be legitimate. What I am referring to as legitimate is not contingent upon the current regime, rather based in truth.So now we can pick what laws are legitimate or "good" and only follow those? That can't be what you're saying. It doesn't matter if you recognize what the government passes, you still have to choose between abide by it or be committing a crime, it's very simply.
Heh, do you worship the government? On another note, do you hate the Supreme Court?
In any case, please explain the bolded and how you determined it to be 'truth.' Maybe you can then show me how someone decides which sins are worthy of denying people service over, and which ones aren't. Is it fair to say you do not think marriages in faiths or even denominations outside your own are illegitimate?
Where I am from, we are informed and instructed by a professional, make a vow, and say "I do" before witnesses. The members of church do not hold the ultimate claim to authority, but they are fully capable of pronouncing marriage as valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@ludofl3x
There's no inherent need for anyone to discriminate based on sexual preference, either.
I would suppose so as well.
Can you tell me the difference between legally binding marriages and "legitimate" marriages?
This could actually be a bit blurry depending on what is considered "good law". Some people may not recognize what congress passes, and the executive branch of government signs off as valid law for whatever reason. What you are referring to as legally binding is based upon contract enforceable under claims to authority which may or may not be legitimate. What I am referring to as legitimate is not contingent upon the current regime, rather based in truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Marriage has not to do with benefits. The purposes to which state representatives deem practical is besides the point.
There is no inherent need for the state to discriminate on the basis of marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is that a sincere question? The existence or legitimacy of something is not contingent upon recognition by a government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm talking about actual marriage, obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Marriage has nothing to do with "gay". If you make the vow and say I do, the both of you in totality are in it for better or worse. You don't marry attraction. You don't marry love. You marry a person, all of them, through it all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What you are missing and therefore why you don't understand is that the religious objection to same sex marriage is that homosexuality is a sin. Divorce and premarital sex and any number of other things are sins and for consistency would constitute an objection to marriage of those sinners but hypocrisy prevents that behavior.
It is not possible to have premarital sex in marriage. The idea that the man is objecting to sinners is idiotic, or an insulting presumption without warrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The cake guy makes cakes for everyone EXCEPT the gays. TONS of other "sinners" pay him good money every day.We have been over this, multiple times..Ok,The cake guy claims to make cakes for everyone.Except homos.Maybe he really is secretly a hateful bigot rather than a practicing Christian, but he has never been shown not to make cakes for people because they have sinned.Except homos.It appears as though people construct an image that they can hate, so that it can be attacked. I don't understand how you fall for it, over and over again.Why does this guy object to making cakes for homos
He would also object to cater as requested by men, women, disabled people, young, old, "white", "straight", "bisexual" you name it....All sorts of "protected classes" of people. You know this. I mean, seriously, consider how obvious it is what you are really doing. You could have just as easily selected "men" as the fake victim of the evil baker. Anyone with eyes that can see would know the motive behind your contention isn't to "protect gays".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"sinner" (divorcee, adulterer, murder, thief, tax cheat, Sabbath violator) that walks through your door.This has never been proven. What you are actually contending by throwing the real man under the bus to ignore what is actually happening is that people have to cater, divorce, adultery, theft, cheating on taxes, and violating the sabbath. The people who are behind this obviously seek to destroy the Christian way of life.What do you mean, "never been proven"?The cake guy makes cakes for everyone EXCEPT the gays. TONS of other "sinners" pay him good money every day.
We have been over this, multiple times.. The cake guy claims to make cakes for everyone. Maybe he really is secretly a hateful bigot rather than a practicing Christian, but he has never been shown not to make cakes for people because they have sinned. It appears as though people construct an image that they can hate, so that it can be attacked. I don't understand how you fall for it, over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Thank You, nice to see an honest statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A Church is basically a private club. They can do whatever they want.
They can, but they might have to answer to it.
The context here is regarding a business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
Why couldn't the government impose issues on grounds of commerce as it pertains to private clubs?
The same level of scrutiny would seem to apply to the cake man. You can't just refuse service to homos because they are "sinners" and then cheerily serve every other "sinner" (divorcee, adulterer, murder, thief, tax cheat, Sabbath violator) that walks through your door.
This has never been proven. What you are actually contending by throwing the real man under the bus to ignore what is actually happening is that people have to cater, divorce, adultery, theft, cheating on taxes, and violating the sabbath. The people who are behind this obviously seek to destroy the Christian way of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;- Except when they are between one man and 1000 women.He observes orthodoxy, not a Mormonism.Were Abraham, David, and Solomon all Mormons?
I believe Mormonism is a relatively recent American development, which I am ignorant of. I have no knowledge of why polygamy is associated with it. They were not Mormons, no.
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and- Which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.Pretty much, actually. My perception is that the practice of homosexuality has recently been introduced into the subject of marriage through public persona.Do you think the cake man objects to making cakes for hetro couples who have engaged in pre-marital sex?
In good faith, I doubt that in this matter he cares whether or not a couple has sinned, only whether he is himself. Assuming this to be the case, unless the cake is implicated with a sexual event, I doubt very much that he would object to serving.
c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.- This is nowhere to be found in "The Bible".
Why does it need to be in The Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;- Except when they are between one man and 1000 women.
He observes orthodoxy, not a Mormonism.
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and- Which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
Pretty much, how I would put it. My perception is that the practice of homosexuality has recently been introduced into the subject of marriage through public persona.
Created:
Posted in:
By this standard, all wedding cakes celebrating marriages of divorcees ARE CONTRARY TO CHRISTIANITY.
Maybe so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps I was overly vague. Your repeated allusion to some sort of loophole is not what I was referring to. I simply meant that it was normal for a closely held corporation to have respect in the United States according to (fundamental) rights.So, you're arguing that this particular legislation is purely redundant?
I haven't read it yet, but that is actually possible. The states have lots of legislation which might be considered redundant at any given time. It might be used politically to help republican politicians keep up with the times, could just be a piece of mind thing, a statement piece, or maybe there is a process that would be made more reliable if bigots were to end up on a panel. Also, I doubt this is the case, but that belief is so common that formalization of legal forms of descrimination is probably more efficient for paperwork.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps I was overly vague. Your repeated allusion to some sort of loophole is not what I was referring to. I simply meant that it was normal for a closely held corporation to have respect in the United States according to (fundamental) rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Generally, that is how it should be for closely held corporations. They are already protected by the United States Constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Religious organization" means:
(a) A house of worship, including, but not limited to, churches, synagogues, shrines, mosques and temples;
(b) A religious group, corporation, association, school or educational institution, ministry, order, society or similar entity, regardless of whether it is integrated or affiliated with a church or other house of worship; and
(c) An officer, owner, employee, manager, religious leader, clergy or minister of an entity or organization described in this subsection
Created:
Posted in:
When you consider that we are always in nature, the question lends itself to a matter of perception by how we choose to live.
Created:
Posted in:
It has no bearing on your faith, but what about all the religious people who think it does and actively try to undermine it? Don't you think that they might prefer a world without science?
I find this question rather ironic. As I was told, the theory is historically significant in that it undermined an established school of thought. So long as people are honest with themselves, I don't see what harm comes about from such ambitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Masterpiece Cakeshop will happily create custom cakes for anyone.Disproves what exactly
"refusing cake to sinners"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The underlined portion...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THEREFORE, you must also refuse to make cakes for other SINNERS, like adulterers and divorcees and Sabbath violators.Because there is nothing in "The Bible" that makes homosexuality any different than any of those other sins.
That has been disproven. This is the equivalent of speaking loudly while plugging your ears. Maybe someone will bite eventually and confirm your bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This was never proven.Exactly how is "serving homosexuals" a "betrayal of your faith"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
That does not change my view of ending massive cattle farming, because is is a butt forward way of thinking that is less than comprehensive for longer term survival of humanity.
Any opinion on our current policy of burning food instead of feeding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Yeah, the beef industry has potential when you dive into it, naturally suited to the United States. They are not difficult to protect from predators and there are programs where ranchers graze them according to management program on native prairie lands. One of the major challenges we are facing right now particularly in those semi-arid regions, is a massive trend to drain off low areas to make more land for agriculture, catalyzed by modern irrigation and genetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Also, there's the thing where you want to screw over ranchers. I think that's more something I would reserve to the situation we are seeing in Brazil, where the cattle industry is displacing the rainforest. In the United States we are capable of expanding the forest area.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The idea that he is refusing to make cake for sinners, or any grouping of people, HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.Masterpiece Cakeshop will happily create custom cakes for anyone. But like many cake artists, Jack cannot create all custom cakes. He cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs. [LINK]KABOOM!!!!What is the explosion a reference to? Why is "religious" emboldened?This is the cake man from the court case. This is his website. This is the current text.HE CLAIMS THAT HE CANNOT CREATE CUSTOM CAKES THAT EXPRESS MESSAGES OR CELEBRATE EVENTS THAT CONFLICT WITH HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.Religious is highlighted in bold text for emphasis.You suggested he refused for "no reason" or "personal reasons", but his website actually says religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are personal reasons, and the idea that he refused sinners is disproven in the claim in the first sentence, now underlined. I did not suggest, there was "no reason". I believe there was no such standard in his case, and that's part of why he was continually harassed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
BECAUSE "THE BIBLE" DOESN'T PROHIBIT SELLING OR MAKING THINGS FOR SINNERS.The idea that he is refusing to make cake for sinners, or any grouping of people, HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.The cake guy said he didn't approve of gay marriage. So that has been "proven".
Sure, I'll buy that.
He also said he was a Christian, but that must have been an non-sequitur.Oh wait,Masterpiece Cakeshop will happily create custom cakes for anyone. But like many cake artists, Jack cannot create all custom cakes. He cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs. [LINK]KABOOM!!!!
What is the explosion a reference to? Why is "religious" emboldened?
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like using the word discrimination, because I think it is a loaded word. If you can tell something apart from another, you are discriminating.The entire discussion is about a business right to deny service.
It is about a person's right in the private sector is it not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am not talking to you any-more. You can't answer simple questions where I don't assume judgement instead simply ask for your position and then you fall back to claim I made a judgement. It seems to me you wanted a cop out instead of actually explaining your views about the topic at hand. If that is the case why did you even create the forum topic if you weren't able to defend not being a vegan?
I started it to talk about veganism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't justify not being vegan, and I don't see the problem. Maybe you start from an animalistic standpoint and I start from a humanistic standpoint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As I recall, I was just answering your question, if that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No, I did not, and I do not believe it needs to be justified to not be vegan.What needs to be justified?
I don't know.
Why doesn't it need to be justified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
BECAUSE "THE BIBLE" DOESN'T PROHIBIT SELLING OR MAKING THINGS FOR SINNERS.
The idea that he is refusing to make cake for sinners, or any grouping of people, HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It was sort of a fringe thing I was vaguely aware of until I saw Barack Obama joking about it. Then it was hilarious. In the last few years I've read media referencing a "birther movement", but apparently I was minding my own business at the time. The reality TV type stuff just doesn't do it for me. I liked Barack Obama during his first campaign. Frankly, that is none of your business though. I would like you to act a bit more politely towards me in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No, I did not, and I do not believe it needs to be justified to not be vegan.You used your pro-life position to justify not being a vegan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Hopefully I'm not coming across disrespectfully. I'm just not interested in discussing Pro-Life personally, as it doesn't pertain to veganism.
I am not a vegan. I want to talk about veganism. If you are "for Pro-Life" for animals, that would be nice to hear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I do not recognize a carrot's right to life, arbitrary happenstance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why would I be Pro-Life for a sponge or an amoeba? I'm just not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
hunting is also about management and conservation, but I'm sure you know that and the statement is more to clear up some others ignorance on the subject.
Well for me it is. In terms of wildlife a lot of areas in America are ecologically flourishing in comparison to where they were at 100 years ago. Did you know that Canadian Geese were hunted to near extinction? Now they are the sky rats of unusual size.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Uh, what do you want me to say? I am just pro-life for humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you vegan? I would be interested in your philosophy, or really whatever you want to say about veganism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I've killed plants as well, especially weeds and garden vegetables.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nothing what you said earlier made it clear that it wasn't a contradiction. Try again.Your stance on pro-life and animal violence is contradictory.You being for pro-lifeI am generally inclined towards Pro-Life.You being for animal violence
Sure, have no problem with it. I have dominion over animals.
How can you be for pro-life when you are for the death of life?
So, I'm still not relating to the question. It will have to die sooner or later, and it would be unnecessarily painful not to swiftly dispatch a critter before you start preparing it.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
Are you going to post something to your debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think everyone should kill an animal for food once in their life, and feel a full respect for its will to live, among other things.How can you be for pro-life when you are for the death of life?
I don't understand what you are saying here. I have killed many creatures, and it never got any easier to me. People should experience something like that and their relationship with the world they live in. I believe a full appreciation is something that should be experienced rather than just worded.
Created:
Posted in:
Sometimes I do take more time depending on the subject matter. Then I might forget, or just never get around to having the time.How about take all the time you want in responding to my comment?
Created: