Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, I don't care about any of that.

If you don't care about a civilized discussion, I don't care to carry on. As that link said, if you don't believe it, look it up yourself.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That is, care if others engage in them?



Why do Christians care that people of the same gender engage in sex, and why do they care that they marry each other? Even caring to the point of voicing their objections and protesting?

.

.


.

Because gawd is the center of the universe, and good christians revolve around gawd, and anything not in sync with this worldview causes orbital decay!

As 'other' world views press in, good christians are obliged to come closer to gawd. This is ever more uncomfortable as they are (actually having brains) forced to submit to ever increasing suspension of disbelief.

I.e. on some remote level it makes them feel ignorant, and they don't like feeling ignorant! Therefore it's the problem with the **** and they gays, rather with them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus, 2017: If your gay neighbor wants a wedding cake, who are you to deny them? Whatever you have done or not done to them you have done or not done to ME, and I like cake, man. Also, if they sue you because I never told you to not bake them a frickin' cake, settle the case out of court, for if you're a stubborn jerk about it, I tell you truly, you'll be forced to pay out every last penny.

 

[Prestor John]

If you don't care about a civilized discussion, I don't care to carry on. As that link said, if you don't believe it, look it up yourself.

Nothing but strawmen and ad hominem.

I have already told you why I use bold and capitalize. If you want to imply something that I did not wish to convey, then so be it, but you do so in error.

Don't forget that this discussion has never been civilized because you have been claiming that I am hateful or a bigot since the very beginning.

Instead of crying about it, running away with my tail between my legs or coming up with arbitrary reasons to pretend to be offended, I chose to be an adult and engage you and your opinions.

You certainly do not have to chose to act like an adult because this is a free country and you can do as you please.

I believe that you should be free to run away from the truth as long as you like, unlike you, who believes that those who disagree with you should be forced to do what you want them to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have already told you why I use bold and capitalize.

Yes, I already told you (and had someone else also do it) that doing so is rude.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, I already told you (and had someone else also do it) that doing so is rude.

I'll continue to refer you to post #1224 for as long as you keep trying to hide behind this strawman.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Also human sacrifice is not a business..

Hold my drink

 

[Shad]

Hold my drink

You just gave me an empty glass sir. There was no drink

/Stumbles walking off.

 

[Shad]

@Prestor John

Where do you draw the line regarding religious exemptions?

Can an EMT refuse to do treatment for an drug overdose if drug use conflicts with their religion?

Can a doctor refuse to provide medication such as weed for cancer patients as drug use conflicts with their religion?

Can a JW doctor refuse to use blood transfusions on a patient as it conflicts with their religion?

My use of medical situations is to point out religious exemptions will not merely apply to bakers but people in life threatening situations could be denied care.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Take a look at the 2 statements below that you made in response to me...

You are free to give up whenever you want.

However, you cannot force someone to give up, just because you would have given up.

You are applying what I said about "giving up" on our EARLIER CONVERSATION to the current conversation about business practices. What are you doing? Do you even know? Do you read for comprehension? Or just skim replies that you have a distaste for while in a huffing rage that blinds you to what is actually being said? I am being serious here. I'm beginning to think that what someone else in the thread was saying about you attributing words to them that they never said may have some merit...

You cannot force someone to do business, just because you would have chosen to do business.

Personally, I wouldn't force anyone to do business. However, I do reserve the right to disseminate bad publicity about a particular business because I do not agree with their practices, and I also reserve the right to laugh at them (at some length) when they end up going out of business because of their unfair and discriminatory practices. I don't believe in the law stepping in and forcing "equality". I believe that should be taken care of by the reputation of such a place that would discriminate and feel that such practice is "okay", and especially if they thought that the practice of discriminating against certain types of people was "pious" or morally upheld by some authority that they felt they knew better than others.

A private business-owner should run their business the way they want to run it. You and the government should just stay out of it.

Agreed. But you know who you simply can't keep out of your business if you want to keep running it? Customers. This is sort of a "duh" type of statement, but it is worth mentioning, I feel - blindness and huff and all of that, you know.

 

[Prestor John]

You just gave me an empty glass sir. There was no drink

/Stumbles walking off.

This was really funny to me.

I actually "lol'd"

 

[Prestor John]

I will answer your most recent questions first before I get into your earlier comments.

I think it would be quicker and more to the point.

Where do you draw the line regarding religious exemptions?

When a private business-owner feels that any continued participation in an activity would cause them to violate their religious beliefs.

Can an EMT refuse to do treatment for an drug overdose if drug use conflicts with their religion?

This is not a relevant example because we have been talking about private business-owners.

I don’t believe that an EMT’s beliefs should have any place in the performance of his duties.

I myself am a Federal Officer and I encounter all sorts of behavior and practices that I would rather not, if it were up to me, but it is not up to me, so I endure.

I took an oath to fulfill my duty, just as an EMT took an oath to perform his.

Private business-owners, however, take no such oaths of service. No one is entitled to their service.

Can a doctor refuse to provide medication such as weed for cancer patients as drug use conflicts with their religion?

It is actually illegal for any doctor to prescribe marijuana to a patient. They would be breaking federal law and could lose their license and even be prosecuted.

They can recommend marijuana therapy for a patient, but federal authorities may not sanction it.

If a recommendation is approved, all the marijuana would be made available through the federal National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Also, when you consider that marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance, any doctor that recommends marijuana therapy for treatment is exposing themselves to civil litigation if the patient ends up suffering from any adverse effects.

All that being said, it would be wrong to try to force any physician to recommend marijuana therapy for their patients.

Can a JW doctor refuse to use blood transfusions on a patient as it conflicts with their religion?

Also not a relevant example.

Just like with EMTs, most doctors take an oath that forbids them from allowing their personal beliefs to affect their willingness to treat patients or the level of care they offer.

Also, more to the point, the Watchtower actually does not forbid Jehovah’s Witness doctors from performing blood transfusions on others.

My use of medical situations is to point out religious exemptions will not merely apply to bakers but people in life threatening situations could be denied care.

It’s going to be hard for you to find life-threatening situations involving private business-owners.

 

[Prestor John]

Take a look at the 2 statements below that you made in response to me...

You are applying what I said about "giving up" on our EARLIER CONVERSATION to the current conversation about business practices.

Actually, I’m not. I was talking about freedom in general.

My comments about “giving up” had nothing to do with business practices at all.

You are free to give up whenever you want, but it would be wrong for you to force someone to give up.

If you have the freedom to give up, then other citizens should have the freedom to keep going.

What are you doing? Do you even know? Do you read for comprehension? Or just skim replies that you have a distaste for while in a huffing rage that blinds you to what is actually being said? I am being serious here. I'm beginning to think that what someone else in the thread was saying about you attributing words to them that they never said may have some merit...

I think you just became confused because you assumed that my comments about “giving up” were in reference to business practices, when they were not.

Personally, I wouldn't force anyone to do business. However, I do reserve the right to disseminate bad publicity about a particular business because I do not agree with their practices, and I also reserve the right to laugh at them (at some length) when they end up going out of business because of their unfair and discriminatory practices.

I will be protesting right beside you.

I have said many times that I do not agree with the baker’s decision to not bake and decorate a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

If I were a baker, I’d have no issue with it.

However, I believe that he has the right to not participate in a certain activity if said participation would cause him to violate his religious beliefs.

I don’t think it would be right to force this baker to violate his religious beliefs.

He is a citizen of the United States of America and his freedom to religion should remain absolute.

I also disagree with any talk of a hijab-ban. Or anything else that would violates people’s freedoms.

I don't believe in the law stepping in and forcing "equality".

Amen, brother.

I believe that should be taken care of by the reputation of such a place that would discriminate and feel that such practice is "okay", and especially if they thought that the practice of discriminating against certain types of people was "pious" or morally upheld by some authority that they felt they knew better than others.

Capitalism isn’t black or white, it’s green. It will work itself out.

Agreed. But you know who you simply can't keep out of your business if you want to keep running it? Customers. This is sort of a "duh" type of statement, but it is worth mentioning, I feel - blindness and huff and all of that, you know.

In this particular instance, the baker did offer all kinds of baked goods for the homosexual couple.

He just felt that baking and decorating a wedding cake was a step further than he wanted to go.

He did not want to interfere with their right to marry. He did not protect their lifestyle.

He just didn’t want to participate and he recommended another baker that would.

In my opinion, I feel that that homosexual couple are the real “villains” here because they wanted to force someone to violate their religious beliefs for the sake of their convenience.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In my opinion, I feel that that homosexual couple are the real “villains” here because they wanted to force someone to violate their religious beliefs for the sake of their convenience.

There is no "evil" on either side. Stupidity? Yes - loads of it. But not "evil". What there is is a big dose of "This guy insulted me, and apparently believes something I am doing is wrong, even though it has nothing to do with him - how can I stick it to him?"

I was recently presented with a situation in which a 13 year old kid - a friend of my daughter's - showed up at our front door because he didn't know where else to go. At first he didn't want to talk about it, but ended up relaying that he was kicked out of the house by his step-dad - a horrifyingly self-absorbed stick of a man who I (even if only secretly) detested by intuition within an hour after meeting and talking with him. His mother was a little harder to read, and seemed fairly sensible by all accounts. She was a school teacher. Anyway, it turns out the kid was kicked out because he used his step-father's WII-U gaming system without asking - and was kicked out in a somewhat violent, emotionally-charged and over-the-top manner. Eventually his mother texted - making the rounds, wondering where her son was at (because, lo and behold - she had no Earthly idea), and I texted back saying I'd bring him by, but wanted to talk to them both. When I got there she was cordial enough to start, until the moment I said I believed her son's account when she presented her own ambiguous and brief version of events (that is literally all I said, by the way, though I am sure my demeanor was one of expecting explanation). She promptly told me that she "didn't have to tell me anything", insulted me (or attempted to anyway) and ran into the house and closed the door behind her. Now here's where my point comes in - I had no right to interfere in these people's lives necessarily. I couldn't tell them how to parent, how to be humane to their son (who, by the way, had been left out of a family trip to Disneyland, doesn't appear in the vast majority of family pictures, and other various oddities that all point to the parents being complete jerks), but my mind IMMEDIATELY began working on what I COULD do. I needed to hit these people somehow, and hit them good - and I had to do so within the confines of the law, and with respect to their physical well-being and the overall well-being of their son. And it hit me... I started pacing the sidewalk in front of their house - telling them to get their cowardly selves out there to talk to me, because I wasn't leaving until that happened. And I literally didn't care if that took all night, and told them as much. Making sure I was loud enough for all of their neighbors to hear I asked them: while there are parents to watch over kids' actions and admonish behavior, where is the agency by which parents are held accountable for their actions? And I told them "that's me - your friendly neighborhood fellow-parent.", among other slices, jabs and general wordsmithing to get them to realize I knew what they were up to, and they'd better never kick their kid out of the house for fear that he returns to mine... and I, in turn, return to theirs. Eventually they called the police, but I had done nothing wrong. I was using a public sidewalk, had even moved my car from their driveway, and I was very peacefully protesting - no bad language or anything like that, so I was allowed to simply leave. And the fact that they felt any of what I did was worth calling the cops over says volumes about their character- and their combined lack of backbone.

In the end, you push someone, especially if you are being thick-headed, just be prepared to be pushed back. And if you're surprised when that happens, then shame on you. There are far less public ways to declare your idiocy.

 

[Prestor John]

There is no "evil" on either side. Stupidity? Yes - loads of it. But not "evil". What there is is a big dose of "This guy insulted me, and apparently believes something I am doing is wrong, even though it has nothing to do with him - how can I stick it to him?"

I was recently presented with a situation in which a 13 year old kid - a friend of my daughter's - showed up at our front door because he didn't know where else to go. At first he didn't want to talk about it, but ended up relaying that he was kicked out of the house by his step-dad - a horrifyingly self-absorbed stick of a man who I (even if only secretly) detested by intuition within an hour after meeting and talking with him. His mother was a little harder to read, and seemed fairly sensible by all accounts. She was a school teacher. Anyway, it turns out the kid was kicked out because he used his step-father's WII-U gaming system without asking - and was kicked out in a somewhat violent, emotionally-charged and over-the-top manner. Eventually his mother texted - making the rounds, wondering where her son was at (because, lo and behold - she had no Earthly idea), and I texted back saying I'd bring him by, but wanted to talk to them both. When I got there she was cordial enough to start, until the moment I said I believed her son's account when she presented her own ambiguous and brief version of events (that is literally all I said, by the way, though I am sure my demeanor was one of expecting explanation). She promptly told me that she "didn't have to tell me anything", insulted me (or attempted to anyway) and ran into the house and closed the door behind her. Now here's where my point comes in - I had no right to interfere in these people's lives necessarily. I couldn't tell them how to parent, how to be humane to their son (who, by the way, had been left out of a family trip to Disneyland, doesn't appear in the vast majority of family pictures, and other various oddities that all point to the parents being complete jerks), but my mind IMMEDIATELY began working on what I COULD do. I needed to hit these people somehow, and hit them good - and I had to do so within the confines of the law, and with respect to their physical well-being and the overall well-being of their son. And it hit me... I started pacing the sidewalk in front of their house - telling them to get their cowardly selves out there to talk to me, because I wasn't leaving until that happened. And I literally didn't care if that took all night, and told them as much. Making sure I was loud enough for all of their neighbors to hear I asked them: while there are parents to watch over kids' actions and admonish behavior, where is the agency by which parents are held accountable for their actions? And I told them "that's me - your friendly neighborhood fellow-parent.", among other slices, jabs and general wordsmithing to get them to realize I knew what they were up to, and they'd better never kick their kid out of the house for fear that he returns to mine... and I, in turn, return to theirs. Eventually they called the police, but I had done nothing wrong. I was using a public sidewalk, had even moved my car from their driveway, and I was very peacefully protesting - no bad language or anything like that, so I was allowed to simply leave. And the fact that they felt any of what I did was worth calling the cops over says volumes about their character- and their combined lack of backbone.

In the end, you push someone, especially if you are being thick-headed, just be prepared to be pushed back. And if you're surprised when that happens, then shame on you. There are far less public ways to declare your idiocy.

Respect.

 

[Shad]

This is not a relevant example because we have been talking about private business-owners.

Which makes no difference as they operate a business opened to the public. Ownership is irrelevant to how the business operates.

I don’t believe that an EMT’s beliefs should have any place in the performance of his duties.

So you make exceptions for cakes but not other people. This is called a double standard.

I myself am a Federal Officer and I encounter all sorts of behavior and practices that I would rather not, if it were up to me, but it is not up to me, so I endure.

EMTs are not all federal employees

I took an oath to fulfill my duty, just as an EMT took an oath to perform his.

EMTs are not required to swear an oath in the private industry.

Private business-owners

, however, take no such oaths of service. No one is entitled to their service.

Which was my point to begin with.

It is actually illegal for any doctor to prescribe marijuana to a patient.

No it isn't. It is legal in 28 states

They would be breaking federal law and could lose their license and even be prosecuted.

Nope as per the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment

They can recommend marijuana therapy for a patient, but federal authorities may not sanction it.

State level can and has.

If a recommendation is approved, all the marijuana would be made available through the federal National Institute on Drug Abuse.

You have contradicted yourself. First you claim it is illegal than point to the opposite

Also, when you consider that marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance, any doctor that recommends marijuana therapy for treatment is exposing themselves to civil litigation if the patient ends up suffering from any adverse effects.

Not in 28 states

Also not a relevant example.

Yes it is and you have failed to show otherwise.

Just like with EMTs, most doctors take an oath that forbids them from allowing their personal beliefs to affect their willingness to treat patients or the level of care they offer.

No such oath exists or are you unaware of Catholic hospitals refusing to perform abortions.

Also, more to the point, the Watchtower actually does not forbid Jehovah’s Witness doctors from performing blood transfusions on others.

Source? Nevermind that the WT has changed their views for the last 50 years or the following

Be Guided by the Living God — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Did I say anything about the WT? Nope. I said JW. Try again.

[It’s going to be hard for you to find life-threatening situations involving private business-owners.

You have distorted my point into another strawman. I said EMT not private EMTs which includes private and government. And yet to further my point read the links.

Bill would let Michigan doctors, EMTs refuse to treat gay patients
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBH-5958.pdf
Gay Man Dies Day After Michigan Law Allows EMTs To Refuse Treatment to Gay People - Big American News

Tell me that after you actually provide sources for your own claims.

So can someone refuse service to a black person if they hold a religious belief that blacks are inferior, cursed, damned, etc, the type of rhetoric tossed around for decades. Do note the date as this is not a new view but a very old one.

"The Pentateuch" in Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), vol. 1, 178.

How White Christians Used The Bible -- And Confederate Flag -- To Oppress Black People | The Huffington Post

 

[Ingledsva]

Again, the State has the authority to decide which unions to recognize.

But not the authority to force someone to violate their religious beliefs.

If the State suddenly claimed that child marriage was legal, you think it would be right for the State to force people to participate in that activity?

All bakers would need to bake wedding cakes for child weddings, even though they may have strong religious or moral beliefs against the practice and do not want to participate in it at all?

....

Are they participating in lustful sex acts if they bake bachelor/bachelorette cakes? (strippers, pole dancing, etc.)

Are they participating in sexual sin if they bake a divorce party cake, or a cake for divorced people getting married to new people?

How about fornication sin if they bake a baby-shower cake for an unwed mother?

What about ALL the other so-called sins that they ignore? That ignoring - tells us it is strictly prejudice against homosexual couples.

The idea that baking a cake - when you are a baker - is participating in whatever that cake is for, - is ridiculous.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Homosexuals could only claim they have a right to marriage once the definition of marriage was changed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints campaigned to protect the definition of marriage.

The Church has always campaigned for equal rights for homosexuals.

The Church just does not believe that anyone has the right to change the definition of marriage.

That is interesting as we have shown many times that marriage between gay folk has been going on for thousands of years.

Thus the religions of Abraham have tried to change what a marriage is.

We even showed a gay marriage on an ancient Egyptian carving.

Other areas of the Middle East, China, japan, had such, as did Africa, and Native American cultures, etc.

*

 

[Prestor John]

Which makes no difference as they operate a business opened to the public. Ownership is irrelevant to how the business operates.

Um…no.

Ownership means that you do get to decide how your business operates.

So you make exceptions for cakes but not other people. This is called a double standard.

How is that?

An EMT is not a private business-owner.

So explain how I have a double-standard.

EMTs are not all federal employees.

…no one said that they were.

I’m beginning to think that you and I are having different conversations.

EMTs are not required to swear an oath in the private industry.

Regardless, EMTs are required to fulfill their duties according to the instruction of their employer or the employment contract they signed.

Which was my point to begin with.

Would you mind pointing out where you shared this point?

Because if you agree that no one is entitled to the service of a private business-owner, then you would not take issue with the baker refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding.

No it isn't. It is legal in 28 states.

It would break federal law for a doctor to prescribe marijuana. They can offer a recommendation, but they cannot prescribe it.

This is so because the Federal government still categorizes marijuana as a schedule I drug.

According to the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), in the FAQs section of their website they answered the question, “May physicians legally prescribe marijuana?” with,

“No. Although a handful of states have legislation authorizing doctors to prescribe marijuana (These laws were all passed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in expectation that the federal government would eventually reschedule marijuana.), doctors in these states may not legally do so without violating federal law. Federal policy dictates that physician who prescribes marijuana or other Schedule I drugs to a patient may be stripped of his or her federal license to prescribe drugs and prosecuted. In addition, physicians will not prescribe marijuana because there are no legal state supply sources from which a patient could attain the drug.”

http://norml.org/marijuana/medical/item/medical-frequently-asked-questions

Also, according to the US National Library of Medicine under “Guidelines for prescribing medical marijuana” it reads,

“The process of making “recommendations” for marijuana places physicians in the position of suggesting that patients use a schedule I substance (marijuana) for medical uses.” (Bold added)

And,

“Physicians who provide such recommendations are, at a minimum, exposing themselves to civil litigation from marijuana smokers who have adverse outcomes.” (Bold added)

And,

“Physicians should remember that marijuana remains a schedule I drug, that it has not been approved as safe and efficacious by the Food and Drug Administration, and that the use of marijuana by patients holds inherent risk. We do not support recommending the medicinal use of marijuana.” (Bold added)

Guidelines for prescribing medical marijuana

Nope as per the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment

All that this amendment claims is that federal money cannot be used to prevent States from implementing their own state laws concerning the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.

It does not change the fact that a doctor cannot legally prescribe marijuana without breaking federal law because it is still classified as a schedule I drug.

Nor does it prevent a patient from being able to sue their doctor for malpractice if they were to suffer any adverse effects after using marijuana based on their doctor’s recommendation.

So, since this amendment did not change the classification of marijuana nor prevent a patient from being able to sue for malpractice, a doctor cannot prescribe marijuana without breaking federal law and they open themselves up to potential prosecution if they recommend its use.

State level can and has.

You are correct here.

I became confused. What I said about the NIDA was about distribution for research purposes, not doctor’s recommendations.

A doctor’s recommendation, if compliant with State laws, can allow a patient to purchase marijuana for medical use from a local dispensary or supplier.

Yet, that does not change the fact that marijuana is still classified as a schedule I drug, the FDA claims that it has no medical use and that patients can potentially sue their doctors for malpractice.

You have contradicted yourself. First you claim it is illegal than point to the opposite.

Well, actually, this is where I got confused and talked about distribution for research purposes.

However, those States that allow marijuana use, for either medical or recreational use, are still doing so in opposition to Federal law.

For example, anyone who crosses the International Border into the U.S, even if it were into a State where marijuana use was legal and they also have a medical card, can be fined/arrested if they possess marijuana (depending on the amount) because they are breaking Federal law at a Federal border.

Not in 28 states

A patient can still sue their doctor for malpractice. The recommendation can cover the doctor somewhat, but not completely.

Yes it is and you have failed to show otherwise.

How is proving that blood transfusions for others does not violate a JW doctor’s beliefs not make your example irrelevant?

No such oath exists or are you unaware of Catholic hospitals refusing to perform abortions.

You haven’t heard of the Hippocratic or other similar oaths taken by many who practice medicine?

I don’t think a Catholic hospital should be forced to perform any procedures that would violate their religious views. That includes abortions and sex-transitioning procedures.

And, as far as I know, the powers that be agree with me on that.

Source? Nevermind that the WT has changed their views for the last 50 years or the following

First, the idea that the WT has changed their views is not relevant. Why would it be?

Second, why the sudden need for sources? I don’t remember you supplying sources for any of the things you have claimed.

I just did a quick perusal of many of your comments and haven’t seen any source mentioned. But I admit I could be wrong.

Anyways, if you read any and all JW material (including the WT) you will see that the only thing they are strict about in regards to blood is receiving it for themselves.

They can give blood and perform blood transfusions based on their own conscience.

As long as a nurse or doctor is up front with their employer at the time of their employment about their religious beliefs concerning blood, abortions, sex-change operations, etc. - they cannot be forced to take part in any of those particular procedures.

They can still care for the patient, but just not participate during those procedures.

Also, they cannot be fired for wanting to live according to your beliefs.

Did I say anything about the WT? Nope. I said JW. Try again.

Do you not know what the Watchtower is?

Are we still having two different discussions here?

You have distorted my point into another strawman. I said EMT not private EMTs which includes private and government. And yet to further my point read the links.

Yeah. You seem to be really confused.

I have only been talking about the right of a private business-owner to not be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

Why are you trying to conflate my position with all these cases that have nothing to do with it?

I did not distort your point. I merely brought you back on track.

I did not build up a strawman. You did.

Tell me that after you actually provide sources for your own claims.

This post is the first one where I noticed you providing any sources.

I didn’t scroll through all your comments, so I could be wrong. I just don’t remember you feeling the need to use sources yourself or to demand any from me until now.

Anyways, maybe if you offered any source that actually countered my arguments or were relevant to our discussion at all I might feel the need to provide them.

So can someone refuse service to a black person if they hold a religious belief that blacks are inferior, cursed, damned, etc, the type of rhetoric tossed around for decades. Do note the date as this is not a new view but a very old one.

Well, to be fair, black people have been just as capable of oppressing other black people and white people over human history. Even before there was a Bible.

Trying to blame only one race of people, or the Bible, for something that all peoples have done at one time or another is pointless.

Not only that, but it was other white people (who also referenced the Bible) who ended slavery in the Western World, so what was your point again?

Anyways, my argument has been that a private business-owner should be able to manage his/her business in good conscience and should not be forced to participate in any activity that would cause them to violate their religious beliefs.

I know you keep trying to distract from my argument by talking about all these life-saving jobs (none of which are private business-owners), but all that did was waste everyone’s time.

No one is entitled to the goods or services of a private business-owner.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints campaigned to protect the definition of marriage.

That's the "one man and as many women as he wants" definition, right?