Why do homosexuals and transgenders force religious people to accept them?

[Storm]

Storm et. al.
I'll tell you a story. It's of course a true story and very sad with a tragic meaningless ending.
Lets just say I made a friend named Jon. He was an orderly at the local hospital & he was gay. When I was a patient all too often in the e.r. Jon helped care for me.
After a time we made buddies. I liked Jon. He was a most sensitive, loving and caring man. I would often stop by the e.r. and talk with staff, have coffee, and just shoot the bull. I came to know Jon. He mentioned he made models of ships and his finest, most cherished work was a 4' long model of the Titanic. I love ships & said so. Jon invited me to his apartment to see his work. I visited him and admired his work, and his oil paintings were fantastic. We would share a drink occasionally & Jon would sometimes talk about being gay, having a gay lover, and having to hide everything he did. I understood. We became fast friends. I took a bit of a beating for "hanging around with a queer". People I worked with didn't understand Jon's humanity.
Jon drank heavily and sometime when the apt. manager could not reach Jon & became concerned they would call me. They knew Jon was my friend and I would check on him using the pass key. Sometimes I would find Jon drunk asleep.
I'd check on him and make sure his friends stayed with him and be sure he was safe.
One day I got a "welfare check" call on Jon so I got the pass key and went into his apartment. Jon was sitting in his recliner, dressed in his velvet red dinner jacket, black pants, clean spit shined shoes. He looked marvelous.
Except for the small hole in his right temple and the small exit hole in his left skull.
Small caliber gunshots to the head seldom kill outright. The victim of such a wound often just bleeds to death, conscious but unable to move.
So it was with Jon.
I wept.
I have another good friend who has one of his paintings hanging in the Whitehouse.
He just happens to be gay.
He showed me some of his paintings, I knew his parents, we are friends.
What does being gay have to do with that?
I'm ignorant of the "why" of the public displays of gay & trans people.
That does not make me a bigot. I do believe I'm beginning to understand the publicity of the "cause".
I'm not looking to be "an o.k. straight guy" to trans or gays or whatever.
I know who & what I am.
The judgement from others is realtively meaningless.
I took a pretty good verbal beating for my friendship with Jon and "the artist" but I never stopped being a friend.
More important to me was the fact that they never stopped being my friend.
So whoever here thinks I dehumanize others, or am a bigot, then you have my sympathy for your hatred based on nothing but words on a screen.

I'm sorry for your loss. It's far too common a story. Can you truly blame those who have seen it play out so often as to know the ending before getting past "it's a true story" for being angry?

I stand by my response to your earlier post, olive branches included.

 

[SomeRandom]

these people were Christians who refused because of religious convictions.

Seriously? Do Christian Cake makers also refuse to make a cake for couples remarrying? For Divorce is a sin, excepting for reasons of adultery. I mean that's straight from the big J man Himself!
Do they make their customers fill out a questionnaire before deciding if they wish to provide a common service? Like to ensure it's a Christian wedding or to ensure neither of them are having like a Satanic wedding?
Do they refuse service to an interfaith couple? Do they refuse service to a couple who are marrying just for convenience? Do they refuse fat couples? (Gluttony is a deadly sin, isn't it?)
If not, then that's mightily hypocritical of them, which I'm fairly sure even Jesus didn't much like. If they are, well, I'd be surprised if they had a very good reputation as a business, though at least they would be consistent.

I work in retail, have for five years. You know the first thing they teach you? The very first thing about customer service I ever learnt?
The customer's life is none of your business. You don't comment on it, you don't bring it up unless the customer specifically tells you something and you don't ever ever let it get in the way of your damned job. You know why? A little thing called "Professionalism."
I know what it's like to provide a commerce to people I don't agree with. I do it on a daily basis. I have served known racist thugs, I've served known ex criminals, I've even served known pedophiles. (Yeah I was really creeped out at the time. *shudders*)
But since I work for a business providing a public service, then it's just part of the job. And since I myself chose to participate in said job, I bloody well do it without any simpering excuses.

Now if this was a Church refusing to perform a Wedding ceremony because of their religious beliefs, then fair enough. I would totally fight for their right to do so.
But a public business providing non essential things to the general populace? Yeah, sorry. I believe wholeheartedly in professionalism. If you can't do the services required of your job description because of your faith, then find a job you can do.
/rant

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The customer's life is none of your business. You don't comment on it, you don't bring it up unless the customer specifically tells you something and you don't ever ever let it get in the way of your damned job. You know why? A little thing called "Professionalism."

There was a highly publicised case in the UK where an evangelical Christian couple who ran a small hotel refused to give a room to a gay couple. It went to court and the case went against the hotel owners. Rightly so, in my opinion.

 

[SomeRandom]

There was a highly publicised case in the UK where an evangelical Christian couple who ran a small hotel refused to give a room to a gay couple. It went to court and the case went against the hotel owners. Rightly so, in my opinion.

I remember reading about that! I agree with you. Right decision by the courts!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I remember reading about that! I agree with you. Right decision by the courts!

I read that the hotel owners have since had to sell-up to cover the legal fees - I actually felt a bit sorry for them when I heard that, but I guess the point had to be made.

 

[SomeRandom]

I read that the hotel owners have since had to sell-up to cover the legal fees - I actually felt a bit sorry for them when I heard that, but I guess the point had to be made.

Ouch! Yeah that kind of sucks for them. But do the crime do the time, I guess?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

a wedding is something sacred to Christianity, to be asked to participate in homosexuality is asking Christians to participate in the sin of homosexuality.

No more than asking them to make a cake for "heretics" in some other religion, or in a denomination they don't agree with.

Why should Christians be forced to participate in the celebration of a sexual union that they view as sinful via providing the celebratory cake..?

They're not. Nobody's pointing a gun at anyone's head and forcing them to open a wedding cake store. These sorts of rules are merely a logical extension of the premise that businesses that serve the public should serve the whole public.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In the UK religious institutions aren't obliged to perform gay marriage ceremonies if it's against their religious principles. You can probably guess which ones have already said they won't do it.

 

[Ultimatum]

In the UK religious institutions aren't obliged to perform gay marriage ceremonies if it's against their religious principles. You can probably guess which ones have already said they won't do it.

It's really quite hilarious isn't it? UKIP said, around a year ago, exactly this: That religious institution shouldn't be obliged to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. And what was the reaction? "HOMOPHOBES" "FASCISTS".
But actually, if we as a society are expected to tolerate same-sex marriage, then I believe, as a member of a predominantly Christian country, that we should tolerate these religious institutions.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But actually, if we as a society are expected to tolerate same-sex marriage, then I believe, as a member of a predominantly Christian country, that we should tolerate these religious institutions.

I agree, but it's worth remembering that it was these same religious institutions which objected strongly to gay marriage and delayed it's introduction for many many years.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's really quite hilarious isn't it? UKIP said, around a year ago, exactly this: That religious institution shouldn't be obliged to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. And what was the reaction? "HOMOPHOBES" "FASCISTS".

The legal freedom to act as you see fit doesn't imply that you're entitled to be well-regarded by others.

But actually, if we as a society are expected to tolerate same-sex marriage, then I believe, as a member of a predominantly Christian country, that we should tolerate these religious institutions.

You're a country with no separation of church and state. Your head of state is the head of your national church. Bishops of your national church sit in the House of Lords. To an outside observer like me, the Church of England seems like a branch of the government. With these privileges and power come the normal obligations of government, such as not to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, race, or orientation.

Maybe other churches should be free to discriminate, but not the C of E, IMO.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I find it quite tragic that you view the venom you keep posting in these threads as "truth." Good luck with that, then.

I've noticed that very often those who claim to be "truth" speakers almost always are only speaking out of their ***.

1 being a cake maker who was either sued or something like that because they refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

and another couple that had a business where they had weddings on their farm, they refused to provide service for a homosexual couple.

Because there are anti-discrimination laws that businesses are required to adhere to. They would have been in the wrong just as much, according to the law, for refusing to serve Asians, cripples, Hindus, the elderly, or a number of other legally protected groups.

Why should Christians be forced to participate in the celebration of a sexual union that they view as sinful via providing the celebratory cake..?

Or, they could be more like their lord and savior and treat everyone with love and respect.
It's also a business. Even the most staunch opponents of capitalism can see where this is a problem, to turn away people just because there is something trivial about them you don't like. You would have a point if they went in, were rude, disruptive, and made other customers feel uncomfortable, but because that is not what happened than this discrimination is both illegal and is not at all what Jesus taught. You simply cannot love your neighbor as yourself if you are denying services to one neighbor while granting them to another.

This country was founded with religious liberty, forcing Christians to provide services of a marriage related type is discrimination against the Christian religion.

Christianity does not hold a monopoly on marriage, they didn't invent it, and they aren't the only ones it's important to. And when you are in business, it is not your legal right to discriminate. Why? Because this discrimination has not only denied wedding cakes, it has caused jobs to be denied/termination, housing denied/people evicted, medical services denied, ignored by the police, and many other problems because some people get so caught up in their own "rights" that they feel they have permission to treat others like **** and make life even harder for them. This is not at all Christian behavior.
You're going to have to prove that Jesus would have refused to do this. I just do not see this coming from someone who allegedly fed the multitudes without putting up any barriers. He didn't ask any personal questions about those people; he just fed them without any discrimination.
I also wonder, is anyone actually forcing churches to accept gays and conduct gay marriages?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Christianity does not hold a monopoly on marriage, they didn't invent it, and they aren't the only ones it's important to. And when you are in business, it is not your legal right to discriminate. Why? Because this discrimination has not only denied wedding cakes, it has caused jobs to be denied/termination, housing denied/people evicted, medical services denied, ignored by the police, and many other problems because some people get so caught up in their own "rights" that they feel they have permission to treat others like **** and make life even harder for them. This is not at all Christian behavior.
You're going to have to prove that Jesus would have refused to do this. I just do not see this coming from someone who allegedly fed the multitudes without putting up any barriers. He didn't ask any personal questions about those people; he just fed them without any discrimination.

Actually, I think one would have to prove that the Bible is worth anything as a moral authority in the first place. As it stands, I don't think it should be legally treated any differently from The Lord of the Rings or Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham when it comes to influencing state laws, so what it claims that Jesus did doesn't really matter from that perspective, in my opinion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You're going to have to prove that Jesus would have refused to do this. I just do not see this coming from someone who allegedly fed the multitudes without putting up any barriers. He didn't ask any personal questions about those people; he just fed them without any discrimination.

It frustrates me that some Christians seem to completely miss this essential point. Some of them seem stuck in the Old Testament.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To an outside observer like me, the Church of England seems like a branch of the government. With these privileges and power come the normal obligations of government, such as not to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, race, or orientation.
Maybe other churches should be free to discriminate, but not the C of E, IMO.

You're right of course, and I think CofE will come round eventually, just as they have on women bishops and other issues of modernisation. Clearly the government had to make some compromises to get the gay marriage legislation through, this was one of them.

 

[Nietzsche]

It frustrates me that some Christians seem to completely miss this essential point. Some of them seem stuck in the Old Testament.

It's not just that they're stuck in the OT. It's that they interpret it wrong. Reading the Old Testament without the rest of the Judaic canon is like reading through a random selection of the first three Harry Potter books and then reading the last 3-4 of them straight through.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

so what it claims that Jesus did doesn't really matter from that perspective, in my opinion.

I agree that legally it should not mean anything. However, to a Christian it should mean everything. This is why the demand for proof Jesus himself would have turned away a homosexual couple just for being homosexual.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not just that they're stuck in the OT. It's that they interpret it wrong. Reading the Old Testament without the rest of the Judaic canon is like reading through a random selection of the first three Harry Potter books and then reading the last 3-4 of them straight through.

After my deconversion from Christianity, I found that many of the questions I had about the OT were answered by looking deeper into Judaism, which gradually led me to the realization that if you have only read the OT then you know nothing of Judaism or any of the many other things (like cultural contexts) that lead to a better interpretation of the OT.

 

[Ultimatum]

The legal freedom to act as you see fit doesn't imply that you're entitled to be well-regarded by others.

In general, this is true. But using a bit of common sense can be helpful sometimes.


[/QUOTE]You're a country with no separation of church and state. Your head of state is the head of your national church. Bishops of your national church sit in the House of Lords. To an outside observer like me, the Church of England seems like a branch of the government. With these privileges and power come the normal obligations of government, such as not to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, race, or orientation.

Maybe other churches should be free to discriminate, but not the C of E, IMO.[/QUOTE]

And considering that the Church of England conducts the most marriages over any other religious institution a year, this is true. But I did say that I believed that these institutions shouldn't be obliged to conduct gay marriages. And as a UKIP voter, UKIP also stands by this view.

And the House of Lords is supposed to be there to reflect the views of voters around the country and, considering UKIP was denied peerages because the PM threw hissy fitx whenever the subject was brought up, we should be sceptical about its' real representations. It needs reform and this is also UKIP's view.

 

[jeager106]

I rather doubt Jesus would have turned away from homosexuals for being homosexuals.
I don't have a clue if being gay is a "sin" & I know what the Bible says, ambiguous at best.
I'm not a straight person trying to make "points" with gay/trans people.
I didn't understand why people of other orientation demonstrated and made public
issues out of wedding cakes. I understand better now.
Many, many, years ago I worked at a huge auto plant near Cleveland, 5,000 employees from all over the country. I befriended a fellow my age ( we were very young then), he was from near where I hailed from so we had something in common. He had lunch together. I had not clue he was gay. Other "he-men" at the plant took me aside and flat told me to stop hanging with the "queer" lest I get a reputation as being a "switch hitter". The "guys" told me I was a bit of a "little Miss Mary" myself and might be taken for a "funny boy" by queers.
Listen: I was maybe 21 at the time, grew up in the country, a farm kid, & thought that "queer" was something you called other boys to get a fight started. Whan in hell was a "little Miss Mary"?
So I told my gay buddy about those things. He explained that, in his view I had a strong female side, that's why we connected as friends, he knew I was not gay, never suggested anything "odd" to me. He said it might be best if we didn't hang around together. We still were friends and met after work for beers & such, he came to my home, met my wife and little kids, brought his "friend" with him.
We were all friends. I'm not gay, never had a gay impulse (right word?). never engaged in contact with a gay tho almost dated a trans. "She" was beautiful and and I flirted with her, even patted her arse. :>)
Years later in therapy for wounds and p.t.s.d. I learned what the anama was, the female side in ALL men. Mine is dominant, I would not trade my gentile, loving, kind, maternal side for anything!
My anama makes me a good writer, a feeling empathetic person. I'm not a pacifist, will fight, am a firearms expert, certified sniper, and expert in nearly all shoulder & hand held weapons. I'm very well trained in unarmed combat, have been injured way too many times. Ain''t no woosy. Still I would not want to be anything other than what I am.
Some responders here took my responses as being anti-something & w/o knowing lumped me in with bigots and other unsavory people. It's a common to make mistakes when one does not know what one does not know.
Some here have very thin skins, probably from being hurt a lot. Understandable.
Still, I was crippled by a black man much bigger than me and half my age at the time.
Very much a "Ferguson" situation but I didn't shoot the guy. I bear no malice, have no regrets, don't judge blacks by his actions, no resentments. I suffer daily, take strong meds just to be able to walk to the coffee pot, am totally disabled.
I hate no one. Re-sent = re-feel, Why re-feel the anger daily? Makes no sense.
I might be a kind, gentile, loving soul but I ain't no fool and still carry a gun.
I won't be beaten again. I pray I never, ever, need to use the thing.