Kansas lawmaker introduces, and state house passes, a new law making it legal to discriminate agains

[eolesen]

No hypocrisy is the Christian majority thinking that they are above the law and are entitled to force their beliefs on others.

Who's rights are being marginalized? These supposed victims you speak of are using religion to justify their discrimination in the work place. So where in the bible does it say that Christians may not provide services to gays or anyone else who violates the tenants of their faith? We have been having this same discussion on another site that I frequent and thus far no one there has been able to point out a biblical reference that precludes a Christian from providing a service to a homosexual or an adulterer or anyone else for that matter.

You didn't look very far. Romans 14 addresses it, but probably not in the way you'd look for it.

It's never been about discriminating against gays or adulterers because of who they are as people.

Laws like 1062 are supposed to be about participating in an action which goes against their faith or makes the person uncomfortable. You see refusing services as punitive, when it's really about allowing someone to keep their own actions within their belief zone.

A Jew refusing to work on a Saturday isn't doing so to punish me for not being Jewish...

The Weak and the Strong

14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One persons faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone elses servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before Gods judgment seat. 11 It is written:

As surely as I live, says the Lord,
every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]

In fact, most of Romans is probably appropriate to the discussion.

If there's an act that someone finds offensive, you don't rub it in their faces. Likewise, if asked to perform an act you find offensive, you shouldn't defile yourself to be accepted.

Again, it's not because the person is gay. It's never been about that. But if you're not a believer to begin with, you probably wouldn't understand the difference between shunning the person and shunning their actions. They're mutually exclusive.

 

[Ms Tree]

I do not see anything in there that says a Christian cannot serve a homosexual or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps you can point it out to me. If you are trying to use your religion to justify discrimination you at least ought to be able to show where it says that serving someone violates the tenants of your faith.

Never been about discriminating against gays? Why are gays the only ones targeted? There are quite a few other options in the bible.

Pretty sure I did not see 'uncomfortable' as one of the justifications for denying service.

 

[eolesen]

Again, you're looking for where it says to discriminate against a person. You won't find that.

Start looking for where it says not to partake in sinful acts, instead.

In ESPN-speak, don't hate the player, hate the game. In Ghandi-speak, love the sinner, hate the sin.

It's all there. Since you consider it all fables and fairy tales, I'm not surprised that you're having trouble understanding the intent or reading between the lines.

 

[Ms Tree]

How is providing a service for an individual partaking in a sinful act? If this is the case there are going to be a lot of businesses violating their faith. My understanding is that divorce is a big no no. I do not see any Catholic business seeking to deny service to anyone who has been divorced. Pretty sure they would go out of business.

If you want to use your religion as an excuse to deny service you at least have to point it out in your text where it says you cannot provide service. Saying that you should not hate the sinner is not the same as saying do not provide service to the sinner.

You still have not addressed the question of why the homosexuals are the only ones being targeted?

After you point that out then we can deal with the issue of whether religious bias should be codified into law because my religion has some things I want codified into law.

 

[delldude]

Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind when discussing discrimination.

 

[Black Magic]

Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind when discussing discrimination.

 
Indeed...Genesis 19

 

[eolesen]

You still have not addressed the question of why the homosexuals are the only ones being targeted? After you point that out then we can deal with the issue of whether religious bias should be codified into law because my religion has some things I want codified into law.

You're the one who said that only gays were being targeted. Here are two examples where gays engaged in the reverse -- they denied service to people who were "on the other team":

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/03/04/new-mexico-gov-denied-haircut-due-to-gay-marriage-stance-n1803989

Since gays alone "aren't being targeted" in your words, there's really nothing to point out.

 

[delldude]

All's quiet on the western front...

 

[Ms Tree]

Individuals being targeted for their specific public beliefs is not equivalent in any way to a law thatallows blanket discrimination against an entire group of people. The individuals in question were a bit more than "just on the other team". One is a governor the other is a CEO of a anti gay group. Got anything with blanket discrimination against heteros that someonenis trying to codify into n law?

You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to make a case for discrimination.

 

[xUT]

You're the one who said that only gays were being targeted. Here are two examples where gays engaged in the reverse -- they denied service to people who were "on the other team":

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/03/04/new-mexico-gov-denied-haircut-due-to-gay-marriage-stance-n1803989

Since gays alone "aren't being targeted" in your words, there's really nothing to point out.

Dual standards. Their 'equality' trumps everyone else.
Like there is no reverse discrimination.

 

[Ms Tree]

Which dual standards are you referring to?

There are laws allowing discrimination against heteros? Any examples?

 

[delldude]

Which dual standards are you referring to?

There are laws allowing discrimination against heteros? Any examples?

 
You should look at some recent military decisions for married and Christian folk.

 

[delldude]

Would the Tree support preferential hiring standards for gays if they prove they had been discriminated in hiring practices in the past?

 

[eolesen]

Individuals being targeted for their specific public beliefs is not equivalent in any way to a law that allows blanket discrimination against an entire group of people.

Again, you fail to see the forest thru the trees.

Refusing to participate in an event doesn't constitute discrimination against an entire group of people.

You see the person being singled out, but that's not what the law facilitates.

The facts indicate that people like you, GLAAD and the other activists are the ones trying to make this out to be blanket discrimination.

The gay hair stylist or the gay photographer singled someone out for their beliefs, which is your blanket discrimination, and actually worse than what the law would have allowed.

The hetero Christian baker or photographer simply refused to participate in an event. They didn't do a blanket refusal of service under different circumstances, e.g. selling a dozen cookies or offering to perform portait services.

What I do see is a difference in the reaction. The hetero's moved on and found someone else, without resorting to lawsuits.

 

[delldude]

I do not see anything in there that says a Christian cannot serve a homosexual or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps you can point it out to me. If you are trying to use your religion to justify discrimination you at least ought to be able to show where it says that serving someone violates the tenants of your faith. Never been about discriminating against gays? Why are gays the only ones targeted? There are quite a few other options in the bible. Pretty sure I did not see 'uncomfortable' as one of the justifications for denying service.

 
Its to prevent the spread of homophobia.