Comments on: It’s not as simple as homophobic thugs vs. civil rights in Indiana http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: chaemeleo http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-760396 Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:31:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-760396 “Finally, if all else fails, all that God-fearing people need to do, if they want to avoid serving gay people, is say that they’re busy. Isn’t that simpler than legitimating discrimination and passing laws that turn people into second class citizens? Just say you don’t have time to photograph the wedding.”

So you would have someone making a stand of conscience commit the sin of lying in order to do so. Interesting. How about this – if hiring that photographer is so important to you that you can’t go and hire a willing photographer, then why don’t you lie and tell them you aren’t gay?

]]>
By: KG2015 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-758833 Sun, 05 Apr 2015 16:20:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-758833 AlkalineState, I feel obligated to point out that Christians, for the most part, don’t follow Old Testament law, rather they follow the Ten Commandments and Christ’s law of “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. Now, I would argue, strongly, that I would not expect an atheist to attend my Church wedding against his or her will. But if they are willing to profit by providing the music for the reception or photographing the ceremony, fine. However, if they objected to attending the wedding then I would simply find a different photographer. I wouldn’t use the law to force them to photograph my wedding.

A more extreme case would be forcing a Catholic hospital to perform abortions, i.e. murder innocent children according to their beliefs. The list goes on, but the simple fact is the Constitution protects all of us from discrimination, not just certain, well funded special interest groups.

]]>
By: Rugeirn http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-757766 Sun, 05 Apr 2015 13:36:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-757766 Let’s rejoin the real world, shall we? There’s a simple fact about running a business: you’re not going to approve of all your customers. You’re not even going to like all your customers. In fact, you may well downright hate some of your customers. Some will smell bad. Some will dress, talk, or walk in ways you don’t like. Some will treat you like dirt. Some will believe things you don’t agree with, or are horrified by, or outright despise. But guess what: you are not there to judge them. You are not there to decide that some of them are beyond the pale and others are not. You are not there to decide that your ever-so-holy ideas are ever-so-much-holier than their ideas. In short, you are not there to make any such decisions, because any such decision constitutes a shameful act of blatant discrimination. You are there to provide the goods and services of your businesss to all your customers alike. If you can’t deal with that, if your beloved beliefs just won’t let you manage that, then you need to find another way of life, period.

]]>
By: Nickidewbear http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-730534 Fri, 03 Apr 2015 02:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-730534 With all due respect, what do you, then, make of when Acts 15 states to avoid sexual immorality and Acts 4 recalls when Peter and John obeyed G-d over the rabbis? Also, Galatians 3:28 (that misinterpreted verse) does condemn racism, sexism, and classism (and does not abrogate ethnicity, gender/sex, or status).

]]>
By: AlkalineState http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-728568 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:04:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-728568 The text:

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-21.ht m

]]>
By: AlkalineState http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-728553 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:03:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-728553 Let’s see. Under Christian and Jewish law (Deuteronomy 22:21), a woman shall be stoned to death by men if found not to be a virgin upon marriage.

Should this be a protected “religious freedom” in America? If not, why not?

]]>
By: thereyUgo http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-726241 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:38:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-726241 Well I give up I’ll post somewhere else since what I really want to say won’t post. The truth must be to hard for you.

]]>
By: thereyUgo http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-726169 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:33:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-726169 I guess I’m being discriminate agaist. My post don’t seem to show.

]]>
By: AlkalineState http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-724136 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:50:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-724136 Truly religious people should just move to Iran – religious country. Where there is no homosexuality :)

]]>
By: summarex http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/whos-right-in-indiana-believers-arent-homophobic-thugs-and-service-isnt-complicity/#comment-723237 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:31:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=39183#comment-723237 No.
It’s homosexual thugs and their corporate supporters versus normal people who for religious reasons, object to homosexuality.

]]>