superblue Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article16946363.html http://news.yahoo.com/rogue-catholic-bishops-plan-grow-schismatic-challenge-rome-200456706.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-carter/for-those-who-dont-believ_b_6963062.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/catholic-archbishop-current-white-house-may-be-least-friendly Running out of things to debate over ? the news on yahoo, biased or not is to me picking up more an more on Catholic / Religious issues as of lately. The link on Haiti I found rather amazing, I had no idea the amount of violence towards religious / catholics that was going on there, especially with relief efforts that are on going.
CrossCuT Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 These words are not my own, but I agree wholeheartedly with them. 1. I am not LGBT 2. I was raised Catholic and I know that the institution of such laws is not the reason why Jesus came to earth in the first place. God, if he exists, is neither GOP or a Dem. God doesn't need draconian and backward legislation masked as giving rights to have his followers to speak freely and for his church to prevail in order for God to underake his purposes. God doesn't need conservative human intervention to reclaim any power God may have lost through social progressivism anymore than God needs the left protesting and banner waving for a more loving and accepting community in which all are treated as equals. God does what God wants when and how God wants to do it. 3. When Paul addresses sexual immorality in the Bible he speaks to those who are believers of Jesus Christ and God. He never addresses his remarks towards those who are not believers. In fact he warns Christians away from enforcing the Christian standard of conduct and behaviour on those who don't believe. 4. There is no need to create a Christian sharia state. God doesn't want enforced adherents, God wants those who freely come and freely realise their need of God to rule their lives. You cannot enforce that upon people and God doesn't want you to either. 5. The legislation lacks the very essence of Christianity which is selfless love. Instead of reaching out in love as Jesus did we are building walls of hostility. You cannot hope to achieve anything of God's work by driving people away and oestracising them within the community. Jesus reached out to the oestracised and that made him hated by the authorities of his day. Indianapolis is essentially calling same-sex orientated people unclean much in the same way the leper was called unclean and forced to leave the community. While same-sex couples are not burdened with disease the views of the Indianapolis legislature is that their lifestyle and desire for equality cannot go hand-in-hand. If they wish to be part of the Indianapolis community then they must choose to live like good heterosexual white folks. 6. Marriage is not just a Christian concept at all. Marriage within the heterosexual community is almost a lost practice in the 21st century yet we don't see Christians on their soapboxes condmening defacto heterosexual couples that's a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Civil equality should be afforded to all people. 7. Jesus' best friends were sinners, thieves, and prostitutes. Do you really think not selling flowers or a cake to a gay person is religiously protected? I think Jesus would have a sermon for you.
Credo in Deum Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Paul was actually preaching to anyone who would listen. This was part of his mission given to him by Christ as well as the rest of the Apostles; to preach to all Nations baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Odd mission if he was addressing only his fellow Christian believers. As for Jesus he did love everyone but his love was not indifferent toward how they lived their lives. When he met lepers and prostitues he showed them mercy and then said "Go and sin NO MORE!" This NO MORE part is a condition to remaining friends with Christ. Furthermore Christ was not indifferent toward laws. Give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God was is God's. Our bodies and our souls are not Caesars and to a point they are not fully ours. We do not have the right to misuse them or hurt them. Jesus was also not indifferent toward believers who would promote scandal, something a Catholic does when they vote and approve anti-Catholic laws or political views. There will be a punishment for such behavior Luke 17:2. What you quoted CrossCut is clearly fluff for lukewarm Catholics.
veritasluxmea Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I was raised Catholic So was I. Somehow, I don't think that will matter much to other Catholics who disagree with me. Funny thing about the Catholic Church is, it doesn't matter much what you as an individual think or live in matters of Faith or morals, all that matters is what the Church thinks. I know that the institution of such laws is not the reason why Jesus came to earth Then... why did He establish an institution with laws? Oh yeah, to make sure His message of salvation and love would be preserved and taught for all ages, and not changed and damaged by people moving with the times. Even if they were raised Catholic. Under the spoiler is a large image. And enough with the "refusing to bake a cake is discriminating against gay persons" idea. Nobody has the right to discriminate against a gay person or couple. Nobody can (or should) kick someone out of their store, refuse service, or fire someone because they're gay or was hanging out with their same sex partner or something. We can all agree with that. A gay marriage is an event, not a person. If you chose not to be involved in an event, fine. If you choose to discriminate against a person, not fine. You have the right to turn down any event because it supports gay marriage and you don't. You do not have the right to discriminate against a person because they are gay. Discriminating against an event is not the same as discrimination against a person.
veritasluxmea Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Also, forcing people to work against their will is slavery. Period.
veritasluxmea Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Jesus' best friends were sinners, thieves, and prostitutes. Do you really think not selling flowers or a cake to a gay person is religiously protected? I think Jesus would have a sermon for you. Also, Jesus wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding any more than he would have handed birth control to the women caught in adultery. When He saved her life, He didn't say "Go have fun," He said "Go and sin no more." As someone else put it... "Yes, Jesus associated with sinners. He came for sinners. But He never condoned their sin. He met them where they were, but then called them out of where they were to where He wanted them to be."
CrossCuT Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 What you quoted CrossCut is clearly fluff for lukewarm Catholics. Call it whatever you want, labels dont matter. What matters is doing the right thing. Also, forcing people to work against their will is slavery. Period. You have a choice. If you are a person of extreme religious beliefs that lead you to discriminate against certain groups based on race, gender, orientation, or age, etc etc..then dont work in a place where you have to serve human beings. Kindly remove yourself so the rest of the world can continue and we dont have to deal with bigot attitudes.
Credo in Deum Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Call it whatever you want, labels dont matter. What matters is doing the right thing. You have a choice. If you are a person of extreme religious beliefs that lead you to discriminate against certain groups based on race, gender, orientation, or age, etc etc..then dont work in a place where you have to serve human beings. Kindly remove yourself so the rest of the world can continue and we dont have to deal with bigot attitudes. Chrsitian bakery denies service for a gay event that is against their beliefs. Christian bakery = bigots. Gay bakery denies service for an event that celebrates traditional marriages. Gay bakery = heroic. Sounds hypocritical to me. As veritasluxmea has said the company has the right to deny service for events which are against their beliefs. In the same way a Jewish bakery would have the right to deny service to skin heads looking to have a cake made for their Hitler birthday bash. Anyway this cake croutons has been beaten to death. Edited March 31, 2015 by Credo in Deum
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Its easy. If you deny serve to anyone when youre in the service business, youre a bigot. So if you dont want to service all human beings, then dont go into that career. Youre not allowed to QQ if people get mad at your for not doing the job you elected to do.
veritasluxmea Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Its easy. If you deny serve to anyone when youre in the service business, youre a bigot. So if you dont want to service all human beings, then dont go into that career. Youre not allowed to QQ if people get mad at your for not doing the job you elected to do. Capitalism just doesn't work like that. Here's an example for you: Gay couple: Hi we would like a cake for our wedding Baker: I'm sorry. I don't believe in being involved with gay weddings. gay couple: OK but we will take our business elsewhere Baker: That's a loss I'm willing to take Gay couple takes business elsewhere. Baker loses money and is penalized. Other person who supports gay marriage gains money and is rewarded. Gay couple gets delicious cake. gay couple wonders why they wanted a cake from someone who doesn't support their wedding anyways. You didn't sign up to do your job specifically for them *for them* if you are a private business owner. You're offering your services... to whom you please. You can turn down a job! I can quit my current job if I want for my religious beliefs and not get in trouble with the law. If it's bigotry, fine. Again, forcing people to work, by law, against their will, is slavery. It's fine to get angry- boycott and let the system do its magic!
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Honey, no. Don't blame your discrimination on an economic system. Capitalism wants money, it doesn't care where it comes from; capitalism doesn't discriminate, people do.
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Its easy. If you deny serve to anyone when youre in the service business, youre a bigot. So if you dont want to service all human beings, then dont go into that career. Youre not allowed to QQ if people get mad at your for not doing the job you elected to do. From what I understand about the law it would not allow persons to deny a service like that. It would however for example protect those who are pro-life. What about a nurse that is force to perform abortions? Is she protected because of her pro-life religious beliefs or is she a bigot for not providing a service?
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Also I'd like to see the part of the law that is said allows discrimination. I've not see that provided by any of those who advocate that the law is about discrimination.
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Also I'd like to see the part of the law that is said allows discrimination. I've not see that provided by any of those who advocate that the law is about discrimination. Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. This is an extreme regression in civil rights and it is disguised as protecting religious freedoms. Politics have a funny way of saying just enough to get done what they need, but not enough to make the faint of heart privy to their intentions. If you ever work with the language of patents and other such things, youd know what Im talking about. The legislation lacks the very essence of Christianity which is selfless love. Instead of reaching out in love as Jesus did we are building walls of hostility. You cannot hope to achieve anything of God's work by driving people away and oestracising them within the community. Jesus reached out to the oestracised and that made him hated by the authorities of his day. Indianapolis is essentially calling same-sex orientated people unclean much in the same way the leper was called unclean and forced to leave the community. While same-sex couples are not burdened with disease the views of the Indianapolis legislature is that their lifestyle and desire for equality cannot go hand-in-hand. If they wish to be part of the Indianapolis community then they must choose to live like good heterosexual white folks.
The Historian Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 It's a shame that the Catholic education this fellow purportedly received didn't include anything about the Social Reign of Christ the King.
The Historian Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. Of course it's discrimination. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, it is not immoral. It is only immoral to discriminate against an individual regarding basic necessities such as housing, food, water, and most employment and educational opportunities. No one has a God given right to the services of another individual beyond those that they are owed in justice. Having a specific baker make your cake to celebrate your abominable union is not a right by any stretch of the imagination.
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. This is an extreme regression in civil rights and it is disguised as protecting religious freedoms. Politics have a funny way of saying just enough to get done what they need, but not enough to make the faint of heart privy to their intentions. If you ever work with the language of patents and other such things, youd know what Im talking about. So they don't actually say it but it is there? My question is where, where in the law is it hidden away? Do you have an answer about the nurse being forced to help in an abortion?
Credo in Deum Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. This is an extreme regression in civil rights and it is disguised as protecting religious freedoms. Politics have a funny way of saying just enough to get done what they need, but not enough to make the faint of heart privy to their intentions. If you ever work with the language of patents and other such things, youd know what Im talking about. When the Christian bakery denied services for the gay wedding they were not denying service simply because those requesting the cake were gay. They were denying the event which celebrated gay marriage. The event is not a person and the person is not the event. You want to take away Catholic's, no sorry, everybody's right to refuse to participate in events? I'm Christian and I would never walk into a gay bakery and force them to provide me a cake for an event that is against their beliefs and values. They shouldn't have to provide me service for that nor should a Christian bakery. Yet according to you it should be made mandatory that they must work against thier will to provide services for a belief(s) and event(s) they do not hold or value!? Seriously CrossCuT, it's equal parts hilarious and sad that you think you're protecting civil rights by introducing totalitarianism!
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 So they don't actually say it but it is there? My question is where, where in the law is it hidden away? Do you have an answer about the nurse being forced to help in an abortion? https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101# http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/01/395613897/sorting-fact-from-fiction-from-politics-on-the-indiana-law I believe one of the key lines is "A governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Which is intentional ambiguous language for the evet of any discrimination accusation. Basically, nothing will happen with this law unless there is an actual discrimination case. If that happens, it will go to a judge to interpret the law and decide if this indeed applies as a substantial burden or not. It doesnt specifically state discrimination (No law would because thats how they work) but the doors are now wide open for it to occur. The law serves as a means to cover tracks for religious bigots who dont want to get in trouble for refusing services to homosexual people. Another fun fact is that sexual orientation isnt even in Indiana's general anti discrimination language for other laws so its technically already "legal". As for your second question about my opinion, I believe I have stated it already. It is my opinion that if you go into any career, service, position or whatever in which you know there are duties you do not want to perform, then you have the choice to NOT go into that position. If you are in that position you should perform the duties you agreed you would do.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now