The Coming Gay Marriage Witch Hunt (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

What's way more unreasonable is the position taken by Jon and others that a company ought to be prohibited from firing an employee for their beliefs, even when those beliefs are actively hurting their business. That's pretty out there, IMO.

I was initially quite surprised when Jon took that position, because he's usually more of a righty than a lefty. The traditional righty position is to side with employers over employees on these kinds of issues. Freedom of contract, less government regulation, etc. The lefty position is to side with employees. The government needs to make everything fair, etc.

But then I realized that there's a new dynamic in play. Mozilla dumped its CEO for supporting Prop 8. That has apparently made people on the right a lot more suspicious of employers being able to fire employees willy-nilly -- just like the Duke Lacrosse case made people on the right suddenly a lot more sensitive to the rights of criminal defendants (and people on the left less sensitive to them).

It's all fun and games until one's own ideological teammates are burdened.

News to me

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What's way more unreasonable is the position taken by Jon and others that a company ought to be prohibited from firing an employee for their beliefs, even when those beliefs are actively hurting their business. That's pretty out there, IMO.

I was initially quite surprised when Jon took that position, because he's usually more of a righty than a lefty. The traditional righty position is to side with employers over employees on these kinds of issues. Freedom of contract, less government regulation, etc. The lefty position is to side with employees. The government needs to make everything fair, etc.

But then I realized that there's a new dynamic in play. Mozilla dumped its CEO for supporting Prop 8. That has apparently made people on the right a lot more suspicious of employers being able to fire employees willy-nilly -- just like the Duke Lacrosse case made people on the right suddenly a lot more sensitive to the rights of criminal defendants (and people on the left less sensitive to them).

It's all fun and games until one's own ideological teammates are burdened.

News to me

You don't remember when a bunch of lefties assumed guilt (on insufficient evidence) as soon as the accusations were made? Should I bump the Duke Lacrosse thread so we can reread the first few pages?

 

[RCon]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Yeah, I reject your "Jewish is an ethnicity" premise.

 

[NCCommish]

What's way more unreasonable is the position taken by Jon and others that a company ought to be prohibited from firing an employee for their beliefs, even when those beliefs are actively hurting their business. That's pretty out there, IMO.

I was initially quite surprised when Jon took that position, because he's usually more of a righty than a lefty. The traditional righty position is to side with employers over employees on these kinds of issues. Freedom of contract, less government regulation, etc. The lefty position is to side with employees. The government needs to make everything fair, etc.

But then I realized that there's a new dynamic in play. Mozilla dumped its CEO for supporting Prop 8. That has apparently made people on the right a lot more suspicious of employers being able to fire employees willy-nilly -- just like the Duke Lacrosse case made people on the right suddenly a lot more sensitive to the rights of criminal defendants (and people on the left less sensitive to them).

It's all fun and games until one's own ideological teammates are burdened.

News to me

You don't remember when a bunch of lefties assumed guilt (on insufficient evidence) as soon as the accusations were made? Should I bump the Duke Lacrosse thread so we can reread the first few pages?

I remember well the jump to conclusions in that case I remember it being a bit less sharply drawn along political lines than you seem to. As I recall I wasn't on that train. Further I am pretty sure I still care about defendants getting fair treatment.

 

[Koya]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Yeah, I reject your "Jewish is an ethnicity" premise.

85% of my family on my mothers side was murdered, often in unspeakable ways, because their HERITAGE was Jewish. It had nothing to do with their faith, there was no chance to "renounce" or "convert" as was the case in religious persecutions. This was because they were born "Jewish."

I am Jewish, regardless of my faith. And, in fact, another example is that you have "Secular Jews" and that the state of Israel will grant a Jew citizenship because they are of Jewish blood, it's not a religious test.

 

[Ilov80s]

This thread is a mess.

 

[Koya]

This thread is a mess.

Why should this thread be any different from all the other threads?

 

[Ilov80s]

This thread is a mess.

Why should this thread be any different from all the other threads?

Not all threads are so bad. This one is particularly tangled.

 

[datonn]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

If a person wants to get married, I'm not going to stop it. That does not keep me from thinking that it's morally wrong. Besides, Scripture says that it's the act of any sex outside of God's plan for marriage that's wrong.

The Bible says a few thousand things that are right or wrong. Eat any hoofed animals lately? Lie much? Ever railed against the idea of "giving Caesar" what is Caesar's (or worse, been extremely generous to yourself on tax deductions when filing your 1040)? Judge much? Though in all fairness, it doesn't say judging others is a sin...just says prepare to be judged (much more closely/carefully, or at least that seems to be the implication).

Folks don't get to cherry-pick which Scripture they like and will follow (and cram down other people's throats), while sweeping the other stuff they don't like or agree with under the rug. Better to not "let your little light shine" if you're not going to walk the talk. TRULY walk the talk.

 

[joffer]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

If a person wants to get married, I'm not going to stop it. That does not keep me from thinking that it's morally wrong. Besides, Scripture says that it's the act of any sex outside of God's plan for marriage that's wrong.

The Bible says a few thousand things that are right or wrong. Eat any hoofed animals lately? Lie much? Ever railed against the idea of "giving Caesar" what is Caesar's (or worse, been extremely generous to yourself on tax deductions when filing your 1040)? Judge much? Though in all fairness, it doesn't say judging others is a sin...just says prepare to be judged (much more closely/carefully, or at least that seems to be the implication).Folks don't get to cherry-pick which Scripture they like and will follow (and cram down other people's throats), while sweeping the other stuff they don't like or agree with under the rug. Better to not "let your little light shine" if you're not going to walk the talk. TRULY walk the talk.

The good stuff is just true. The bad stuff has to be put in context. Duh.

 

[Gawain]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Yeah, I reject your "Jewish is an ethnicity" premise.

85% of my family on my mothers side was murdered, often in unspeakable ways, because their HERITAGE was Jewish. It had nothing to do with their faith, there was no chance to "renounce" or "convert" as was the case in religious persecutions. This was because they were born "Jewish."

I am Jewish, regardless of my faith. And, in fact, another example is that you have "Secular Jews" and that the state of Israel will grant a Jew citizenship because they are of Jewish blood, it's not a religious test.

And the State of Israel will let my Korean coworker take part in birthright because she was adopted by a Jewish family and raised Jewish.

A large part of Jewish people may have the same ethnic background, but all Jews don't share the same ethnicity.

 

[Koya]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Yeah, I reject your "Jewish is an ethnicity" premise.

85% of my family on my mothers side was murdered, often in unspeakable ways, because their HERITAGE was Jewish. It had nothing to do with their faith, there was no chance to "renounce" or "convert" as was the case in religious persecutions. This was because they were born "Jewish."I am Jewish, regardless of my faith. And, in fact, another example is that you have "Secular Jews" and that the state of Israel will grant a Jew citizenship because they are of Jewish blood, it's not a religious test.

And the State of Israel will let my Korean coworker take part in birthright because she was adopted by a Jewish family and raised Jewish.

A large part of Jewish people may have the same ethnic background, but all Jews don't share the same ethnicity.

It's certainly a grey area but the idea is of conversion for the person who was raised Jewish being viewed as part of the greater whole, which has as much or more historically to do with a specific group of people independent from religion than it does the religion itself.

The persecution of the Jews has often, if not mostly, been aimed at the Jews - a people, a nation descended from the area at one time known as Canaan - not a faith or set of religious teachings (####, if anything, this has been co-opted by other religions).

 

[Koya]

This thread is a mess.

Why should this thread be any different from all the other threads?

Not all threads are so bad. This one is particularly tangled.

Subtle Passover reference there.

 

[RCon]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Yeah, I reject your "Jewish is an ethnicity" premise.

85% of my family on my mothers side was murdered, often in unspeakable ways, because their HERITAGE was Jewish. It had nothing to do with their faith, there was no chance to "renounce" or "convert" as was the case in religious persecutions. This was because they were born "Jewish."

I am Jewish, regardless of my faith. And, in fact, another example is that you have "Secular Jews" and that the state of Israel will grant a Jew citizenship because they are of Jewish blood, it's not a religious test.

In the context of employment in the US in 2014, "Jewish" is a choice, not an ethnicity. A grown adult in the US in 2014 can choose whether or not to be Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, atheist, or Wiccan.

 

[jon_mx]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

Did not realize it was legal.

 

[bigbottom]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

Did not realize it was legal.

Is that yes?

 

[jon_mx]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

Did not realize it was legal.

Is that yes?

As long as they are not doing it on company time, I don't see that it is any of the business of the company. I am not one to favor legislation over every issue that comes up, but I don't think it is right to fire/hire people based on legal non-work activities. With the obvious exception of Obama voters of course.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Im pretty sure this is part of the Republican Party Platform:

"If anybody opens the back door unnaturally from outside, you end up having open-door syndrome. You can’t close the door."

Fascinating.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Yeah, I reject your "Jewish is an ethnicity" premise.

In Kazakhstan, three main issues: economic, social, and Jew.

 

[squistion]

Im pretty sure this is part of the Republican Party Platform:

"If anybody opens the back door unnaturally from outside, you end up having open-door syndrome. You can’t close the door."

Fascinating.

I was expecting Eminence to be the source of that quote, but according to the article the speaker was 68 years old (so it couldn't be him).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

Did not realize it was legal.

Is that yes?

As long as they are not doing it on company time, I don't see that it is any of the business of the company. I am not one to favor legislation over every issue that comes up, but I don't think it is right to fire/hire people based on legal non-work activities.

It's still unclear whether that's a yes.

 

[jon_mx]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

Did not realize it was legal.

Is that yes?

As long as they are not doing it on company time, I don't see that it is any of the business of the company. I am not one to favor legislation over every issue that comes up, but I don't think it is right to fire/hire people based on legal non-work activities.

It's still unclear whether that's a yes.

Because it wasn't.

 

[Tchula]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

Every belief is prejudiced, including yours.

 

[trogg78]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

Every belief is prejudiced, including yours.

You don't what it means? of course you don't know what that means.

 

[joffer]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

Every belief is prejudiced, including yours.

Which belief is that?

 

[bigbottom]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

Did not realize it was legal.

Is that yes?

As long as they are not doing it on company time, I don't see that it is any of the business of the company. I am not one to favor legislation over every issue that comes up, but I don't think it is right to fire/hire people based on legal non-work activities.

It's still unclear whether that's a yes.

Because it wasn't.

Got it. "Don't think it's right" isn't the same as "should be unlawful." You're in good company with that position.That said, it is worth noting that with respect to your initial statement regarding the "progressive mindset," express legal protections against the ability of private employers to fire (or threaten to fire) employees based on their political affiliation or activities have been enacted in only California, New York and Washington, D.C. In other words, the only states that have enacted legislation to protect against the "McCarthyism" you reference with respect to private employment are "progressive" ones.

Note: Other states such as Oregon, Michigan and Florida prohibit employers from firing or threatening to fire someone for the purpose of influencing their vote in an election (a more narrow protection aimed primarily at protecting the voting process than political affiliation/activity employment protections).

 

[fatness]

“We have people who are losing their jobs, being smeared publicly because they hold the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank and lobbying organization. “They are called bigots. Homophobes. That is not the way we operate in a free society.”

So a "family" organization that is "evangelical" raises their kids to try to restrict the rights of others, and to complain that they're victims when they are criticized for doing so.

It's like raising kids to splash water on other kids in pools, and to complain to lifeguards when they get splashed back.

No wonder this county is raising so many entitled nancies.

 

[Ilov80s]

“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not selfish to think for oneself. A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. It is grossly selfish to require of one's neighbour that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he? If he can think, he will probably think differently. If he cannot think, it is monstrous to require thought of any kind from him. A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses.” - Oscar Wilde

 

[Kal El]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

If a person wants to get married, I'm not going to stop it. That does not keep me from thinking that it's morally wrong. Besides, Scripture says that it's the act of any sex outside of God's plan for marriage that's wrong.

The Bible says a few thousand things that are right or wrong. Eat any hoofed animals lately? Lie much? Ever railed against the idea of "giving Caesar" what is Caesar's (or worse, been extremely generous to yourself on tax deductions when filing your 1040)? Judge much? Though in all fairness, it doesn't say judging others is a sin...just says prepare to be judged (much more closely/carefully, or at least that seems to be the implication).Folks don't get to cherry-pick which Scripture they like and will follow (and cram down other people's throats), while sweeping the other stuff they don't like or agree with under the rug. Better to not "let your little light shine" if you're not going to walk the talk. TRULY walk the talk.

I'm not sure if all of this was directed at me or at those who call themselves Christians in general, but in my particular case, I realize that people aren't perfect, but God loves all of us anyway. The least I can do is try to meet everyone where they're at, and show them how God has affected my life. Am I great at it? No. Do I still make mistakes? Yes, far more than I'd like. However, I still try.Back to the subject at hand. I cannot support gay marriage because of my beliefs, but neither do I oppose the equalization of rights they seek. Personally, I would have the government change the laws and terminology to recognize everything the government sees as a marriage as a civil union, since a marriage license is just a way for them to tax you and your spouse. If a couple (straight or gay) wants to have a ceremony, they can do so at any place that will allow them to do so. If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, find another that will. If a business doesn't want to serve a couple, again, that's their choice. They're the ones turning down money. It's clearly at the point now that if someone holds an unpopular opinion, time to bully them into changing it, it seems. Live and let live, folks.

I know some people are going to accuse me of holding a hateful opinion, but in all honesty, it's just that. An opinion. I'm certainly not going to stop anybody from getting married, nor do I want to. It's not my place to do so. But at the end of the day, when I head to the proverbial Last Roundup, there's only one Person I am ultimately answerable to, and He doesn't care about what was popular at the time.

 

[datonn]

To be fair, there is a stigma attached to those who stand up for their beliefs. As a Christian, I know there are going to be people who hate what I believe and stand for. That's fine, it's simply a human opinion to me. After all, what's popular isn't always right.

A prejudiced belief is no less prejudiced because it's founded in religion

If a person wants to get married, I'm not going to stop it. That does not keep me from thinking that it's morally wrong. Besides, Scripture says that it's the act of any sex outside of God's plan for marriage that's wrong.

The Bible says a few thousand things that are right or wrong. Eat any hoofed animals lately? Lie much? Ever railed against the idea of "giving Caesar" what is Caesar's (or worse, been extremely generous to yourself on tax deductions when filing your 1040)? Judge much? Though in all fairness, it doesn't say judging others is a sin...just says prepare to be judged (much more closely/carefully, or at least that seems to be the implication).Folks don't get to cherry-pick which Scripture they like and will follow (and cram down other people's throats), while sweeping the other stuff they don't like or agree with under the rug. Better to not "let your little light shine" if you're not going to walk the talk. TRULY walk the talk.

I'm not sure if all of this was directed at me or at those who call themselves Christians in general, but in my particular case, I realize that people aren't perfect, but God loves all of us anyway. The least I can do is try to meet everyone where they're at, and show them how God has affected my life. Am I great at it? No. Do I still make mistakes? Yes, far more than I'd like. However, I still try.Back to the subject at hand. I cannot support gay marriage because of my beliefs, but neither do I oppose the equalization of rights they seek. Personally, I would have the government change the laws and terminology to recognize everything the government sees as a marriage as a civil union, since a marriage license is just a way for them to tax you and your spouse. If a couple (straight or gay) wants to have a ceremony, they can do so at any place that will allow them to do so. If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, find another that will. If a business doesn't want to serve a couple, again, that's their choice. They're the ones turning down money. It's clearly at the point now that if someone holds an unpopular opinion, time to bully them into changing it, it seems. Live and let live, folks.

I know some people are going to accuse me of holding a hateful opinion, but in all honesty, it's just that. An opinion. I'm certainly not going to stop anybody from getting married, nor do I want to. It's not my place to do so. But at the end of the day, when I head to the proverbial Last Roundup, there's only one Person I am ultimately answerable to, and He doesn't care about what was popular at the time.

Good response, Kal El. Where I think most Christians lose folks, however, is their conscious or unconscious process of ranking sin.

E.g. Homosexuality would be considered by most Christians to be adultery, correct? One of the ten commandments God specifically gives us all to follow and obey. However, what about the other nine commandments, such as:

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

The above four commandments are ones I see broken (by Christians) routinely. Daily. Heck, HOURLY! Commandments other Christians will even indirectly encourage them to break (prosperity gospel, anyone?)! The ninth commandment, in particular. So how come there's no moral outrage at the lying epidemic in our society? How come it's okay to say "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim communist/socialist dictator giving out free phones to all the welfare queens and baby-mamas who spend all their food stamp money (my hard-earned tax dollars) on Coca Cola and cake, and ACA is chalk-full of things such as "death panels" that will allow the government to kill grandma and grandpa?!" That's where I say, if people are going to ignore commandments 4, 8, 9, 10, etc., look the other way on commandment #7, unless it's between someone who's married, or between two people of the same sex, don't you think the credibility of said arguments from said people is lost? ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God! But if you're going to put yourself in a position of purported wisdom/truth, and try and convince others to buy into your beliefs, how can you possibly be taken seriously if you are not going to walk your talk?

Not directed at you, per se. I say that to the guy I look at in the mirror every morning FAR more than I'd ever say it to you or anyone else.

 

[Kal El]

Datonn, I'll post here to avoide needlessly stretching the page, but you're right. Many people don't even think that what they're doing is wrong, or if they do, they try to explain it away. I'm one of those who feels that all sin should be treated equally, but since people everywhere are hypocrites, they don't do so. I've been guilty of it as well, and will have to answer for it.

What many Christians need to do is go back and see what Jesus said about hypocrisy. I posted a paraphrase of something He said earlier in this thread, but there are lots of things He had to say about hypocrisy, especially from the major religious leaders of the day. Now, not all preachers today are loke this, and in fact, many truly try to care about everyone, but a lot of what I see in the American church culture today is a lot of posturing and trying to hide their true selves. This will only lead to disaster if not checked and subsequently eliminated.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, find another that will. If a business doesn't want to serve a couple, again, that's their choice. They're the ones turning down money. It's clearly at the point now that if someone holds an unpopular opinion, time to bully them into changing it, it seems. Live and let live, folks.

Bullying connotes inappropriate intimidation, IMO. I don't think criticizing or boycotting amounts to bullying -- and neither do you, unless you're willing to say that the church and business in your examples are bullying gay people.