"Actually Allowing Businesses To Refuse Service Based On Sexual Orientation"

[bonnie]

Good Grief ... what do all of those letters represent? Why is this all necessary???

Gee

Special groups that have exclusive use of the word "queer"

[bonnie]

I am trying to figure out the meaning of tolerance.Using the same reason that has been used here by SDA's and non-Sda's alike,what I have been asked to do seems to get a pass as to my intolerance.

It would not harm my marriage,has never affected my children,as far as I know those involved are law abiding and productive citizens.On the plus side it is very lucrative financially.What's not to like and accept?

I consider what I have been asked to do falls under the heading of deviant behavior,for those involved it is just a lifestyle choice. Remember nothing illegal,and what I offer on a daily basis.

My personal beliefs prohibit me from being involved in this.Does this make me a intolerant bigot?

Is the gay hair dresser that refused to provide service to a lawmaker that didn't support gays "intolerant"?Where is the public outcry over that or the bar that banned bachelorette parties?

How can you profess all this tolerance and yet refuse to tolerate without condemnation those that view this differently than you?

[M. T. Cross]

I know that. Have not disputed that. I am just curious where the tolerance is for those that disagree with you.

[bonnie]

Well Thank you,finally

They can disagree all they want. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. My tolerance ends when they start hurting other people either emotionally or physically and going outside of the law's put into place to protect people from discrimination

Quote:

Well Thank you,finally.

Yes it is. I don't think the issue that started all this was because the party in question figured "christians" were all that counted.He stepped out and I think he knew what it would cost him. Because you disagree would you take that right from him? I am not talking of the legality,but the condemnation that is so willingly heaped on someone like him. I can't dictate someone's conscience nor should I try

Talking of physical harm,harassment or death isn't a part of this. The threats have actually come from the gay community against this family.In following the story I have not seen any incidence where they have retaliated in kind.

If you refused to serve me because I was a "christian" out of hate for "christians" I would honor that but not necessarily respect you for that. If for some reason what you believed forbid you from dealing with "christians" and you were willing to stand by that regardless of the cost to you,I would respect your convictions. Very likely defend your right to follow your conscience.You would still have to pay the legal piper but I could accept a conscience driven decision

Quote:

Given the current global climate, anything a Muslim does gets a different reaction

They should be held to the same standard anyone else is

Quote:

I refer you back to the first post in this thread after your original post. I agree, bigotry is wrong both ways. In fact these people may think they are "protesting" but they really look like third graders.

The difference is their "intolerance" is well tolerated

Quote:

If the request is within the bounds of what you do, and you are simply refusing this customer because of their religious, political or sexual preference or orientation, then yes, sorry to say that does make you a bigot. I don't think that you are hateful, in fact Bonnie I tend to think that you are a pretty wonderful caring person. I just think you wear blinders on certain subjects.

We have a different definition of bigotry.The requests I have received go against everything I believe.

I would not turn anyone down because of religion,political,gender orientation. My business has spanned pretty much the globe. From the South China Seas,Europe and Central America.All nationalities,all skin color and gays and lesbians.That is not a problem.

As for blinders,maybe so,but I do think that I have the right to draw a personal line and not go beyond that. If that forces me out,that will be the breaks.

Quote:

I want to ask you this however. Would you refuse me as a customer due to my religious beliefs?

Of course not. No more than I have anyone in the past. Your religion or sexual orientation doesn't mean you don't need the product I sell.However if you ask for that same to use it for something I find reprehensible I would.

My conscience trumps state/federal law any day of the week.

And then I have to be prepared to live with the results of the decision without whining/threatening or harassing those that caused me the problem

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said:

Quote:

When I see a society legislating immorality I have a moral obligation to speak out in opposition. I can understand secular people labeling me a homophobe or an intolerant bigot, for they either don't know or reject outright the word of God. But what I find very sad, is to see professed Christians condoning the very sins that God has clearly labeled abominations and judging those who dare warn the sinner.

This is where the issue becomes interesting and sometimes complex:

1) Yes, I would agree that one may have a duty to advocate for what is right and moral.

2) As is well recognized, morality can be attached to almost any issue. E.g. Moral values may be attached to whether or not States should be allowed to charge a sales tax on goods purchased on the Internet.

3) A fundamental Biblical truth is that God allows people to defy the will of God. IOW, freedom to chose to disobey God is a fundamental part of life here on Earth. From my understanding, this means that on some levels God is not honored by laws that attempt to legislate morality.

4) In the State where I live, a strict Republican conservative has just announced that he will run for Governor. He was asked for his stand on homosexual marriage. He responded that there are significant issues of civil rights (a moral issue) and therefore he supported homosexuals being given the right to form civil unions that gave them the full civil rights that people have in marriage. However, he did wish to restrict marriage that formed between a male and a female. Not everyone would agree with him and many would base their disagreement on morality.

5) In any case, I will suggest that one may advocate Biblical positions on morality and support legislation that gives people the right to chose whether or not to practice those Biblical positions.

[debbym]

Quote:

God rules over nations, and what hope do we have when our own nation enacts laws that are an abomination to God? It is not easy to be a true Christian in this day and age and I applaud Bonnie and the baker for taking a stand.

there are moral issues in alcohol and tobacco laws, it is actually legal to sell substances for human consumption in our God blessed land that cause heart disease, cancer and premature death, destroying families, children's lives, and hope for any future.

there are malnourished children and children growing up in traumatizing homes throughout the land, and it is permitted by law. It is not illegal to hate your children.

it is legal to produce pornography of certain degree, there are laws governing gambling, and vices of every grade. Should reality TV, where people are twisted and tormented, and bashed about in competitions for entertainment... be allowed. What about Jerry Springer type shows is this ok to go on?

and there are laws regarding the penal system, confinements, and isolation, and there is the death penalty, to gas, to hang, to inject or not. and laws governing handing stray animals, and laws relating to human euthanasia, and laws related to abortion, and research in the area of DNA and stem cell research. And military exploits, depleted uranium weapons, and on and on and on.

the moral question of war, and manipulation of elections all over the world.

morality is involved in all of these things, it can be deeply arousing to people who have moral sensibilities. you can take apart laws regarding cults, and how it is legal for mind control to go on in various groups. it is a dark world we live in.

there are endless TV shows created exploiting peoples emotional responses and outrages to all kind of moral and ethical issues in our society, and justice and injustice, and you can throw in the baker and his/her person sense of personal offense over lesbians.

people are offended over thousands of things and pick their battles and get self righteous about how right and true their "reactions" are.

Perfect peace have they which love thy Law and nothing shall offend them. When we look away from Jesus we short circuit and get wrapped up in our rags.

Sinful humanity is all concluded to be an abomination to God. I don't see anyone ramping up to protest the innate incurable selfishness, and corruption of the entire human race.

what you do and how you are Jesus in all of His purity and holiness is deeply pained by and cringes. But he remains patient and kind and merciful and gracious and long suffering, profoundly generous, and loving towards every member of the human race.

we can look away from sin, even our own sin, and all the sin and sinfulness all around us, and look to Jesus, and be at peace, and be surrendered, and have self control, and demonstrate his kindness and graciousness towards all fallen humanity, even our own. He speaks the word to us, Look unto me, and be ye saved.

we have the same hope that has galvanized humanity since before the flood. The developments in this day have no power to disturb the plan and work of God that is redeeming people every day. This light will do nothing but get Brighter until the day Jesus comes.

[bonnie]

there are moral issues in alcohol and tobacco laws, it is actually legal to sell substances for human consumption in our God blessed land that cause heart disease, cancer and premature death, destroying families, children's lives, and hope for any future.

there are malnourished children and children growing up in traumatizing homes throughout the land, and it is permitted by law. It is not illegal to hate your children.

it is legal to produce pornography of certain degree, there are laws governing gambling, and vices of every grade. Should reality TV, where people are twisted and tormented, and bashed about in competitions for entertainment... be allowed. What about Jerry Springer type shows is this ok to go on?

[Gregory Matthews]

In an earlier post, both M T Cross and I commented on a post that referenced homosexuals as Queers.

Bonnie, correctly pointed out that the use of the word queer to reference homosexuals has a complex history. It is a fact that while some homosexual groups use that word as identification, there are others who are deeply offended by it.

There it an interesting Title IX case on this:

Quote:

Rule 12((6) motion, it can be difficult to prevail on the merits. The first hurdle a plaintiff must overcome is proving that the offending student's actions were based on the victim's sex. In other words, the plaintiff must show that the bullying in question was more than mere name-calling, and that it was, in fact, motivated by the plaintiff's sex or gender, or failure to conform with gender stereotypes. Wolfe v. Fayetteville, Ark. School Dist., 648 F.3d 860, 867 (8th Cir. 2011).

For example, in Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools, which many believed would become a landmark Title IX decision, a jury awarded one student and his parents $800,000 in damages for the school district's failure to protect Patterson, while he was a student, from longterm, systemic bullying that included numerous instances of Patterson being called "gay," "fag" and "queer." See 551 F.3d 438, 448-49 (6th Cir. 2009).

One interesting aspect of this case is that part of the reason the verdict was overturned was due to the fact that the student involved was NOT homosexual, which is a requirement for a Title IX case.

[bonnie]

In an earlier post, both M T Cross and I commented on a post that referenced homosexuals as Queers.

Bonnie, correctly pointed out that the use of the word queer to reference homosexuals has a complex history. It is a fact that while some homosexual groups use that word as identification, there are others who are deeply offended by it.

It is not a word I use,but not because some "special group" has declared ownership of that word or any other word.

One group dictating how a word may be used seems to now be a legal right

[debbym]

Quote:

So from this can I assume that because these things go on I or others have lost the right to decide not to participate?

Or before we decide we cannot in good conscience, run thru the laundry list of sins in this world and accept all?

This topic was started because of another topic blasting "christians" for intolerance while those delivering the sermon were showing intolerance.

i am not asking anyone to accept sin, but to accept that it is there and you have no power to change it. To accept that things are wrong is not to condone it or participate in it. To have such little sense of one's personal boundaries is unhealthy. Bigotry is a form of attempting to create a boundary that does not exist within. Acceptance of what is, does not require approving of what is. It allows you to move on.

it is when we get stuck resisting the sins of others as if it does something or our soul or for theirs that we get wrapped up in ourselves and our defenses. just as we get into a mire when we live for our comfort and deny rights and services to anyone else who makes us feel uncomfortable. God has everyone and everyone's sin's in hand, he is the personal sin bearer and intercessor for all sinners.

Jesus said do not resist evil, that is, the evil around you. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.

Baking a cake for a lesbian wedding no more participates in their sin, than baking a cake for anyone else who is also equally a sinner sinning their sin's.

Nero had servants who were Christians, spirit filled powerful primitive Christians who may have had personal conversations is Paul. Godly holy people.

they prepared food for Nero, who was one of the most notoriously wicked people in all recorded History, chewing off body parts of bound living Christians to torment them, to his delight.

now did his servants who prepared his food condone or participate in His guilt? no they did not.

we do not win any battle against sin out in public by complaining about it's existence, and pointing it out to others, and acting out our discomfort with it. God knows all. He is the General in charge of the battle field.

i believe i am really listening to you and hearing you clearly. you seem to say, that if we do not support the baker we are supporting approval of sin. also if we disapprove of the baker and call it intolerance we are encouraging or participating in their sin, i do not see this as correct either.

i sincerely believe personal revulsion and anger does not work the righteousness of God.

[bonnie]

i am not asking anyone to accept sin, but to accept that it is there and you have no power to change it. To accept that things are wrong is not to condone it or participate in it. To have such little sense of one's personal boundaries is unhealthy. Bigotry is a form of attempting to create a boundary that does not exist within. Acceptance of what is, does not require approving of what is. It allows you to move on.

[Tom Wetmore]

Bonnie, I sense that the street of your opinion on this issue is a one way street also, not yielding room for those with whom you disagree on this very topic...

Are you at all willing to yield the right of way to those going the other way? If not you are exercising intolerance just as much as those with who you disagree.

I think Debby has posted wise words here.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Baking a cake for a lesbian wedding no more participates in their sin, than baking a cake for anyone else who is also equally a sinner sinning their sin's.

Any kind of service can be substituted for the word 'cake' above. What is not being addressed or avoided, is that a public service is bound by the 'rules' of their state, city, or whatever in running their business. It is their choice to comply and run a business or not and then close. The business owner 'rights' to run a business or have their own set of values and to practice them are not being violated.

Would Christ bake a cake and sell it to a gay couple? Absolutely, He would even go to their wedding! Think about that! Christ was known for associating with 'sinners' and going to weddings! Wow!

What this subject needs is some honesty. It ain't about 'rights' it is about sexual orientation and that is one area that many Christians just can't handle. They may say all 'sin' is wrong, but sexual orientation, the least talked about 'sin' in the Bible, is the foremost on their minds and brings out the most 'righteous indignation'.

[bonnie]

Bonnie, I sense that the street of your opinion on this issue is a one way street also, not yielding room for those with whom you disagree on this very topic...

Are you at all willing to yield the right of way to those going the other way? If not you are exercising intolerance just as much as those with who you disagree.

I think Debby has posted wise words here.

More than happy to. I am not nor would I condemn those that would choose to bake the cake or provide ruffled diapers for a grown man to play games.It is up to them where they set their boundaries or if they feel they should not set boundaries in the desire to show how christian and tolerant they are.

I don't believe that refusing to set personal boundaries is a sign of "christianity".I make no attempt to set "christian boundaries for anyone other than myself.

I am not demanding everyone stop behavior I find objectionable,or wanting a law passed to make it so. I am insisting on my right to set personal boundaries and not accept the ones the "tolerant christians" set for me.

[debbym]

Quote:

from Bonnie, I see bigotry as those not allowing me to have my own personal boundaries that I choose not to cross.I accept the fact that there are those that engage in activities that I consider wrong,and by choosing not to participate I may well have to move on. My choice.Yet that is considered unchristian.

bigotry has no power to allow or not allow anyone's boundaries. Boundaries are within you. Jesus was beaten, and mocked, and not once did he lose his boundaries. they beat on the rock, and it never changed or yielded to the forces cast on him by man and demon combined.

if a law is passed that we cannot work on Sunday we are not to work on Sunday, even though the bible says, 6 days shalt thou labor and do all of thy work, we are then to spend the day in evangelism, laboring for souls. This could be construed as disobeying the law of God, but it is not.

same for baking a cake for a gay wedding, it could be construed as breaking the law of God but it is not. the Character of God is in us, we do not legislate or extend the kingdom of God beyond our hearts, and to world around us. nothing in this world will live beyond this world but our hearts, our characters. Everything else is temporary.

Jesus did not lose His character, His righteous Holy Character, when he was mistreated, or insulted, repulsed, or hated to death. He never became a victim. he never reacted, and never acted in a reaction to the darkness and hateful behaviors around Him.

you and your business do not equate on the scale with the baker and his business, as much as you see them as the same they are not. no one has legislated you to sew and sell your nice things as adult toys. when this happens, then i would be happy to have this conversation again with you. I hope and trust you would be found with all of your boundaries intact, and upheld by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

There is counterfeit Christianity in the world as well as genuine Christianity. The true spirit of a man is manifested by the way in which he deals with his fellow man. We may ask the question, Does he represent the character of Christ in spirit and action, or simply manifest the natural, selfish traits of character that belong to the people of this world? Profession weighs nothing with God. Before it is everlastingly too late for wrongs to be righted, let each one ask himself, “What am I?” It depends upon ourselves as to whether we shall form such characters as will constitute us members of God’s royal family above.—The Review and Herald, April 9, 1895.

[bonnie]

if a law is passed that we cannot work on Sunday we are not to work on Sunday, even though the bible says, 6 days shalt thou labor and do all of thy work, we are then to spend the day in evangelism, laboring for souls. This could be construed as disobeying the law of God, but it is not.

[Narcah]

Someone who steals is a thief.

Someone who cheats on their spouse is an adulterer.

Someone who practices homosexuality is a queer.

All three are acceptable defining words, and all three are sins that need to be confessed, repented of, and "go and sin no more" if one wishes to spend eternity with Jesus.

I still don't think it's a good idea to force an artist under rule of law to produce something for you. If they don't want your business, go somewhere else or you may regret it. :)

[Gregory Matthews]

On the basis that you tell us that one who practices homosexuality is a queer, I suppose that you would say that one who is black skinned is a [theN-word].

From wikepedia:

Quote:

[theN-word] is a noun in the English language. The word originated as a neutral term referring to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("color black").[1] Often used disparagingly, by the mid 20th century, particularly in the United States, it suggested that its target is extremely unsophisticated. Its usage had become unambiguously pejorative, a common ethnic slur usually directed at blacks of Sub-Saharan African descent.

If you study the history of the word "[theN-word]" you will see that it was once a neutral term, but it has become one of the most offensive words in the English language.

A similar statement could be made for the word "queer" as applies to homosexuals.

The fact that there are some homosexuals who uses that term does not negate that fact that, as applied to homosexuals, it has become a very offensive term. It is now considered to be very offensive by many homosexuals, even if not all.

To knowingly use a term that is considered to be very offensive, and has that background, calls into question the motive for using it. There are other, non-offensive terms that could have been used in its place. But, a choice is made to use that offensive term, with what appears to be a commitment to continue using it after it is pointed out that it is considered offensive.

If someone were to call you a [theN-word] on the basis that it was once a neutral term, I would be just a offended and I would call them to task.

Personally, I believe that the people who run this forum should edit out the words "queer" and "[theN-word]" when they are applied to groups and individual humans.

This forum, in my mind, is not the place for such.

NOTE: I have used the word "[theN-word]" in an appropriate manner. But the software has edited it out. The same should be done for the use of the word "queer" as applied to homosexuals.

[Narcah]

I guess queer is only offensive if you want it to be. I don't want it to be. Don't get me started on the blatant double standard of the use of the N word.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I guess queer is only offensive if you want it to be.

As followers of Christ, we need to be aware of how the public at large understands the words that we use and we should carefully consider using words that are considered very offensive.

The issue would be exactly the same if you were black and I was to call you a [theN-word].

That is what you are doing when you apply the word "queer" to a homosexual.

It would be a double standard for you to say that one was acceptable and the other not.

[CoAspen]

[phkrause]

Exactly Gregory. excellent post

[bonnie]

I think it is counterproductive to use the "Q' word, as we are trying to win souls over, not alienate them, However,it is amazing to see how some are more offended by those who use the "Q" word or those who would dare to rebuke and warn the sinner than they are by those who practice the perverted lifestyle that is an abomination to God.

It is not a word I use,however I fail to see how the gay community can claim to be offended.

We have a very large gay pride parade here every year.

The signs that are carried frequently refer to themselves as "queer". "Try queer,be happy" God blesses "queers' "Queer" and proud,.

Gays are not a special group that can take ownership of a word and pretend offense when used by others. Rather than offense it comes across as more of a power play where they can exercise their considerable clout.

If they do not want to be defined that way,then stop defining themselves as that.

[lazarus]

Don't get me started on the blatant double standard of the use of the N word.

LOL, some folks just disappointed that they can't use the word anymore.

[bonnie]

LOL, some folks just disappointed that they can't use the word anymore.

Narcah can speak for himself but I don't think that is what he meant. I have never used the N word in my life. hearing someone say that is like fingernails on a blackboard. If someone tried to use that in my house they would be asked to leave.However I would

pay little attention to the pretended offense of a black person describing himself using that word and then claiming to be offended because I did.

That is another word that is not owned by a "special interest group"

Don't like the word,offended by it,then stop using it to describe yourself.