Advertising company forced (?) to remove Greg Laurie's billboards.

[MaxVel]

So his moral code is based on genetics. I find that reprehensible, and reminiscent of the laws and moral position we once had about mixed-race marriages.

There's no particular reason why anyone should care, because...

All morality is relative/subjective.

This undermines every moral argument you make. No one else is in any way obliged to accept your moral values as their own. You can't point to any objective moral standard, so no one is wrong for having different morals to yours.

IOW, Carpe complains about the immorality of something, everyone else

[carpedm9587]

This nonsense again Carp? Homosexual behavior is, well, behavior. Race is not behavior. And again, in your relative world, what you find reprehensible has no merit as far as I can tell.

Again, there are no other examples I can think of where an act is moral for one person (or pair of people) and immoral for another when the ONLY distinction is genetic identity. If sex is moral in Situation A for Person 1 and Person 2. The it is moral is Situation A for Person 3 and Person 4 if the only distinction is their genetic identity. Morality is not determined by genetics.

[carpedm9587]

You're talking nonsense. What he is DOING is "refusing to serve people". "on the basis of...." is THINKING, not DOING.

"Refusing service" is doing. However, you are correct that "on the basis of" is a mental activity. However, it is one he has verbalized, so I don't need to "read his mind." I can just listen to his words. He refuses to participate in the same-sex marriage because the two people are of the same sex.

This really isn't complicated folks. Rationalizing it doesn't improve anything.

[carpedm9587]

There's no particular reason why anyone should care, because...

This undermines every moral argument you make. No one else is in any way obliged to accept your moral values as their own. You can't point to any objective moral standard, so no one is wrong for having different morals to yours.

IOW, Carpe complains about the immorality of something, everyone else

All moral positions are relative/subjective, Max. So we can either continually shrug at one another, or we can all listen a bit, see if someone else might "have something" that we missed. But you are correct, if the choice is then the issue will be decided using something other than reason and discussion. It will default to isolation/separation and/or some form of force.

[seer]

Again, there are no other examples I can think of where an act is moral for one person (or pair of people) and immoral for another when the ONLY distinction is genetic identity. If sex is moral in Situation A for Person 1 and Person 2. The it is moral is Situation A for Person 3 and Person 4 if the only distinction is their genetic identity. Morality is not determined by genetics.

Nonsense, if you are a pedophile or rapist most likely your sexual proclivities have genetic markers. Again, sex between a man and a woman can be a moral act, sex between two men or two women never can. If a gay man marries and has children with a woman it is moral act, if the same man has sex with another man it is an immoral act. It is the action or behavior that makes it moral or immoral, not genetic predisposition.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, if you are a pedophile or rapist most likely your sexual proclivities have genetic markers.

As far as I know, this is pure speculation, and has never been shown to be true. It is also besides the point. You are reversing the logic without justification.

Again, sex between a man and a woman can be a moral act, sex between two men or two women never can.

Since the only distinction is sexual identity, this fails before leaving the starting gate.

If a gay man marries and has children with a woman it is moral act, if the same man has sex with another man it is an immoral act. It is the action or behavior that makes it moral or immoral, not genetic predisposition.

I rest my case. The moral code is based on genetic identity - which is NOT a basis for determining morality. This is a case of special pleading.

[Tassman]

If it's a private business, it doesn't apply.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaw’s discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. 'Public Accommodations', in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public.

If it's da gubmint, SCOTUS will have to decide whether the First or Fourteenth Amendment takes precedence. (I favor First, of course.)

The civil rights of one section of the population do not override the civil rights of another section of the population.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, if you are a pedophile or rapist most likely your sexual proclivities have genetic markers.

Really! What are these markers?

Again, sex between a man and a woman can be a moral act, sex between two men or two women never can.

You are asserting personal opinion as fact. They are not.

If a gay man marries and has children with a woman it is moral act, if the same man has sex with another man it is an immoral act. It is the action or behavior that makes it moral or immoral, not genetic predisposition.

Many sincere Christians disagree with you. Certainly the majority of the population in the developed world disagrees with your rather dated views.

[NorrinRadd]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaw’s discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. 'Public Accommodations', in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public.

You moved the goalposts from Constitution (14th Amendment) to Law (Civil Rights Act), which is subordinate to the Constitution.

The civil rights of one section of the population do not override the civil rights of another section of the population.

In such a case, SOMEONE'S rights MUST supersede someone else's.

[seer]

Since the only distinction is sexual identity, this fails before leaving the starting gate.

I rest my case. The moral code is based on genetic identity - which is NOT a basis for determining morality. This is a case of special pleading.

You can rest all you want, you are only offering an opinion. I have no idea what you mean by sexual identity, I'm speaking of sexual desire and sexual acts. Let's say that two gay women marry for tax or insurance reasons and remain celibate - I don't see that as necessarily immoral. Engaging in the sexual behavior is what is immoral.

[seer]

Really! What are these markers?

Really?

Sex offending is written in the genes, an unprecedented study has shown, with the brothers of men convicted of sex crimes five times more likely to commit a rape or assault than the general public.

The controversial finding suggests that some men are born with an increased risk of molesting children or carrying out a violent sexual attack.

Researchers at Oxford University and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden say the fathers and brothers of sex offenders could be offered psychotherapy to teach them relationship skills such as respecting boundaries and curbing aggression as a way of protecting the public.

Around 40 per cent of the risk of committing a sex crime is genetic, the research found, with the remaining 60 per cent down to personal and environmental factors, such as being abused as a child, upbringing, wealth and education.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...university-fi/

You are asserting personal opinion as fact. They are not.

And it is your opinion that this behavior is not immoral. So?

Many sincere Christians disagree with you. Certainly the majority of the population in the developed world disagrees with your rather dated views.

Yes Biblically illiterate Christians, and are you saying that something is moral because the majority says so?

[Sparko]

So his moral code is based on genetics. I find that reprehensible, and reminiscent of the laws and moral position we once had about mixed-race marriages.

No. It is based on the bible and behavior the bible says is sin. It is just as sinful for two women to be married as two men.

What he believes is of no account to me.

THAT's obvious.

Since his reason is based in assigning moral value to genetics - then it is flawed. Full stop. No qualifications.

This is simply you trying to recharacterize his faith into a format you can disagree with. You are playing semantic games. His reasons for what he does have everything to do with it. If he is refusing to make a cake because of the sex of the men ordering it, or their sexual orientation, then you could have a point. But if he is refusing to make the cake no matter who is ordering because he feels gay marriage (an ACT) is a sin and not even legitimate marriage, then he is protected by the first amendment. Your view on what he "actually" means is irrelevant. You are not only trying to mind read him, but actually replace his thoughts with your own!

Not sure what the relevance here is. All morality is relative/subjective. That you and others like you think you're an exception is irrelevant. You're not.

You are imposing your beliefs on him, and claiming that what he is doing is immoral and should be stopped when you don't even believe in objective morality so what he believes is moral or immoral doesn't have to align with your ideas, nor should he be punished for what YOU believe is immoral. If you believe it is immoral to be against gay weddings, then don't be against gay weddings. But don't impose your values on others.

I am surprised to hear you claim that legality trumps morality. The action of the baker is immoral. Right now SCOTUS has said it is legal. I disagree with their assessment, much as you probably disagree with Roe vs. Wade. For now, we have to live with it as it is. What is legal, however, is not always what is moral.

It is only immoral to YOU. Not to the baker. Not to me. Not to Christians. Not to the Supreme Court.

[carpedm9587]

You can rest all you want, you are only offering an opinion. I have no idea what you mean by sexual identity, I'm speaking of sexual desire and sexual acts. Let's say that two gay women marry for tax or insurance reasons and remain celibate - I don't see that as necessarily immoral. Engaging in the sexual behavior is what is immoral.

I have already responded to this. See my previous posts.

[seer]

I have already responded to this. See my previous posts.

No Carp, you are speaking of genetics, I'm speaking of behavior. You are speaking of a disposition I am speaking of an act. Like in my link to Tass, rape is genetically linked, that disposition is not immoral in and of itself, but if you act on that inclination then it becomes an immoral act.

[carpedm9587]

No. It is based on the bible and behavior the bible says is sin. It is just as sinful for two women to be married as two men.

I frankly do not care, Sparko. The bible is simply wrong, and the men who wrote it had the same error in their moral reasoning that you and those who think like you do.

THAT's obvious.

This is simply you trying to recharacterize his faith into a format you can disagree with. You are playing semantic games. His reasons for what he does have everything to do with it. If he is refusing to make a cake because of the sex of the men ordering it, or their sexual orientation, then you could have a point. But if he is refusing to make the cake no matter who is ordering because he feels gay marriage (an ACT) is a sin and not even legitimate marriage, then he is protected by the first amendment. Your view on what he "actually" means is irrelevant. You are not only trying to mind read him, but actually replace his thoughts with your own!

No - it is pointing out the the entire position "same-sex marriage is immoral" and "same-sex intimacy is immoral" is not sustainable, because it is rooted in defining an act as immoral because of the genetic identity of the participants. Historically, such moral codes have been overturned, as they were when the morality of the act was based on race.

You are imposing your beliefs on him, and claiming that what he is doing is immoral and should be stopped when you don't even believe in objective morality so what he believes is moral or immoral doesn't have to align with your ideas, nor should he be punished for what YOU believe is immoral. If you believe it is immoral to be against gay weddings, then don't be against gay weddings. But don't impose your values on others.

Oh for pity's sake, Sparko, stop whining. Anyone with a moral perspective is going to see someone who acts differently as moral or immoral. And everyone seeks to influence their society to act according to the norms they see as moral. You yourself want your moral norms to prevail, and want to see SCOTUS reverse the law on same sex marriage (you've said as much in other posts), thereby imposing your moral view on other people for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Now you object because I believe this man's moral position is immoral? You're not being consistent. If it's OK for you to point to same-sex couples and label them immoral, then there is no reason I should not be able to do exactly the same thing when I see something I believe is immoral.

It is only immoral to YOU. Not to the baker. Not to me. Not to Christians. Not to the Supreme Court.

You're right. It is immoral to me, and those who think like me. It is perfectly moral to you and those who think like you. So there is a conflict, which will either be resolved by discussion and reasoning, or (if that fails) it will be resolved by isolation/separation or conflict. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. In this case, that conflict is happening in the courts of law and has (so far) been moving in the direction of acceptance of same-sex couples. That may reverse for a while with the new composition of SCOTUS. However, the tide of public opinion has strongly turned, so if SCOTUS does act to deny those rights, we will probably see a responding shift to the left until nature of SCOTUS is changed. That is the pattern history shows us. Rights, in the U.S, tend to be extended - not contracted.