Originally posted by Pinoy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostI think you're right, CP: college has ruined me.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostI made absolutely no reference to religion in my post: I was making a purely secular argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostYou made no _explicit_ religious reference. Your assertion that marriages are inferior based on the gender of the participants is guided by your religious assumptions. Under US law, you have no right to impose your religious assumptions on those who do not share your faith.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostI am not here to split hairs, Mr. Spartacus. Just as you never explicitly made a religious claim, no, you never explicitly said "inferior." That does not mean that the context does not exist.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI think you have an axe to grind, and you're looking for these "slights".
Since I did not ask you this question, and the two I did ask either have not had time to respond or have chosen not to respond, let me ask you. Let us assume that churches are exempted from performing marriages that are contrary to their doctrines. When marriage equality passes, what right or rights have Christians lost, if any?
Comment
-
Outis, check out these links. These things are happening in the States as well as Canada.
And I am not trying to argue by weblink, but there are too many examples to place here and it's just easier if you read them yourself.
http://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians
http://www.afajournal.org/0407_crushing_dissent.asp
OLYMPIA, WA, April 10, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian florist in Washington state could be slapped with hefty fines because she refused to provide a floral arrangement for a gay “wedding.”
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed charges today in Benton County Superior Court.
On March 1 Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, refused to sell flowers to Robert Ingersoll for his “marriage” to Curt Freed.
“He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’" Stutzman said. She said it was the only wedding she had declined in 37 years.
But Ferguson said that stance violates the law.
“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
The state of Washington is seeking $2,000 in fines for every reported violation, as well as a permanent injunction requiring the shop to violate its conscience or stop selling flowers for wedding ceremonies.
Some of her neighbors in this very liberal state agree she should be compelled to sell flowers regardless of her religion.
One resident told KEPR-TV, “She doesn't have the right to say no.”
The station reported Stutzman has received death threats after her simple testimony of faith went viral.
OTTAWA, Ontario, 27 February, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada’s top court has released a unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Christian pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“It’s a bad day,” said Bill Whatcott to LifeSiteNews.com in an interview. “The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible. They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”
“It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over, as I know it. It means that the Christian Church is going to be libel for speaking the truth,” he said.
In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not directly attack homosexual persons. (The flyers are appended to the end of the decision linked above)
The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.
But the Supreme Court found that with regards to hate speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies.
Canada’s governor general, the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, signed into law yesterday a controversial measure opposed by religious believers and free-speech advocates who say it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.
The bill, passed 59-11 by the Senate on Wednesday, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
The House of Commons passed the bill in September, 141-110.
How many examples do you need? It won't matter how many we give you, you will still believe as you do now. And you will not change my mind, nor will you change the unchanging law of God.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostI am not here to split hairs, Mr. Spartacus. Just as you never explicitly made a religious claim, no, you never explicitly said "inferior." That does not mean that the context does not exist.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
So, the KKK can preach hate speech, and that's protected, but Christians are not allowed to preach against homosexuality?
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostOutis, check out these links. These things are happening in the States as well as Canada.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo, the KKK can preach hate speech, and that's protected, but Christians are not allowed to preach against homosexuality?
Yet they wrap their hate speech in their understanding of the Bible. [EDIT]
What is the difference?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostMr. Poke, you are far more aware of the law than to present such a ridiculous counter-argument. There is a radical difference in circumstance between a church that opens its doors for emergency relief, and a church who has turned their activities hall into a public venue.
Indeed, the "public venue" laws would not apply even to a church that had only opened its activities hall to other faith-related functions. In such a circumstance, they would still fall within the "religious freedom" exemptions. The "public venue" laws wuld only apply to a church that had regularly opened its grounds to secular activities.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBut you seem to assume that Churches are opening their doors and "venues" to ANY kind of wedding, and I don't think that's true
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Today, 08:14 PM
|
0 responses
7 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 08:14 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
|
11 responses
125 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 01:07 PM
|
||
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
34 responses
279 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 04:37 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
79 responses
485 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 04:46 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
Comment