Remaining True To Their Convictions
[guest post by Dana]
In an update regarding the Christian couple ordered to pay $13,000 in fines for refusing to host a gay wedding on their farm and posted about here, we learn that Cynthia and Robert Gifford have now chosen to close their business rather than violate their beliefs. They will host the weddings already scheduled, and then close the business. According to Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor:
”Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” he said.
–Dana
Some people are just bitter clingers and their religious beliefs are important to them, which is why they are protected in the constitution, but many folks have a hard time understanding that. Heck, the Colorado baker exited the wedding cake business after getting landed on by the state in order to remain true to his convictions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:37 amIsn’t a common form of religious persecution barring people from the economic marketplace?
This all stems from current liberals’ attempt to make “being a dick” to someone else, illegal.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:43 amthey’re absolutely still violating their beliefs
these people believe very very deeply that God has called upon them to discriminate against gay
and they have waled away from God’s calling
they do not have the courage of their convictions
think of all the gay people who won’t be led to Jesus by their encounter with the Gifford’s disdain and revulsion
Cowards.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:44 amgay *people* that should be
and also *walked*
sorry slept in today kind of groggy for it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:45 amSigh.
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:47 ami make us both a double nespresso Mr. nk
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:48 amI have read a number of people quote the words of Christ: “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you.” All of them leave off the last few words: “For My sake.” We come to a time in the history of the US that Christians who are persecuted for the sake of our Savior must take a stand. If that means ending the business that the government persecutes them over, then so gbe it. Congratulations to this family who put Christ first over their pocket books.
TimothyJ (a33d78) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:48 amIt’s a long weekend. I shall forgo this thread to avoid hf’s combination vitriol/tempered wif faux cutesy recipes and cupcakes references. Life is too short. Have a great weekend all.
Gazzer (26a83c) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:54 amthe fact that they hooked up with this Donald Wildmon / James Dobson lawfare group doea a lot to explain why they weren’t able to get a more reasonable settlement i think
the involvement and nature of Alliance Defending Freedom wasn’t part of the original story
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:56 amI always find it odd when people tell other people what their religion is supposed to mean. In the US alone we have something like 36,000 denominations of Christianity alone. Personally, I’d say that means the 1st Amendment protects people to believe what they want to believe. Essentially it means a freedom of association. Which has been obliterated by the Civil Rights Act (which has only gotten worse since the most recent passage). The Civil Rights act was seen by the SCOTUS as on its face, unconstitutional I believe…but allowed to survive due to extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, what was once dreamed up as a temporary nature has become permanent and been reinforced. (Never seen that happen before, right?)
It is important to note that in all these economic situations, the clash has occurred for a non-vital service. It ain’t Christian doctors refusing service.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:58 am*does* a lot
hey Mr. Gazzer you don’t see me discriminating against nobody
I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:58 am“In the short run”? I thought they were closing.
ghostofkeynes (f7a102) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:00 amMr. feets, why do people like you who’ve never read the Bible insist on lecturing people on Christianity?
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:04 amPaul to Corinthians, anybody?
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:04 amWe can have a reasonable about serving both God and Mammon. Or rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.
This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale was denied a law license in Illinois because of his religious beliefs. The court found that what he believed and practiced was in fact a religion but it was not compatible with the moral standard required of lawyers. His beliefs were described by the Court as “a gross deficiency of moral character”. They included “that a “racial holy war” is necessary to attain a “white world” without Jews and non-whites and to this end [his church] encourages its members to “populate the lands of this earth with white people exclusively”.
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:05 ama reasonable *discussion*
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:06 amSeriously, feets? You get to tell them what they’re beliefs are?
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:08 amcause these people are silly Mr. 57
we already looked at the numbers
about half of all gay people in America are religious and accept Jesus as their savior, if their religious affiliation follow roughly the same denominational breakdown as gen pop
so these momos are in large part discriminating against their own people
it’s friendly fire!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:10 am“the fact that they hooked up with this Donald Wildmon / James Dobson lawfare group doea a lot to explain why they weren’t able to get a more reasonable settlement i think”
Mr. Feets – Why does it tell you anything other than they got people to help defend their rights. Paranoid much?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:10 amfeets, they’re religious the same way Al Sharpton is. Christianity lite, now with half the commandments!
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:14 amnow who’s telling christians what their beliefs are Mr. 57
hint: it’s you!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:17 amI think it is still you happyfeet.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:20 amMr. Head making gay people feel like they’re not welcome to associate with Christians is not evangelism
it’s bigotry
and it’s wrong
I’m not saying there should be no penalties or what have you
but I will say that these people have a super-corrupt understanding of loving thy neighbor
they’re mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:24 amfeets, I don’t tell anyone what to believe. But I do own a Bible. I have an idea what’s in it. Your BS isn’t.
The nice thing about the Bible is that you don’t have to believe one word of it. But it is a book, and it says what it says.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:26 ami mean to say I don’t think people like these Giffords should have to pay fines and stuff
but as a Christian i feel like I’m called to repudiate this sort of mean-spirited prejudice in blog threads
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:27 amYour interpretation of what their faith means happyfeet. You could take a similar view of parents that cut off and cease association with drug addict children.
I’m not saying that these Christian businesses aren’t being mean towards these patrons. I’m saying that they should be free to be mean in these instances. Whether gay people are not welcome to associate with Christians may very well be true, but that does not mean the state should insert itself and start imposing fines and barring them from the economic marketplace.
I’d say a good example of these extreme situations is with the Amish community. If you want to associate with the Amish, you have to be a member of the Amish church. If a child leaves the church, they can’t even stop by for dinner anymore and are completely disowned from their families. Is it mean and cruel? Sure, but that’s the middle ground.
As long as no one is harming people physically or attacking their property, behavior like this should be largely allowed. There are exceptions to be made for needed services, such as medical.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:32 amJust FYI, I’m not a Christian myself.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:32 amI’m ALSO saying that they should be free to be mean in these instances Mr. Dejected
but I’m also saying that they’re wrong
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:34 amI misunderstood your statements above. If you believe they are simply dicks to gays and should be criticized for their actions, but not be fined and barred from the market place. I think that is exactly the approach that should be taken in these cases.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:39 ambut I will say that these people have a super-corrupt understanding of loving thy neighbor
😉
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:40 am“but as a Christian i feel like I’m called to repudiate this sort of mean-spirited prejudice in blog threads”
Mr. Feets – Is it wrong for the government to trample the religious beliefs of the Giffords when the government has a history of defending religious beliefs in other cases such as conscientious objector status when we had a military draft last century, conscience exemptions for pharmacists dispensing abortifacients, and requiring employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs of its employees, or is this the only area on which you have focused your staunch gaze of conservatism?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:46 amyes the government should tread more lightly in this area I think Mr. daley
it’s really way more up to christian leaders for example the Pope, Pastor Bob, and Preachers of L.A. to help their flocks understand that baking a cake or renting a venue for a gay marriage is just same same as all the other dealings we have with our fellow sinners everyday
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:55 amIt begs the question though…if you can refuse service for no shirt and no shoes. Why can people not refuse service for other reasons? Surely, no one would care if a baker refused to bake a cake for a porn shoot, but it would be the same reason for a refusal…a principled stance.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:04 pmNational Soros Radio has a whole story today on Rick Perry what makes not even a whisper of a mention of the Travis County D.A.’s Office’s sad fascist history of bringing shoddy and ultimately unsuccessful indictments of their political opponents
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:06 pmSo Mr. Feets, we got mean spirited religious peoples what are prejudiced against the military, mean spirited religious peoples what are prejudiced against killing little babies and mean spirited religious peoples which are prejudiced against handling bacon, spam, ham and alcohol as cashiers at supermarket checkouts, but you are all weee weeed up about religious people who don’t want to be forced into participating in gay weddings.
Something is not right with that picture.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:06 pmi’m not weedered nothing in real life these cases are super-uncommon
we’re only noticing them now cause of social media
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:10 pm‘Ethan Hawke*’ here, doesn’t get how the slippery slope becomes a slalom, as in Europe. where Christian preachers are put in prison, for preaching the gospel, which includes a whole bunch of
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:12 pm‘thou shall not’ yet they let Choudhary and other sorts, run free, and they have a whole fetish for
decapitation and stoning
tolerance is a curious thing, on Perfidious Albion,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/27/how-britain-made-james-foley-s-killer.html
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:16 pmMy favorite atheist had to have been Christopher Hitchens. I recall once he was being interviewed by some new age “Christian.” She was a pastor of some church in Oregon, and she wanted Hitchens to know she wasn’t one of those Christians. So she kicked off the interview by detailing all the baggage she didn’t come with. She was like you, feets, she was a cool Christian.
Hitches was having none of it. He told her that given all the things she didn’t believe, she really didn’t have any claim to being a Christian.
One of the things I find about British atheists is that they know their Bible. They consider it part of western civilization to know what’s in it. They don’t believe it, but they know it’s in there.
Like you, feets. I didn’t write the Bible. But Saul of Tarsus had a hand in it. When he wrote about who wouldn’t enter the Kingdom of God, he used words (among other words) like malakoi and arsenokoites. Had he simply been condemning having sex with young boys, and not homosexuality in general, there were words for that, too. Like paiderastes and paidophthoros. But he didn’t use those words, so his meaning is clear.
The new age Christians who try to gloss over his clear meaning tend to forget he spoke Greek better than they do.
They also gloss over the fact he was a Jew, a Pharisee, who studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. So no matter how much they try to convince themselves that maybe the Bible approves of committed gay relationships, there’s no getting around the fact that Paul knew the Pentateuch like the back of his hand. So you can’t not believe homosexuality is a sin if you’re a Christian.
You can look it up, feets. Even atheists can look it up.
I’m not gay. I’m also not a better person than gay people. There’s a lot of other stuff I’d like to do but I’ve read the rules. I don’t pretend the rules aren’t the rules.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:18 pmOne big plus to reading the Bible is that if you ever have to go to war in the Middle East is you know what spots to avoid because they’re prime real estate for an ambush. Really. They’re discussed in the Old Testament.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:21 pmThey are strikingly ignorant about every religion it seems, Paul did have a tough time of it, Acts 24-26, as he followed the law, yet the establishment of his day, wanted to kill him for his trouble,
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:23 pmhow is homosexuality any different than the sinfulness of not-gay people who get married
if hyper-discriminating oh-so-concerned-with Godliness people like the Giffords were sincere, they’d have EVERYONE fill out detailed questionnaires for so they could be assured that there were no sinners among those to whom they are willing to lease their venue
a lot of straight people are SUPER slutty you know and some of them even had SEX before marriage
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:26 pmwe’re only noticing them now cause of social media
you are even starting to sound like president obama now. my how you’re revolved!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:26 pm*with-Godliness* I mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:27 pmthese people believe very very deeply that God has called upon them to discriminate against gay
I’m probably wrong, but this is the most asinine thing I’ve read from Mr Feets in a while. They never discriminated against them because they were gay. The simply chose not to allow a ceremony they viewed as heretical on their property. They were willing to provide all their other services to the gay couple.
Suppose instead of gays it had been Nazis who wanted to get married in a ceremony that championed their Aryan-ness. Would a Jewish-owned venue be required to host them? I’m pretty sure it is legal in most states for Nazis to get married to each other.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:28 pmseriously
you wanna talk about asinine and then conjecture about Aryan Hitler Nazi weddings?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:31 pmWhy does everyone feed happyfeet when he trolls about religion, the Tea Party and, if I remember correctly, people from the south? He discriminates against them, in spite of what he said in post 11.
BradnSA (17ed68) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:32 pmwhaa?
i is a southern pikachu born and bred i like cornbread and biskits and if it broke round here we fix it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:38 pmI’d say Kevin M. is attempting to show an example of a comparable event where someone should be free to refuse service based on principles. You could accept the example at face value. It isn’t asinine, it is an example.
I guess a real world example was seen at a women’s conference held by women organizations and they refused to associate with conservative women that may have opposed their beliefs.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:39 pm#47. I’d call it dialogue. You don’t learn anything by constantly speaking to people you agree with.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:39 pmYou could accept the example at face value.
but Mr. Head I already said I don’t think anyone should be forced to offer services, just that it’s wrong to discriminate against gay people
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:45 pmThe Heckler’s veto reigns supreme these days. Gays and Muslims are making it work for them.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:47 pmDaleyrocks, you really need to explain how that whole protection by the Constitution thing worked out for the Giffords. First they were threatened, then they were sued, then they were fined and finally put out of business. The left once again shows the brutality of their form of tolerance. I guess they’re lucky their property wasn’t forfeit. Or maybe that’s next.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:47 pm#51. I know, but you called his example asinine. And he probably didn’t read all the 40 comments above his post. (At least I assume people don’t read all of them)
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:48 pmYou seem to be having trouble with this whole Christianity thing.
And I don’t blame you. It’s hard. I broke most to the commandments during one liberty in Thailand. The chaplain laughed at me when I showed up for services when the ship left port. He knew why I was there.
The Giffords aren’t judging anybody but themselves. They know that they can’t participate in a gay marriage. If you want to have a gay wedding, have at it. Just don’t rope anybody into it who can’t be involved because of their religious convictions. There is nothing “mean” about it.
It’s kind of like the Hobby Lobby case. People who don’t believe in Christianity but have heard about it tried to make it out like the Greens were passing judgement on people who want to use abortifacients. They weren’t. Their beliefs didn’t allow them to procure abortifacients, for themselves or anyone else. They pay people’s wages; if you want abortifacients buy them yourselves.
Just like the Greens aren’t interested in monitoring their employees, I’m sure the Giffords aren’t interested in doing background checks on their clients. But if you ask them up front to do X, and the Bible says they can’t do X, they have to say no. For instance, if they let people stay at their place overnight, they wouldn’t want to let some guy who called them looking for a place to cheat on his wife to spend a weekend with his neighbor’s bride.
You can of course easily get around that by keeping your mouth shut. Lots of people have secrets. But the thing about a gay wedding is it isn’t much of a secret. You can see it happpening, if one takes place on your farm.
I get around this by not catering events. We do take out. I don’t know if you’re having a gay wedding, sponsoring cock fights, or just having friends over to watch football. I don’t want to know.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:48 pm*…I broke most
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:50 pmtoof the commandments…*I doubt there is much to be learned from happyfeet
Labcatcher (61737c) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:51 pmI think the point is happyfeet, you believe it’s wrong to discriminate against gays, but is it wrong to discriminate against every group? Or is it just gays? Is it okay to discriminate against Nazis, KKK, communists?
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:53 pmthe Bible doesn’t say anything about renting farms to gay people for so they can get married you made that up
being mean to gay people isn’t Christian it’s just mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 12:57 pmnazis and kkks and communists are on the wrong track baby they weren’t born that way Mr. Hoagie
but gay people are just who they are same as everyone else and a lot of them are Christians same as the Giffords
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:02 pmA good taco shop, maybe, Labcatcher.
I’ve run into people like him before. Which is why I looked into what St. Paul really had to say about homosexuality. Because new age Christians are for some reason always trying to convince people that the old school Christians who think homosexuality is a sin are getting their Christianity wrong.
Shocka! The Bible wasn’t originally written in English. So you have to go to original text.
No, Paul really did have nothing good to say about homosexuality. He also had a whole laundry list of people you were supposed to discriminate against as long as they were doing what they were doing. You weren’t supposed to hang out with them, either.
Like I’ve said, I made the list on more than one occasion. It doesn’t do me any good to pretend otherwise. It’s in there, anybody can look it up.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:02 pmjust by being in the wedding venue business the Giffords are increasing competition and therefore lowering the cost of venue rentals making marginally-affordable gay marriages all the more feasible
man they better repent
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:05 pmfeets, the Bible says this:
1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:06 pmthat’s clear as clear can be Mr. 57
you can lease venues and Mr. Paul’s not going to care
and he didn’t even say anything specific about gay people so clearly gay people were not a top of mind concern when Mr. Paul was writing this
this letter is very specific to problems these Corinthian people were having back in the day
and they got it sorted out
good for them
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:18 pmDo not even eat with such people.
so confuzzling
the Giffords said it was ok to do the reception
maybe someone can explain the pseudo-christian logics by which baking a cake is participating in an amoral celebration of gay marriage but hosting a reception celebrating a gay marriage is hunk dory
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:20 pmWhat turns me against those who think this pegal action was right is tat somehow theynalways get around to asserting that these people BELIEVED THE WRONG THINGS.
Fuck that. If freedom of Religion does not protect the right to have unfashionable beliefs, tyen it protects nothing.
Bottom line; if you can explain to me why a Jewish caterer who survived the Holocaust should be compelled to serve a meeting of the American Nazi Party, then we can have a coversation.
C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:22 pmYes he did. I’ve even cited the actual Greek words he used when he was saying very specific things about gay people to the Greek people of Corinth. I’ve also cited the Greek words he didn’t use when writing in Greek to the Greeks of Corinth, to show what he could have said, but didn’t. That’s how specific he was.
It would be unpossible to be more specific than Paul was. Pretend all you want.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:25 pm#63 In defence of Mr feet I don’t think what the Bible says is a telling point with him.
Kevin M (f43ee4) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:26 pmThey also didn’t immediately stone the lesbians to death.
Heretics.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:27 pmKevin M @67, I’m picking up on that.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:28 pmyou’re only defending them cause you agree with them
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:29 pmAnd he causeth all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,
to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that
no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark.
And how much closer are we to the day when some government thinks that
this would be a good idea. To identify those who are loyal to the State
and adhere to the Laws Of the State to the exclusion of their God,
their family, to their forefathers?
And thus are deserving of partaking of commerce, receive medical assistance,
retain certain possessions, allowed to vote and ultimately the right to life.
The Technology is already available to impose such a regime, the willingness
to accept that it is justifiable to force a belief or creed on someone else
is a rising phenomenon among the citizenry.
All that it lacks is someone with the charisma to bring it to be.
jakee308 (ba1e65) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:30 pmAHAHAHAHAHA.
I was waiting for that.
Dana is such a superb troller.
Simon Jester (9d5892) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:30 pm#70, of course. To each their own. I think this is a great exercise to see the ethos of the individuals involved.
Simon Jester (9d5892) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:31 pmThe big news of day is that Michael Sam was cut by the Rams, but at least thanks to ESPN we do know that he did shower with the team while he was with the squad. I’m sure he will be receiving a call from our semi-retired president who should be off the links shortly.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:38 pmDaley, I kind of prefer the First D00d stay on the links as much as possible. I think he agrees.
Simon Jester (b4a032) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:46 pmIt will be interesting to see if the Rams now get attacked for cutting Sam. I hope not, but we’ll see.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:47 pmDurned Xtofascists. They’re everywhere.
I bet the people who did this even own a farm on which gay weddings have never taken place.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:53 pmI thought the religion in question was Christianity, not Paulity.
Freedom of association runs both ways, you can’t compel someone to associate with you. Or at least you shouldn’t be able to.
Big news in our house: Longmire (A&E) has been canceled. Sounds to me like we know where those Fox (and TNT and CW) programming people moved to.
htom (412a17) — 8/30/2014 @ 1:56 pmi love exercise it’s so fun
my mantra is “no zero days”
which, so far today kind of is
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:23 pmYou could almost call Chritianity “Paulity,” given how central St. Paul is to our understanding of Christianity. About half the acts of the Apostles are concerned with Paul.
As far as Michael Sam goes, he basically got the NFL version of a mercy $@%& from the Rams. I don’t recall all the details, but either a WR or DB did more reps on the bench press portion of the tryouts. Sam was 260 pounds, the other player was less than 200. When I was his age, I could have come close to matching his performance. And I was never anywhere near college football material let alone NFL (although I did play Rugby into my late 30s). I was also slow like Michael Sam, too.
It was tough for me to see what he brought to the table, other than being gay.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:25 pmThe Giffords were not denying their farm to sinners; they were denying their farm to people who wanted them to join them in something that is a sinful activity.
bridget (37b281) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:35 pmhaving a civil marriage ceremony gay or otherwise isn’t sinful bridget
what possible sin is occurring in such a situation?
that’s just weird
people are just making that up
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:40 pmMine, too. But not because I think exercise is fun.
Coming soon to a mall near you, just like in Nairobi.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/imminent-terror-warning-is-it-time-for-a-strategy-yet.php
If you learn nothing else from Bushido, learn this. You can not choose to have courage on the battlefield if you aren’t prepared to be courageous on your own tatami mats. And by that it means in your own living room. Like judgement day, you never know when the moment will arrive.
The Obama administration is of course in deep denial. Which means the jihad is just about in our laps. We’re on our own. So, keep in shape and maybe develop some skills.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:41 pmI see it isn’t just the Obama administration that is in deep denial, mr. feets.
What other parts of the Bible do you pretend don’t exist besides the stuff about homosexuality?
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:42 pmYou do realize that people can buy Bibles and read it for themselves, right?
They don’t even have to believe it. But it contains words, and those words actually have certain meanings.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:45 pmi made up the fun part – fake it til you make it
but c’mon where in the bible does it say getting gay married is a sin
that’s sinflation is what it is
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:51 pmhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/the-week-in-pictures-strategery-edition.php
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 2:51 pm“It will be interesting to see if the Rams now get attacked for cutting Sam. I hope not, but we’ll see.”
DejectedHead – As Mr. Feets says, he’s just like other people, except for the calls from the president, ESPN reporting on his showering habits and all the other media scrutiny and such.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:02 pmCould you imagine anything like this, in any other case
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/29/afsun-qureshi-the-muslim-prayer-that-might-save-your-life/
h/t Mark Steyn
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:08 pmi don’t really have any opinion on Mr. Sam but if he wants to get gay married to somebody then I think that’s swell
also if he doesn’t want to get gay married that’s fine too
maybe he just wants the cake and not the ceremony
that’s fine too
maybe he just wants the reception and some flowers
that’s also fine
my only advice for Mr. Sam is to stay really well-hydrated
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:10 pmI see my link to the new progressive Bible is still awaiting moderation.
It’s just the thing for happyfeet. Al Sharpton likes the revised, non-binding commandments, and you can’t ask for a more authoritative endorsement.
All the weird Christianity stuff has been edited out. All that’s left is just good old-fashioned religion-free religion.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:22 pmit still makes no sense – gay marriaging in and of itself is not an immoral or sinful act
either a gay marriage is a civil ceremony in which case religion doesn’t even come into it
or it’s performed by a pastor or priest of some kind in which case it’s just someone else having a christian ceremony that’s different than how your church does it
which happens all the time
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:27 pmAt the beginning of the American Civil War, the Bowie knife was popular on both sides, the Confederates favoring a version fitted with a D-shaped knuckle guard. This initial popularity in a way mirrored the original passion for the war in both the Union and Confederate States, and just like that enthusiasm, it died out as the conflict became longer and bloodier. By the end of the war both North and South had discarded their fighting knives, and after peace was declared the wearing of knives became distinctly unfashionable. By 1880, the true Bowie knife had disappeared.
Sad in a way.
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:35 pmHere’s the interview I mentioned earlier. In which a “liberal Christian” retired pastor tries to convince Christopher Hitchens that she’s one of the “good Christians” that doesn’t take the Bible all that seriously, and for that matter is an agnostic when it comes to whether or not God even exists.
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/book-and-talks/articles/religion-god-0110/1
Hitchens doesn’t buy it.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:50 pmnk, where did you get that about Bowie knives?
My understanding was that as guns got better, people decided they just didn’t need to haul around that much knife. It made sense when you had only a shot or two before you had to take the time to take the time to reload a muzzleloader. You don’t need a few minutes to reload a knife.
Steve57 (99bd31) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:54 pmHitchens is just merciless with the Sewell woman, if she knew Spanish she would say ‘No Mas’,
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/30/2014 @ 3:56 pmIt was the metallic cartridge. Not only faster reloading but more reliable and weatherproof. With the expiration of Colt’s patent in 1858 and Rollin White’s in 1868, the metallic cartridge revolver in many calibers and permutations became the belt weapon of choice. By 1880, the West had been tamed as well. The buffalo were gone, and the only wild Indians were the occasional Apaches jumping the reservation. Times change.
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:06 pmBut going back to the subject, how can the government pick and choose between religions? I linked the skinhead church guy above. What about these clowns? http://www.christianpost.com/news/devil-worshipers-confident-black-mass-in-oklahoma-will-happen-despite-petition-125547/
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:15 pmOf course this happened in New York state, where else could we see this kind of persecution except in a Blue state! Where liberal/Democratic policies show the same disdain for the 1st Amendment as they do for the 2nd Amendment.
Brad (d06972) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:19 pmnk, I loved your knife post. I used to carry a nice folding Spyderco knife, and was traveling quite a bit. So I didn’t carry it with me because of the TSA inspections. I got out of the habit of carrying it, for fear of losing it during airport inspections—and I have razor blades and scalpels in lab. Now I can’t find the knife—engraved from a friend. Sad times.
Simon Jester (9d5892) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:23 pmAs for the other, nk, it is another example of that fellow’s comment to me about multicultural poseurs (and poseurs in general): some folks would rather have a cause than an effect.
To have a cause, all you need to do is yammer on. You get to pat yourself on the back (topologically suspect) for being “correct” or “cool” or whatever. Look at the crazy, crazy stuff people have been saying the past twenty years or so, throughout the political system.
To have an effect takes work, thought, and commitment. You have to walk the walk, put in the time, research deeply, and stand up not just emotionally, but rationally, for your position.
Sadly, we seem to value the two strategies as if they are equivalent. It also appears to depend on the Progressive/Conservative Talking Point in question.
Sad times indeed.
Simon Jester (9d5892) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:28 pmToday’s first reading at Mass is perfect for this topic. Make a note of it Happy.
Reading 1 Jer 20:7-9
You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped;
you were too strong for me, and you triumphed.
All the day I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.
Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage is my message;
the word of the LORD has brought me
derision and reproach all the day.
I say to myself, I will not mention him,
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:31 pmI will speak in his name no more.
But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it.
tomorrow is another day Mr. felipe
the only constant is change
judge not that ye be not judged
a man will beg a man will crawl on the sheer face of love like a fly on a wall
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:42 pmfeets, do you not realize that to Catholics (such as this couple), marriage is a sacrament? And that profaning a sacrament is a very serious sin? I think that part is missing from your calculus.
Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:44 pm3 % of the population is telling me what they are going to do, where they are going to do it and what i’m supposed to bake for them.
mg (31009b) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:45 pmHA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Lord help us, now.
I would say then Mr. B that the vast bulk of marriage profaning going on in America is being committed by straight couples having civil ceremonies, which I bet the Giffords have no problem hosting
this whole sacrament profaning thing is just something people use to rationalize their own bigotry I think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 4:53 pmBlatantly untrue happyfeet. Christians have three sacraments: baptism, confirmation and marriage. No rationalization it’s just what it is. No one says one must be a Christian, nor that they even need think Christians are right. But no one has the right to tell a Christian how to practice his faith even if one disagrees.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:08 pmCatholics actually have 7 sacraments: baptism, communion, confession and confirmation, which are obligatory for all; extreme unction, which one should undergo but which might not be possible due to circumstances; and marriage and ordination, each optional (the second optional only for males).
Basta (afae51) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:22 pmChristian and Jewish medical doctors have, since the early 1980’s, treated AIDS and HIV patients and researched to find therapies and drugs to lessen the wasting and suffering of these patients. Our own MDinPhilly has said he’s been doing this even though he is clearly aware of the sexual behaviors and practices that contributed to it, and has stated he believes those practices are dangerous, and also from his Christian upbringing that those behaviors constitute sin. Yet these doctors never hesitate to treat homosexuals whom they know engage in homosexual acts. And the doctors accept money for doing it.
Are the doctors just better people, or better Christians, or does the Hippocratic oath supersede other interests or values? Why can they treat gay people on a very intimate basis without feeling they are untrue to their religious convictions, or worrying that they are condoning homosexual behaviors — but a few one-off cake bakers or wedding dress sellers or event venue owners seem to think they’re only able to be “true to their religious convictions” if they publicly decline to participate?
Look, I despise the bullying and use of courts by gay activists to prove a point. I hate that in any number of areas business owners are increasingly forced to do things (or not do things) by the government and courts. That’s an important conversation about freedom and Constitutional rights and I get that. But the thrust of the comments posted on this thread are mostly about religion and other people living up to one’s own understanding about what the Bible says about homosexuality, and making heroes or martyrs out of the Giffords. As far as having an objection that leads to fines or ultimately even deciding to go out of business, nobody will ever convince me that voluntarily and professionally selling a dress if that is your business, or accepting the booking for an event if that is your business, is going to land the business owner in eternal hell, or should cause their conscience a minute’s unease, or put them out of favor with the Lord’s commandments. I just wish they could follow the lead of the doctors and provide the products and services without drama and with calm professionalism. IOW to me, the wedding dress hill and the cake hill seem like very very strange and futile hills on which to die.
elissa (bb0e28) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:29 pmSteve, the money quote for me from the link to the Hitchens interview is this:
“Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff”.
This guy has been betrayed and turned off by inauthentic Christian witness. His repeated references to Pascal tell me that he is yearning for authenticity. He is not a lost cause. But repeated exposure to the likes of Sewell have quite hardened him.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:36 pmThat was very well said, Elissa.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:38 pmnobody’s telling Christians how to practice their faith it’s just the way some of them are doing it they look like assholes
there’s nothing wrong with noting that
people are talking about it in real life you know
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:39 pmWhat felipe said, elissa.
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:43 pmElissa, what drives the discussion in this thread is the characterization of good, hardworking, and well-intentioned people as “bigots,” of course.
I am by no means a good Christian, but I know Luke 6:42 quite well.
And that comment is one everyone can benefit from; I am not harassing anyone in particular, much as I dislike hearing people I respect and listen to called “bigots” repeatedly.
Simon Jester (bd20c7) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:46 pmBecause elissa, treating a person medically for any problem, including a gun shot wound gotten while committing a felony is what doctors do. A good Christian doctor will not turn anyone away regardless of the how’s or why’s. Christ healed sinners, so do doctors. But Christ did not participate in the sin, neither do doctors. The doctors arrive after the sin. Now ask a good Christian doctor to perform and abortion and you’ll get a different result. Then they are arriving before the sin.
The key word being “participate“. If they were asked to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian’s birthday they’d do it. Hell, they’ve done it. They have gay customers they just refuse to PARTICIPATE in what they feel is a sin.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:48 pmSimon, I’m waiting for this one, I just ordered it. http://www.wildbillwholesale.com/rorilotramji1.html It’s the closest in my mind to the one Matt Helm carried until he had to leave it behind in The Interlopers. Not too big, one-handed opening, unlocks by pushing down on the small blade, old-fashioned style. Has a thumbhole similar to your Spyderco. It looks good on the internet, and the price is certainly right.
I’m queer for knives.
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:50 pmnobody’s telling Christians how to practice their faith it’s just the way some of them are doing it they look like assholes
Whereas assessing a $13,000 fine on people who do not wish to have burlesques performed on their property makes you a ‘non-asshole’.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:55 pmThe thrust of the comments are about religion because the case is about religion. However, it’s not about other people living up to one’s own understanding, it’s about them (the Giffords) being free to live up to their own understanding. And I for one am not making a hero out of the Giffords, I’m just acknowledging their right to the free practice of religion. And martyrs die for their faith, not leave the business. That’s why they’re martyrs.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:56 pmbut a few one-off cake bakers or wedding dress sellers or event venue owners seem to think they’re only able to be “true to their religious convictions” if they publicly decline to participate?
Good God, you are obtuse. Caring for the seek is an antique apostolate. Providing a facilty for silly simulacra of the sacrament of marriage is not.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:57 pmThe Catholic Liturgy of the Word is a most beautiful work of the faithful. We get a reading from the Old Testament, then a Psalm, a second reading from the New Testament and then the Gospel reading from the New Testament. All four have a common thread. Let those who have ears listen.
See comment #102 for first reading.
Responsorial Psalm ps 63:2, 3-4, 5-6, 8-9
R/ (2b) My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
O God, you are my God whom I seek;
for you my flesh pines and my soul thirsts
like the earth, parched, lifeless and without water.
R/ My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
Thus have I gazed toward you in the sanctuary
to see your power and your glory,
For your kindness is a greater good than life;
my lips shall glorify you.
R/ My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
Thus will I bless you while I live;
lifting up my hands, I will call upon your name.
As with the riches of a banquet shall my soul be satisfied,
and with exultant lips my mouth shall praise you.
R/ My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
You are my help,
and in the shadow of your wings I shout for joy.
My soul clings fast to you;
your right hand upholds me.
R/ My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
The second reading:
reading 2 rom 12:1-2
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God,
to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice,
holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.
Do not conform yourselves to this age
but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,
that you may discern what is the will of God,
what is good and pleasing and perfect.
The Gospel reading:
Gospel mt 16:21-27
Jesus began to show his disciples
that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly
from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him,
“God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
He turned and said to Peter,
“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
Then Jesus said to his disciples,
“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself,
take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world
and forfeit his life?
Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory,
and then he will repay all according to his conduct.”
Get behind me, Happyfeet!
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:57 pmnk, then you might enjoy this site.
Gazzer (26a83c) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:59 pmhttp://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/
nk, please don’t tell my academic colleagues, but as a teenager, I used to have a set of throwing knives I practiced with nightly. Silly. But I enjoyed it (though I worried my poor mother). Lost them when I went to college—funny, they didn’t want me to have throwing knives on campus.
This is the Spyderco knife I have lost:
http://www.spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=16
I have a BEAUTIFUL damascus blade I picked up in Alaska. Looks a lot like this, but with an elk horn grip:
http://ruthknives.com/knives/WpatternDamasacusHunter.jpg
And someday—ah, someday—I want a meteoritic iron knife.
http://hiwaay.net/~dfronfld/metknife.jpg
But then, I adore meteorites.
I won’t quite as far as you in my love of knives. But I certainly flirt like crazy with them.
Simon Jester (bd20c7) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:00 pmthe fine was wrong Mr. Deco I hate the finings part
the proper punishment for the Giffords is I make the comments and other people also chime in with what they think about it, even if it scandalizes poor Mr. Jester
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:03 pmLa Scarola on Grand is awesome.
JD (3845bd) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:06 pmSimon. I just (last month) purchased a blade very similar to that Damascus blade, for my brother who likes knives, while on a visit to Sedona. small world.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:07 pmbookmarked
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:08 pmMr. Feet, I have not been harassing you. I think you have done a fabulous job of showing your own intolerance, bigotry, and lack of deep thought…. and that isn’t just my opinion.
Lots of people don’t like me. Lots of people whom I like and respect think you are the bees knees. I will leave you be, and you need not reply to me. Best wishes, truly.
Simon Jester (bd20c7) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:08 pmFelipe, I loved the knife I bought in Juneau a few years ago. Sadly, I couldn’t buy it and get back on the cruise ship. It had to be TSA’ed all over again. Funny, huh? But it is lovely, lovely thing.
My wife bought me a fantastic volcanic glass knife that is to die for. Beautiful in the light. It’s made in the same way as our ancestors used to…which amazes me no end. I could do surgery with it…so I have to be really careful with the item.
Simon Jester (bd20c7) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:11 pmHow was the concert, JD?
nk (dbc370) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:20 pmI had a nice little Victorinox Rambler Swiss Army knife with the tiny scissors and wee file and can opener attached in a cute blue case and they confiscated it at the Lima Peru airport security check- in. That’s pretty much my only experience with non-cooking type knives and, sadly, it was a bad experience.
elissa (bb0e28) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:23 pmbest wishes to you too in these waning days of summer Mr. Jester
today was stupid hot to where i stayed home and did laundry instead of hiking like i’d planned
not just hot but it was one of those days where the sun is entirely too bright
and i told you about how dirty the pool is
now it’s not just dirt but algae too!
the new owners here suck ass I think and I’m not just saying that cause they jacked up everybody’s rent
enjoyed starting Downton last night – I’d saved it and saved it and now that True Blood’s over and done I guess it was just time – i have to rewatch episode 4 tonight cause i dozed off, but i was hooked immediately
been thinking about the possible upcoming move
what to do with my plants?
i might try moving some of them but some of the more spectacular ones are altogether too intricate and fragile to seriously contemplate such a thing
I was going to knock on D’s door downstairs and see if she’d like to take her pick then I noticed all her patio plants are very quite dead
well I have time to think on it
better close of as I’ve a few chores left before I surrender altogether to the beckoning leisure of the evening
yours,
happyfeet
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:25 pmI know, elissa. That was my fear.
Simon Jester (bd20c7) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:25 pmclose *off* i mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 6:56 pmGood decision – Close down a business, lose income, lose jobs and in general spread less happiness to people so we can be right with the invisible man in the sky.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:01 pm“The key word being “participate“. If they were asked to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian’s birthday they’d do it. Hell, they’ve done it. They have gay customers they just refuse to PARTICIPATE in what they feel is a sin.”
They’re not invited to the wedding.
ghostofkeynes (f7a102) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:04 pm@ Chuck 104
Many people have beliefs at the utmost sincerity. This does not make them right.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:05 pmthe business isn’t closed down
they were doing about 12 weddings a year
and in the venue business weddings are your biggest headache anyways
also these people live in the sticks to where it’s highly unlikely they were ever going to become some kind of gay wedding mecca – they could’ve just said hey ok you guys have your wedding outside and your reception inside and we’re gonna bend over backwards to make sure everyone has a GREAT time you know why?
cause we love what we do
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:06 pmAs is your habit, when you are proven wrong on a point, you just move the goalposts. Let’s recap…
You said there was nothing inherently immoral about same-sex marriage. I pointed out that Catholics most certainly do think same-sex marriage is immoral, and you brought up this red herring about civil ceremonies.
Look, I get that you think same-sex marriage is great, and I get that you think everyone should feel exactly like you on this issue. What I don’t get is your constant obfuscation of legitimate points.
Chuck Bartkowksi (3e0e89) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:17 pmI’m not debating whether Catholics are right or wrong on this issue. Merely that Catholics consider it immoral.
Chuck Bartkowksi (3e0e89) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:18 pmYes based on your constant repetition of this theme, I finally get it. People decide they hate gays, then they hear the Bible condemns homosexuality, so then they pretend to become a Bible believing Christian as part of some elaborate deception in order to have some justification for hating gays. Or maybe they actually DO become a Bible believing Christian since they figure it must be correct based on their hatred of gays. But which of those two is it? The first or the second? You must know the answer.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:19 pmthat’s a lot of dominoes to fall Mr. A
people should just treat other people with courtesy and respect not like they’re disgusting sinful sacrament-profaning filth
ready….. GO!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:21 pmIrony spill on aisle #136
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:26 pmWhat dominoes? You understand exactly what’s going on with these people Mr feet. Why don’t you fill us in?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:30 pmready….. GO!
And Happy falls flat right out of the gate.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:30 pmTrue. Your beliefs aren’t right.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:31 pmNow there is a point, that Paul is addressing all sexual immorality, and he well understands ‘I do what I don’t want to do,’ and vice versa, however, the horses went out of the barn on plain vanilla
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/30/2014 @ 7:40 pmadultery around 1970, so we are slaloming toward the more exotic varieties,
Gil never fails to crawl out from under his rock to get his intolerance of religion on.
JD (f69330) — 8/30/2014 @ 8:00 pmHey Gil, I suggest you read two things.
1) The very first amendment to the United States Constitution.
2) The Apostle Paul (who is only a saint because every single true Christian who ever lived and does live now is a saint (difference between Protestant and Catholic) who wrote if everything he and other apostles and Jesus and the Old Testament writers wrote is not true, then Christians are the most sadly harmed.
Okay, a third thing, since you are so intent on mammon and sinfulness.
3) You cannot serve both Providence and Mammon. You will either love the one or hate the other.
So go ahead and be George Soros (the uber-wealthy Leftist convicted criminal Jew who helped the Nazis steal from the Jews for his own benefit).
People like Christopher Hitchens and happyfeet are both cancerous cells in the body Humanity, except that Christopher Hitchens had respectable qualities.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:02 pmhi nice to meet you
i’m a cancerous cell in the body of humanity
yeah call me
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:03 pmHey, aphrael! Where are you? Maybe you can come in here, if only to declare that people have pointed directly at you to show they respect you as a debater and want more debaters like you. Maybe that would make cancers like happyfeet shut the sheol up. Maybe not, because cancers like happyfeet never subject themselves to logic. It’s all childish tantrums with them.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:08 pmDoggone it, I left an open parenthetical in 148. Here, put this ) in where it belongs. A personal pet peeve, open parentheticals are.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:10 pmyou speak the language of genocide very eloquently Mr. H
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:15 pmAnd you lie very incessantly, happyfeet.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:24 pmwhere did i lie?
lying takes way more effort than I’m usually willing to put in you know
good for me if true
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:26 pmHere’s the deal, happyfeet:
You are a liar. Your under-age-three chosen style is not pleasing to the eye when you are busily lying about people or when your huge bigotry toward true Christians or your huge bigotry toward Sarah Palin (a true Christian) spews forth. Your complete emotionalism and your dearth of logic is a combination that is not becoming at all.
I admit I am not practicing Christian values in this sentence, but FOAD, GFO, STFU, ESAD. Or, as Jesus more properly said while facing Peter (and not actually to Peter himself) “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:28 pm
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:30 pmGFOGFYWhere did you lie? You lied about Christians. And you do, incessantly. You lied about Sarah Palin, and you do incessantly. You lied about specific people in this thread, myself included, and you do incessantly. Because you are a bigoted liar. It’s what you are.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:32 pmswallow a little of that sea
now taste a little bit of that salt in me
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:33 pmMore accurately, you are a Christian-hating, Bible-hating, Jesus-hating, Paul-hating, Moses-hating, Peter-hating, John-hating, Abram-hating liar. I could list other apostles and prophets among the list of those you hate, based on your hatred of the Bible.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:35 pmSorry, although I can see the salt water from my hotel, I have not yet dipped my toes in the Bohol Sea. But I plan to do so before my vacation is over.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:38 pmi still don’t get where i lied
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:41 pm@Chuck 139
I totally understand. My point is that they consider it immoral is irrelevant.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:43 pmFor example a devout (extreme) muslim may consider it immoral not to perform an honor killing – it is not wrong to force them not to do so.
Those who refuse to believe the Truth will be sent a powerful delusion such that they cannot believe the truth.
Look it up, deluded one. And you know for a fact that you lied, so your claim that you can’t see where you lied is, itself, a lie.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:43 pmGil, even pretzels have a form and logic behind them. You might want to give it a try. I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:45 pmis that some kind of kabbalah thing?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:49 pm“Like nailing Jell-O to a wall”. Gil is that Jell-O that was washed back and forth in a child’s mouth, to be spewed out more formless and stability-free than an amoeba.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:49 pmi hold the lock and you hold the key
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:49 pmHappyfeet, the Bible very clearly calls homosexuality an abomination. To say otherwise is to lie. To claim Christians who do not take part in a public pronouncement of a government-sanctioned continuation of abomination are being unChristian is to lie. To claim an abominable government-sanctioned act is acceptable to Providence is to lie. It is a very direct rejection of a very direct proclamation of Providence. To claim otherwise is to lie.
And that is what you are doing: lying. And as Jesus Himself said, you are serving your father, the Father of Lies. (The Lord of the Flies.)
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:56 pmhomosexuality is no threat to christendom and if it is
i tell you what
christendom needs to man the eff up
precious monkeys
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 10:58 pm@145 Gerald
Care to elaborate?
@147 JD
Religion is only an early attempt at explaining things. This particular brand (Christianity) was brought to us by iron age peasants who knew very little about reality. I’ts not that I don’t tolerate it, but I do ridicule it. The amount of time it wastes, and people it preoccupies is staggering. Imagine the progress we could make without it
@148 John H
Case in point.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:02 pm1. What part of the first amendment are you claiming supports you? The freedom of religion? Surely you must recognize there are limits to that. For example what about religious cults with forced child marriage? Imagine any hypothetical religion as a thought experiment, maybe one that demands child sacrifice. Is that protected by the 1st amendment?
2. WAT!
3. Lollerskates.
And there you go. Happyfeet very clearly rejecting the Bible and mocking Providence. And not only that, telling Providence to Man The F Up. Because Providence is the essence of Christianity. Despite happyfeet’s false claims to be Christian, he very clearly IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:02 pm@John 164
Yes and what logic have you used to determine that the Bible is true? I wonder if it is in the from of a circle.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:05 pmYou’re a f—ing liar, happyfeet. You know very well that this is not true, and that they do not discriminate against gay people at all.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:05 pmWhat progress could man make without Christianity? The 2nd World Countries tried that. And failed miserably.
Venn diagrams would make Gil lose his mind, if he ever had one to begin with.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:05 pmMr. Milhouse that comment was satirical
yes i know very well that is not true
these people are not that clever
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:09 pmI’m surprised nobody brought up the old chestnut “hate the sin but love the sinner”. Or for happy’s sake “Don’t be mean.”
If you’re a good Christian (so, that leaves me out) you tell the person who wants the gay cake for the porn wedding (or whatever it is) “Sorry, as a practicing {fill in religious denomination here} I am obligated to decline the opportunity to {insert whatever product or service was requested} for your {whatever celebratory occasion}. However, let me recommend the services of {list 3 competitors} who I understand provide excellent {product/service} and would probably be delighted to work with you on your {celebratory occasion}.”
Would that be OK with you happyfeet? The Christian has to do what the Christian has to do, just like John Wayne said (sorta). But he can do it gracefully and with a little tact. Same thing if you go to Kasseem al-Hasseem’s halal butcher shop and ask for a pulled-pork sandwich. “Sorry, we don’t offer that here, want to try the falafel??” So much nicer than pulling out the scimitar and beheading the filthy infidel.
A_Nonny_Mouse (514dff) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:09 pmvenn diagrams – exactly
these momos in new york think a venn diagram of christians and gay people form a null set
the charitable explanation is these people live in the boonies and don’t get out much
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:11 pmomg mouse person that’s a lot of words give me a sec here
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:12 pm@173 Millhouse
Lets break it down to a very basic level. Hetero couples are welcome to have weddings hosted. Homosexual couples are not. This seems to be the very definition of discriminating. Beyond calling people liars, can you explain why you do not consider this to be discrimination?
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:12 pmA_Nonny_Mouse, I did “pull that chestnut” out. See my 150.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:13 pmno that’s not cool mouse person
porn wedding?
do you people get some cable channel I’m missing?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:14 pmGil, selecting a Porterhouse steak over a Round steak is discrimination. Care to explain how it isn’t?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:14 pmSelecting a lunch that tastes good and is filling over a Moochelle Fascist-approved lunch is discrimination. Care to explain how it isn’t?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:16 pmWhy are you not saying it? After all, it’s clearly true. They aren’t being mean to anyone. They’re willing to do business with anyone, gay or straight, christian or pagan or atheist. What they’re not willing to do is commit a sin, by becoming accomplices to a parody of a Christian wedding. (This becomes an even worse sin if their form of Christianity counts marriage as a sacrament.)
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:16 pmSelecting a Caesar Salad over a ham sandwich is discrimination. Care to explain how it isn’t?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:17 pm@176 Nonny
Hey Nonny. I agree with you what you proposed is a much nicer way of rejecting people. But this pulled pork analogy doesn’t work. Pork isn’t on the menu in the first place. At the wedding business “weddings” are “on the menu”. The issue becomes the Christian (as innocent as their reason may be) wont provide that specific service to an entire class of people.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:18 pmNo, it is not. It is the same as selling a lockpick to a burglar.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:18 pm“accomplices to a parody”
omg I was an accomplice to a parody of a christian wedding today
Yeah we heard. So why are you sitting here? You know we have to cast you out of the village.
Yes. I know.
Well grab your crap, harlot.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:19 pmOr so he claimed, and Christians sort of have to believe him, becaues if he was a liar than Christianity needs to be completely rethought. Not being a Christian, though, I don’t believe he was a Pharisee, or ever met Rabban Gamliel the Elder, or of the tribe of Benjamin. His story makes a lot more sense if one assumes that he lied about his background.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:24 pm@John (174 and various sandwich discrimination questions)
This is the best you can do? So far you have supported your position by:
1. Asking me to read the 1st amendment
2. Asking how else could man make progress without Christianity
3. Claiming that venn diagrams are confusing to me
4. Asking nonsense questions about sandwiches.
Where is the hard logic? I thought you were upset at me for not using logic. I ask again what logic did you use to determine that the Bible is true?
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:24 pmAccording to the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, a choice, unnatural, a sure-fire one-way ticket to Sheol. To partake in an event celebrating a sinful, unnatural, abominable damned (true definition) activity is to intentionally sin.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:24 pmGil, you can play all those games, trying to make a word a bogeyman all you want. And then you can play other games that would make the ancient Greeks kill you (see Greek history regarding terrible rhetoric) all you want. Won’t change the fact you have absolutely no logic behind anything you say.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:26 pmthis idea that christians somehow own the whole wedding concept for all america is super-almost-hello-kitty-cute when you reflect on the fact that Jesus himself wasn’t big on the whole marriage thing
and neither was this Paul o’ Tarsus feller
kooky
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:27 pmIt isn’t. But mixed-sex marriage is not itself a sin; on the contrary, it’s a good deed, and remains good regardless of what other sins the couple may commit. Same-sex marriage is a sin even if the couple are otherwise saintly people, who have never in their lives done anything else wrong.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:27 pmExactly, and feets knows this perfectly well. He’s just choosing to ignore it.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:29 pm1) History of the spread of Christianity
2) The wealth of nations
3) The freedom of individuals within nations
4) The rejection of Christianity
5) The spread and acceptance of atheism and anti-theism
6) The spread of the anti-Christian and anti-Jew Mohammedanism
Create a three-dimensional (or four-dimensional) Venn Diagram.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:30 pmWatch Gil’s head explode.
@John 182
Just so you don’t imagine victory on this subject:
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:30 pmI never claimed that it isn’t discrimination. I agree with you in this example I (picking the Porterhouse) would have discriminated against the Round steak. Happily we don’t have to worry about discriminating against dead slabs of animals.
Jesus wasn’t big on the whole wedding thing? Tell me, o liar, where was Jesus’ first miracle?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:35 pmSo you are admitting that “discrimination” is not the bogeyman you tried to make out it was. Do you want to try a different bogeyman?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:37 pmMr. Milhouse the miniscule percentage of mankind what is gay is, to my knowledge, a miniscule percentage of at most 2%
and the percent of that two percent what’s gotten married or is engaged or is contemplative of engagement is … christ
it’s a picayune number of people
so why does this threaten a subset of christians to where they react so viscerally (and rudely)?
it’s weird
gay people pose no threat to christians whatsoever
what are they gonna do? gay the christendom out of existence?
wtf?
chill.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:39 pm@John
None of what you listed is logic.
1) History of the spread of Christianity
History is not logic. Just because one particular cult lasted long and fooled many people doesn’t make it true. Evidence makes it true. Eye witness testimony (even if you had it) is unreliable. For example take Sathya Sai babba – he has 100s of thousands or more followers today that consider him to have supernatural powers.
2) The wealth of nations
3) The freedom of individuals within nations
Correlation does not causation – that we are wealthy or free because of the bible does not follow.
In fact it could be argued there is plenty of wealth/freedome in other parts of the world as well.
4) The rejection of Christianity
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:40 pm5) The spread and acceptance of atheism and anti-theism
6) The spread of the anti-Christian and anti-Jew Mohammedanism
These 3 things have nothing to do with logically determining the bible is true.
Nice John. I am admitting that discrimination against dinner items is not a bogeyman. Against classes of people it is.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:41 pmatheism is stupid Mr. Gil I know cause atheists write crappy poetry whereas christians write awesome poetry
the world is charged with the grandeur of god
hell yeah it is
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:42 pmWe don’t have to worry about discriminating in regard to our food? Michelle Obama and the rest of the Socialist/Fascist Left (read current Democrat leadership) would disagree.
Do we have to worry about discriminating in regard to our attire? A myriad of magazines and TV shows (hello, What Not to Wear) would have something to say about that.
Do we have to worry about discriminating in regard to entertainment value? (The Voice, America’s Got Talent, Emmy, Oscar, Dove, etc)
Do we have to worry about discriminating in regard to health insurance policies? (ObamaCare)
Do we have to worry about discriminating in regard to trustworthy individuals (Brett Kimberlin, Willy Schmalfeldt, Neal Rauhauser, Roman Polanski, Barack Obama, George Soros)
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:45 pm“Classes of people” refers to what, in your book? People who make choices? Such as to be Christian? Or only people who make choices you of which you approve?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:46 pmRoman Polanski is indeed a constant worry
[doublechecks deadbolt]
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:47 pmAs a person who is part Caucasian, part Indian (feather), part Latino (Mexican) who has chosen to date Asians and has a half black grandson, I have covered the real “classes of people” BS you try to spew. Because I don’t classify people in groups like that. If you choose to act in an abominable way, that is your CHOICE. It is a CHOICE that I do not have to support in any way.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:50 pm@John
I beg to differ. Everything I have said uses real world examples, and concepts. Not games. You choose to address them only by saying “that’s illogical” without saying why. Sounds to me like you are on the shaky ground here. You are pulling concepts out of the air without justification besides “someone said so 2000+ years ago, and we know its true because look at all these good results today” Its nothing more than taking an answer you want and working backwards from todays facts to get there. Im sad for you really. I have to sign off now.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:52 pmI gotta say, I recently got a message that threatened me with SWAT. It’ll be kinda difficult to SWAT me, but there might be other individuals at that locale that could suffer from it.
Recently, as in a couple days ago. By an individual whose IP anonymizer likes Europe.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:53 pmGil, you said, and I paraphrase “look at all the progress we would have made without Christianity” and I produced the information necessary to make a Venn Diagram that would make your head assplode. It’s not my fault you’re an illogical ignoramus.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:55 pm@John 210
I said “imagine the progress we COULD make” its very different.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:00 amAn example might be to imagine if Chic-fil-a was open on sundays. BAM right out of the box we get about 15% more productivity just right there.
Imagine all of the mindless zealots denying science today – imagine their minds open to explore the mysteries out there and the inventions / discoveries that could be made.
It has nothing to do with the current state of world affairs.
It’s a question of line-drawing, and how one thinks of a wedding. Where I come from, a “wedding” means the whole affair, from the horse-doovers and drinks before the ceremony, through to when the band knocks off and the last stragglers go home. Last week I went to a wedding that started at 4:00, with the ceremony at 5:30, but I didn’t show up until 8:30, around when the main course was being served. I still thought of myself as having attended the wedding, not as having missed it. But some people only think of the ceremony itself as the wedding, and think of the party that follows it as a separate occasion.
I would suppose that the baker thinks of the dinner as part of the wedding, and therefore sinful, while the Giffords think of them separately (especially if they’re to take place in different venues), and therefore don’t see the party as sinful, even if its purpose is to celebrate a sinful marriage that has just taken place. Thus their conscience is OK with enabling the party, but the baker’s is not.
Now if the same person were to be willing to rent the venue for the party, but not to bake a cake for it, then I would share your puzzlement.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:01 amchristianity exists it’s a thing Mr. Gil
and it makes for good poetry and happy families
i give it two thumbs up
i just don’t get why they’re so hung up on gay people
it’s one of the most impenetrable mysteries of our age
it’s just weird
of all the things to worry about
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:01 amAtheism is stupid. There is plenty of evidence, despite some asshat’s claim otherwise.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:03 amReincarnation is stupid. All those who believe in reinc that I’ve heard of have been famous historical individuals in the past; none of them have been “bring out your dead” cart-pushers.
Veganism is stupid. Too many nutrients are missed without modern technology, and we have meat-tearing teeth and not cow teeth.
Man-made glow-ball warming alarmism is stupid. The actual (unvarnished) facts prove it.
Socialism is stupid. People die in massive numbers (even without the 100+ million killed by the leaders).
Happyfeet has to throw out the entire Talmud and at least half of the New Testament to make his claim, thus he is what is called an “a la carte Christian”. Something no actual Christian ever wants to be, because that’s not an actual Christian.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:07 amMr. Milhouse I’d prefer you respond to elissa at #109 than myself
i’m irredeemable
from a young pikachu i was raised to just be nice to people other people pick on
I internalized it
I’m a lost cause
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:08 amHappyfeet, how do you reconcile my very regular declarations I prefer people like aphrael, Tammy Bruce, Jeff of Opinions Nobody Asked For over the likes of you and the militant anti-theist homosexuals and their enablers with your statements that I hate homosexuals (since I am part of that group who references the entire Bible, including the parts you reject)?
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:12 am@John 215
Why don’t you provide your BEST piece of evidence? Asserting the existence of evidence and calling people asshats is not evidence!
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:15 amAnd here is where Jeff said he understands my position on another matter. (clicking the link will open a new tab, so you’ll safely stay here)
Jeff is a Leftist heterosexual Jew who strongly supports homosexual marriage. I don’t know if he’s only Jewish by blood or if he is a religiously practicing one as well, but the point is, he and I have a mutual respect for the other.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:17 ami don’t reconcile your declarations Mr. Hitchcock
not ever
I have a ttd list going on almost all the time and that’s just never on it
plus you should see my kindle backlog
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:17 amJosh McDowell, who was a devout atheist who went out to prove Christianity was false, and then produced Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Parts 1 and 2, and revised) after digging up enough extra-Biblical evidence (that is evidence not in the Bible) to prove he needed to become a Christian.
Remember, he was an atheist when he started, a Christian when he finished.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:19 amAgain, happyfeet, your declarations with the constant proofs destroying your declarations are readily on record. Your sub-third-grade writing style does not prevent thinking individuals from seeing your rabid hatred.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:21 amOkay, clicking that link won’t open a tab. I tried but it got scrubbed. Sorry.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:22 amI acknowledge that Christianity exists, but reject that it is based on reality.
Il tell you why they are hung up on gay people: Because GOD said so, and GOD is lord, perfect, all knowing etc etc. If you agree that god is wrong about this, then everything must be out the window. Is he not perfect? If so then he cannot be wrong.
Funny thought:
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:23 amThink how lucky we are. Of the billions of galaxies god has to attend, that he created, he chose a particular species of primate on an insignificant mote of cosmic dust to have a relationship. He cares about all that we do, and in particular what we do when naked.
And that link is bad, too.
http://opinionsnobodyaskedfor.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-brit-hume-deserve-rummy.html
That’s the link you want.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:24 amMr. H you just have a bizarre animosity against gay people
you on your own there
that’s between you and your God
my God says be nice to people and if two gay people wanna get married my God is like well go on lil pikachu be of service
chop chop
there are more things in heaven and earth, lil pikachu, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
that’s what God says to me
and I’m all okokokokok… like footman #4 at Downton Abbey
I’m on it God right away God
and I do my dead-level best to help them people what are given to me to help
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:27 amMr. Gil Mr. Gil you not wrong
but atheism has no literary tradition of any…
i’m not sure the word
heft?
it’s just not comparable to the one what we used to call the western canon
i feel so lucky to even know what that means
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:30 am@John 222
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:32 am222.Josh McDowell, who was a devout atheist who went out to prove Christianity was false, and then produced Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Parts 1 and 2, and revised) after digging up enough extra-Biblical evidence (that is evidence not in the Bible) to prove he needed to become a Christian. Remember, he was an atheist when he started, a Christian when he finished.
The Nobel Prize.
Are you serious? “Yessir, You Are Fat” and Barack Obama both won the Nobel Prize.
The Nobel Prize means less than zero.
But you could have gone to the reference material I pointed you to. I pointed you to somewhere around 1000 pages of type. And you didn’t even try. I didn’t just give a name, as you tried to insinuate. I gave you 1000 pages of type for your research material.
But go ahead and blow all that off. Go ahead and choose to ignore all that. Go ahead and not even try to rebut it (since you won’t even look at it to rebut). But don’t say I didn’t give you evidence. Because that would be a lie.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:40 amAnd happyfeet, go to that corrected link to see how stupid you are (from someone who is decidedly NOT a Christian and decidedly IS pro-homosexual-“marriage”).
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:41 amsome Nobel prizes are meaningful
it’s just the Nobel Peace Prize what’s a total joke as far as i know
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:42 amyou want me to read about Brit Hume?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:43 amok i will try
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:44 amTiger Woods is a buddhist?
no way
he’s a slut
the correct designator for Tiger Woods is “slut,” or maybe “manslut” if you want to be punctilious
he puts his little tiger penis in places where normal guys would not put their penis
this is because he is a sleazy whore
that’s why his wife doesn’t let him see his children
because he’s skanky
it has nothing to do with buddhism
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:48 amNeither one.
Sorry, Elissa, that is a completely illogical question. None of these doctors help their patients sin. On the contrary, they help save them from the consequences of their sin. It’s the difference between helping someone jump off a bridge and fishing them out of the water after they’ve jumped.
There is nothing wrong with treating gay people, any more than there is in feeding them or clothing them, and neither the baker nor the dressmaker have any objection to selling cakes or dresses to gay people. On the contrary, they would be very happy to do so, so long as the cake or dress is not being bought for the purpose of using it to commit a sin. Hobby Lobby is glad to sell you a glass-cutter, even if you’re a sinner, but not if they know you’re planning to use it to break into someone’s house.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:54 amTell me, Elissa, do you think that if your business is renting cars, it’s OK for you to rent a car to someone knowing that he intends to use it to rob a bank? Do you need convincing that doing so will land you both in prison and in Hell (if there is such a place), and should disturb the conscience of any decent person?
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:57 amMillhouse, some people only look at the $ and not what those $ relate to. Elissa, in her screed, did just that. She is not concerned about what those $ are used for. Selling an outfit to a person who says “I’m going to use this outfit to disguise myself well enough to murder half of Richmond, CA” is perfectly fine, even if you know the person is telling the unvarnished truth. But to people with a conscience or Principled people, that sale is participation.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 1:07 ambank robbing homo
and you woulda got away with it
if it weren’t for them meddling kids
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 1:07 amElissa the Screedy
go forth and screed no more
Johnny H got one less prollem wichout you
feel me?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:08 amelissa’s screed? elissa’s comment was more sensible than anyhting either of you (John and Milhouse) theocrats said. The government is not Christian. It’s not allowed to be. The government of New York (states’ rights!) decided that it will protect gays from discrimination with a law. The government then balanced its interest in protecting gays against a claim of freedom of religion. This was a close case. Nothing about it was cut and dried. The Giffords are in the marriage business without their farm being either consecrated ground or either of them being ordained ministers. Their jackleg religion claims did not cut the mustard with the state, for the reasons elissa said.
To further illustrate, I am Greek Orthodox and I consider marriage a sacrament. With a definite ceremony written and established by the Saints of the Church. In a consecrated church. By an ordained priest in vestments. With a cantor. Topped off with the priest dancing the dance of Isaiah. Strictly speaking, what the Gifford have been doing, from a strict Orthodox point of view, is heretical and possibly blasphemous. A parody of marriage. Why should the government respect the Giffords’s religion more than mine and allow them to put on those travesties?
And I’ll check back in the afternoon because I’m working today.
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:40 amP.S. John, does your brand of Protestantism consider crucifixes Papist idolatry? Just wondering.
A truly sincere religious belief is intolerant and exclusive of others. That works in a theocracy or in a monastic setting. It does not work in a place like America.
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:46 amHey, nk, do you remember this?
I am a lawyer, and you people are not lawyers, so don’t even talk to me. And if you talk to me, I will tell you you can’t talk to me because you’re not a lawyer and you are beneath contempt for me to even consider talking to you. So all you not-lawyers can get lost because I am better than you and I don’t have to listen to you.
Do you remember that? Because I do. So, you can sit down now.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:49 amI guess when they start throwing us to the lions, there will be a defense of that as well.
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:18 amI don’t expect to convince you of anything, John. I’m responding to your BS for the benefit of other commenters who might not have their brains ossified. But, yes, I’m a real Christian, from the one true Church directly descended from the Apostles and following the Apostolic tradition, and your jackleg evangelistical Bible-thumping is a blasphemous, heretical parody of Christianity, if you want to put it that way.
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:35 amBTW, these guys http://www.christianpost.com/news/devil-worshipers-confident-black-mass-in-oklahoma-will-happen-despite-petition-125547/ worship the same aspect of Ormuz-Ahriman that the Yazidis that ISIS is beheading do. Do you still want Obama to bomb ISIS?
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:38 am“Or so he claimed, and Christians sort of have to believe him, becaues if he was a liar than Christianity needs to be completely rethought. Not being a Christian, though, I don’t believe he was a Pharisee, or ever met Rabban Gamliel the Elder, or of the tribe of Benjamin. His story makes a lot more sense if one assumes that he lied about his background”.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/30/2014 @ 11:24 pm
Goodness gracious! I cannot tell if Millhouse is channeling “Sammy” or is playing devil’s advocate.
I find it hard to believe it is the latter because there is nothing offered to explain his disbelief – beyond his not being Christian(as though it were an argument). He just expects us to be persuaded by, I guess, his appeal to his own authority?
Would it make more sense if we assume Millhouse lies on this thread? This approach would work for me concerning the likes of happyfeet, but I have respect for Millhouse, so I’ll just wait for him to make his case.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/31/2014 @ 7:11 amI don’t understand why a person that is being discriminated against wants to make the person doing the discriminating better off by using the government to force that person to accept their money. Wouldn’t it make more sense to go to the business down the street that will be happy to take your money?
Non-discrimination laws might force a person to do business with someone they don’t want to, but they don’t bridge the gap that exists between people’s differences. That can only happen through self reflection. Non-discrimination laws delay this process because of the force involved.
Joe (33fd9a) — 8/31/2014 @ 7:32 amDarwinism discriminates against homosexuality.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:27 amyes, John. Like the bumper sticker says, “Homosexuality is not inherited”.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:28 amIf Paul lied then Luke who wrote Acts also lied. The two of them may have colluded I suppose.
BTW, Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was raised as an atheist and as an archaeologist was convinced that the Bible was fraudulent. He embarked on a 15 year archaeological investigation to disprove the New Testament.
According to Conservapedia:
Milhouse, what exactly makes more sense if one assumes that he lied about his background?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:07 amAgain, happyfeet, your declarations with the constant proofs destroying your declarations are readily on record.
I find it fascinating that happyfeet has a habit of often using the word “gay” in a pejorative, mocking manner, so he knows full well there’s something odd about it.
Most tellingly, if he himself is involved in intimate relationships with other males (and whether he does or doesn’t isn’t meant as a “gotcha!” moment, but to make the following point), he until now has been hesitant to announce that to everyone in this forum. IOW, he knows full well there’s something peculiar and off-putting about homosexuality, particularly involving males, yet he pretends there’s no reason for anyone else to cringe or chortle when dealing with it.
Mark (14a4db) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:34 amIt’s very simple. Everyone is welcome to use the Gifford’s home for a holy wedding; nobody is welcome to use it for a foul, blasphemous, Satanic ritual, whether it’s a same-sex “wedding”, or a black mass.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:19 amI know of no Christians who deny science. Also no AGW skeptics deny science. These are two exactly parallel circular reasoning arguments.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:21 amWrong. Same-sex weddings are not on the mennu at the Giffords’, any more than pork sandwiches are on the menu at a halal or kosher restaurant. And you know this very well; your disingenuous arguments just make you a damned liar, just like happyfeet, only not nearly as entertaining.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:22 amIt makes no difference how rare this sin is, it’s still a sin, and someone who considers it so cannot in good conscience condone or facilitate it. Civility demands merely that he not interfere in it; it cannot demand that he participate. Feel free to mug as many old ladies as you like, but don’t ask me to sell you the knife you intend to mug them with.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:28 amHere is the result of your attitude about how Christians are denyers or are ignorant:
Next they’ll force Christians to pay for transgender ( I hate that fake word. Gender is grammar, not sex) operations….or else! Notice it states “even those with religious affiliations”. That means Catholic charities, hospitals and churches themselves if they hire lay people like janitors.
I see “choice” only goes one way with leftists. As does religious freedom. As does tolerance as happyfeet has displayed. If you’re not a religious leftist your religion doesn’t count. That’s not quite accurate, the left will side with Moslems any chance they get.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:38 amI’m nice to people too. Even criminals. That doesn’t mean I participate in their crimes.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:45 amsome of what he found out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UBdXM5_8jE
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:46 amFirst of all happyfeet, the only people being “threatened” were the Giffords, you know the Christians. They were threatened with fines and loosing their business. The lesbians were on honeymoon, no threat there. Secondly, who is reacting viscerally and rudely? The people defending the Christians right to choose, right to freedom of religion and right to free association or guys like you and your storm troopers? Who’s rudely and viscerally calling people ignorant, stupid, bigoted? Who?
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:46 amHow about the world’s existence? If someone told you that Mt Rushmore wasn’t made by anybody, it just happened that wind and water eroded the mountain into those shapes that happened to resemble known people, you’d call them crazy. You can’t deny that such a thing could in principle happen, but it’s so unlikely that only an idiot would believe it when there’s a much more logical explanation, i.e. that someone made it. And yet you can look at the world and claim with a straight face that it all happened by itself, rather than admit that Someone made it.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:48 amAnd literature.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:52 amNeither one. I’m simply telling the truth
No, that’s not an argument, it’s an explanation for why I don’t feel obligated to take Paul at his word. Christians have to, because their whole religion rests on his word. Since I’m not one, I can consider his account dispassionately, and compare it to what I know about the subjects of his claims. And doing that, the simplest explanation for the disparity is that he lied.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:03 pmHis apparent ignorance of what any geninue disciple of Rabban Gamliel would have known; the pagan elements he grafted on to Christianity, which make much more sense if he came from a pagan background; his claim to know what tribe he was from, at a time when almost nobody knew that; a few other details, but those are the main ones.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:07 pmA few things, in separate posts.
While reading/skimming this thread, the local news radio station had a story about gay bath houses making a comeback, only this time openly.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 1:06 pmI though I made at least one longish and serious post that is not showing up. is it stuck in moderation, or did I hit a wrong key?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 1:41 pmMD,
I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to check to see if you’re in moderation.
Dana (4dbf62) — 8/31/2014 @ 1:57 pmI think I am, Dana, and we’ll have to wait for JD or the Boss.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:22 pmI did find my post in cache by playing with forward and back, copied it, and tried to post it again, and I got the WordPress message that it was a duplicate post.
264. Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:07 pm
[Paul]’s apparent ignorance of what any geninue disciple of Rabban Gamliel would have known; the pagan elements he grafted on to Christianity, which make much more sense if he came from a pagan background; his claim to know what tribe he was from, at a time when almost nobody knew that; a few other details, but those are the main ones.
There’s his claims of Biblical prophecies proving his claims, some of them based only on the Greek translation (that is, his argument won’t make sense when looking at the Hebrew original.)
Then there’s his astonishing claim that the famous statement “All Cretans are liars” is a true statement, made by a prophet. And he also calls himself a prophet somewhere.
Someone from the tribe of Levi would know he was a Levi, but almost nobody else.
Sammy Finkelman (335ac9) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:29 pmThen there’s his astonishing claim that the famous statement “All Cretans are liars”
And some other uncomplimentary things, too. However, he had never been to Crete. The Cretans he would have known would have been young mercenaries, archers mostly, possibly descendants of Pompei’s resettled pirates, serving as auxiliaries and occupation/police troops in the Roman legions. Not the best of people. Titus is now the patron saint of Crete, BTW.
Anyway, what difference does it make? If you don’t accept Christ’s lineage, why should you care about St. Paul’s?
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:43 pmFWIW, Milhouse fundamental religious convictions as he has described them are in conflict with the fundamentals of the Christian faith,
i.e.,
he said he believes there is no such thing as “original sin” attributed to an individual that disqualifies one from being righteous before God, and that each person is held responsible for his own actions and by following the law can be accepted by God into His presence after life on this earth.
The Christian faith assumes that each person, if they are honest with themselves, realizes that they are hopelessly short of God’s standard, and can rely only on the mercy of God for acceptance, not on the basis of good works, or obedience to the Law.
This is why the Christian message was called the “gospel”, or “good news”, the “bad news” being what people knew in their hearts, that they could never earn justification before God.
If one does not believe the “bad news”, there is no reason to belief the “good news”.
Whether any one person objects to the NT because they have examined it “objectively” and found it to be ‘wrong”, or they are already predisposed to believing it to be wrong and so find it so, only God knows.
I am sure there are aspects of my motivation that I do not know clearly myself, maybe more are unknown than are known. God knows now, I will one day.
there’s his astonishing claim that the famous statement “All Cretans are liars” is a true statement, made by a prophet
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:44 pmSammy, as I recall, he did not attribute that to a Hebrew prophet, but to a poet of Crete.
Milhouse his encyclopedic knowledge of the Old Testament makes the idea he came from a pagan background frankly ridiculous. Pagans simply didn’t have such knowledge or generally even any access to the OT, let alone the ability to study it in depth. If he was Jewish, which seems unassailable, the idea of intentionally grafting pagan elements onto Christianity is also fairly ridiculous for several reasons, including that a Jew would not likely have known much about pagan religions just as a pagan wouldn’t have his knowledge of the OT.
What supposed pagan elements are you thinking of? There have been attempts to equate Jesus to various pagan gods. The supposed similarities with pagan religions such as Mithraism generally are not remotely the same or the supposed pagan element didn’t exist at all in some cases. Some pagan mythologies that Jesus supposedly was based on didn’t even predate the New Testament. Pagan myths may have been imitating Jesus in some cases.
According to what I’ve read, extensive genealogical records were maintained in Jerusalem until the destruction of most of the city in 70 CE.
As I mentioned before, entire sections in The Book of Acts concerning Paul would have to be totally fabricated if Paul was lying about being Jewish. Even the account of how he was arrested would have to be a fabrication since it says he was accused of bringing Greeks into the temple. The account of his testimony to King Agrippa and many others wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever if he wasn’t Jewish, so that would have to totally fabricated. I can’t fathom what motive Luke would even have had for inserting such falsehoods into his account.
Any attempts to argue he wasn’t Jewish have to be made in a vacuum.
I’m curious what was the ignorance of Gamliel he displayed?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/31/2014 @ 3:07 pmSammy,
This is from 1 Titus:
One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons”. This saying is true.
He clearly is not attributing that to a Bible prophet.
I can’t recall any place where he labels himself a prophet. Paul did make prophecies. How does that disprove his claim to be a disciple of Gamliel (if that’s what your point is).
Which of the Messianic prophecies did he get wrong?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/31/2014 @ 3:20 pmChristian and Jewish medical doctors have, since the early 1980′s, treated AIDS and HIV patients and researched to find therapies and drugs to lessen the wasting and suffering of these patients. Our own MDinPhilly has said he’s been doing this even though he is clearly aware of the sexual behaviors and practices that contributed to it, and has stated he believes those practices are dangerous, and also from his Christian upbringing that those behaviors constitute sin. Yet these doctors never hesitate to treat homosexuals whom they know engage in homosexual acts. And the doctors accept money for doing it.
Are the doctors just better people, or better Christians, or does the Hippocratic oath supersede other interests or values? Why can they treat gay people on a very intimate basis without feeling they are untrue to their religious convictions, or worrying that they are condoning homosexual behaviors — but a few one-off cake bakers or wedding dress sellers or event venue owners seem to think they’re only able to be “true to their religious convictions” if they publicly decline to participate?
Look, I despise the bullying and use of courts by gay activists to prove a point. I hate that in any number of areas business owners are increasingly forced to do things (or not do things) by the government and courts. That’s an important conversation about freedom and Constitutional rights and I get that. But the thrust of the comments posted on this thread are mostly about religion and other people living up to one’s own understanding about what the Bible says about homosexuality, and making heroes or martyrs out of the Giffords. As far as having an objection that leads to fines or ultimately even deciding to go out of business, nobody will ever convince me that voluntarily and professionally selling a dress if that is your business, or accepting the booking for an event if that is your business, is going to land the business owner in eternal hell, or should cause their conscience a minute’s unease, or put them out of favor with the Lord’s commandments. I just wish they could follow the lead of the doctors and provide the products and services without drama and with calm professionalism. IOW to me, the wedding dress hill and the cake hill seem like very very strange and futile hills on which to die.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 3:28 pmelissa (bb0e28) — 8/30/2014 @ 5:29 pm
#274
Now you’re equating apples and oranges Mr. feet.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 8/31/2014 @ 3:36 pmthat’s a comment from our friend elissa from earlier
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 3:38 pmMD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:44 pm
Sammy, as I recall, he did not attribute that to a Hebrew prophet, but to a poet of Crete.
Yes, he said it was a Cretan who said that, but he called that person (Epimenides of Knossos circa 600 BC) a prophet! (at least according to the translation I’ve seen, and this seems to be the case of all translation. I don’t know if he uses the same word to refer to Hebrew prophets)
http://biblehub.com/titus/1-12.htm
What makes this astonishing is not the blanket attack on Cretans, whom he still wants to convert, but the fact that this a famous paradox. How can you say that it is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox
http://biblehub.com/titus/1-13.htm
Here it is menttioned that Jerome said that (King) David also said somethinbg like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
But what David said was “I said in my haste all men are liars/deceitful.” (Psalms 116:11)
Sammy Finkelman (335ac9) — 8/31/2014 @ 4:02 pmMilhouse (9d71c3) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:03 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Milhouse. I agree that you (or anyone else) should not just take Paul at his word. The Lord gave us all brains for a reason. Faith and reason complement each other. That is why when atheists go looking for the truth, and then honestly follow it wherever it may lead, they end up at the truth. But one should never entertain a suspicion of “liar” without first considering tempering that suspicion with a search for the truth – one might risk bearing false witness.
Bless you, Milhouse.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/31/2014 @ 4:06 pmAren’t you tired yet mr. feets from running around the field carrying the goal posts?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/31/2014 @ 4:08 pmno I’m indefatigable except for I need to go to bed early tonight
and I only have three of those nespresso capsules left
if I move to Chicago there’s a nespresso boutique on wabash
i think here you have to go to like bloomingdales, which is in a mall
that’s not really my thing
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 4:15 pmAnyway, what difference does it make? If you don’t accept Christ’s lineage, why should you care about St. Paul’s?
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 2:43 pm
That is a good point, nk.
I think Sammy should look for the precise word that Paul used for Hebrew prophets.
felipe (40f0f0) — 8/31/2014 @ 4:18 pmIf you hurry you might make it pikachu:
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/31/2014 @ 4:38 pmhttp://www.nespresso-us.com/storelocator/index.cfm
it says to go to Target but i think that’s just for some of the lower-end machines is all not for the coffee
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:06 pmi’ll check next time i’m over there though
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:07 pm@Gerald 254
You may honestly not know about them, but they exist. There is a family on my street that is homeschooling their children in order to keep them shielded from the “evils” of science. They are convinced the earth is less than 10000 years old and deny the science of geology, carbon dating, etc etc. This is but one tiny example. Religion closes minds because it offers easy (erroneous) answers. Want to know how old the earth is? Just add up the ages of the people in the bible. In Newtons time it was “Want to know why the planets move as they do? Easy there is a prime mover”. In our time its “Want to know how stem cell research can save lives and cure diseases? Well too bad that’s immoral”
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:49 pmThat’s the whole point Millhouse. I understand your distinction completely. But it does not work. Giffords is providing a service. That service is a wedding. Not a heterosexual wedding. Its like if there was a pedicure shop and they tried to make a distinction between a pedicure on a white foot and black foot. “Were sorry its not discrimination, we don’t offer black foot pedicures in the first place”
Its ridiculous on its face.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 5:56 pmBut it does not work. Giffords is providing a service. That service is a wedding. Not a heterosexual wedding.
The Giffords have been telling you they provide only one type of wedding. That is proper and permissible in a free society. The Giffords are not slaves of the public interest bar’s straw plaintiffs.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:00 pmIf the Giffords were providing a service, they should win. Forcing them to perform a blasphemous parody of a sacrament would impermissibly burden the free exercise of their religion as defined by the First Amendment. They were not performing weddings. They were only renting a space for them to take place.
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:03 pmIt’s another thread about gays, and naturally we have our resident theologian happyfeet lecturing Christians on their faith. Add in nk making a snide comparison with Christian Identity. Give a few years, and we will find out what other sexual deviance that everyone MUST celebrate.
It’s not about discrimination against homosexuals. If that were the case, people would be protesting against Islamic Supremacists who want to murder all homosexuals. It’s all about crushing Christian faith, which stands in the way of the vision of the progressives. There can be no higher good than the state, so God has to go.
Don’t worry, I’m sure your progressive friends are proud of you. You can drink your damned nespresso, safe in your political correctness.
OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:06 pmNote how it began with Bowers v. Hardwick, which they considered an impermissible intrusion, then when that was reversed in Lawrence, Scalia was among the few that saw it would lead to gay marriage, but we were told that was outlandish, now mere thought crime (the Eich example) is enough to remove you from
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:13 pmyour company,
@Millhouse 261
Hi Millhouse. The problem with this, is that the way we know Mt Rushmore is designed (or made by someone) is based on contrasting it with the natural world. Also every piece of evidence points to a designer (there are plans, there is documentation of it being built etc etc) In the case of the world there is no such evidence. Every mountain on the planet has similar weather erosion patterns. There is no way to say this one was designed and that one was not. To jump to the conclusion that they are all designed is not logical. If your point that the world is too complicated to be random, I would point out that simplicity not complexity is the hallmark of design.
The observable universe has billions of billions of stars and worlds. The vast majority of it is uninhabitable to humans. Yet you contend all this was designed and its purpose is for us to have a relationship with the creator? No I don’t think you can simply say “its obviously design, only an idiot would ignore the obvious”. I think you have to demonstrate it.
Regarding the odds of us being here. Yes its a huge longshot. But there are estimated to be 100 billion galaxies in the universe and each galaxy can have an estimated 100 billion stars. I think we got that longshot covered.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:17 pmThey couldn’t take money to rent their house to people who were going to desecrate a sacrament. They can’t be involved in any way. And that includes far more than being the ones to perform the ceremony. Desecration of a sacrament is a grave sin; if you’re Catholic you can be excommunicated for it (the excommunication is automatic if you desecrate the Eucharist, and only the Pope can lift the punishment).
So they would be putting their souls at risk if they hosted the wedding. Perhaps people who don’t understand that should read a little more. But ultimately it doesn’t matter if you actually know what some denominations teach about desecration and sacrilege. What matters is what the people sincerely believe that matters, because the government isn’t in the business of telling people what their understanding of theology should be.
It’s similar to how Catholic health care professionals can not facilitate an abortion in any way. It doesn’t matter if they aren’t actually going to perform the abortion. They also can’t prep the woman for the abortion, or treat her post op. They can’t facilitate the abortion, just as Catholics in general can’t be involved in any way with procuring an abortion. So if I’m a cab driver and you tell me to drive you to your abortion appointment I can’t do it.
Steve57 (0634d5) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:33 pmThere were some rocket scientists that thought the “O-ring seals” were just fine, but they weren’t,
does that mean all rocket scientists are wrong?
I have read where in the history of science that it is commonly argued that the Christian faith is what helped western science as we know it, for example, Isaac Newton said he was just thinking God’s thoughts after Him.
If you are interested, not that I think Gil is, take a look at:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:47 pmhttp://www.amazon.com/Science-Christianity-Henry-Schaefer-III/dp/097429750X.
JD, is there a post of mine in moderation??
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:47 pmImagine all of the mindless zealots denying science today – imagine their minds open to explore the mysteries out there and the inventions / discoveries that could be made.
It has nothing to do with the current state of world affairs.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 12:00 am
I always get a chuckle when leftist loons like Gil talk about science-deniers.
JD (f69330) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:48 pmYes your uninformed analogies are ridiculous on their face. When California struck down its miscegenation laws it did so precisely because they interfered with the free exercise of religion. The plaintiffs were Catholic, and they argued that the miscegenation statutes interfered with their ability to take part in the sacrament of marriage.
Also, this.
No, your atheism closes your mind. Your example of a couple that you know that is (you say) anti-science doesn’t prove anything but your ability to indulge in your prejudices based on completely inadequate evidence. That one example doesn’t prove anything about religion closing minds or being anti-science.
In fact, the man who is known as the Father of Genetics was Gregor Mendel. He was a scientist and a Catholic monk. So I thought I should mention that Catholic scientists do stem cell research. They don’t do fetal stem cell research. They do research on adult stem cells. In fact, that’s where the real advances have been made. Fetal stem cell research has produced no therapies or anything of value.
Perhaps if you knew more about science you wouldn’t have make that basic error. Perhaps if you knew more about the history of western civilization you’d know that without religious scientists (clerics as well as lay scientists) you wouldn’t even have the modern world.
That would require you to open your mind and abandon your prejudices. I doubt that will ever happen.
Steve57 (0634d5) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:55 pmYou know what Steve57? I am a woman of faith and I don’t think someone’s selling a manufactured wedding dress or baking a cake or taking photographs is gonna put anybody’s soul at risk–and I don’t think refusing to do those things is anything at all similar to Health Care professionals who are practicing Catholics refusing to facilitate an abortion. It’s not even in the same ballpark. But I won’t attempt to change your opinion because I sense that you sincerely hold it.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:56 pmIt is curious how both threads are mirrors of each other, there is real physical, not to mention, psychological impacts to defending one’s faith, similar, another religion seems to have privileges
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:58 pmin appearing in public space,
i only have three capsules left Mr. Paladin
soon to be two
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 7:17 pmHopefully while JD is looking for my post in moderation-
The Historical Orthodox Apostolic Christian Faith (my term) has always held certain things to be true, among these are:
1) All people have sinned, fall short of the glory of God, and on their own merit and by their own choice will spend eternity separated from God, which is hell.
2) God has offered a way out of that destiny because of His love and compassion in taking upon Himself, in the person of Jesus, the wrath that we justly deserve.
3) Anyone who wants to acknowledge their need and be restored to a relationship with God that was lost in Eden can do so through believing and trusting in what Jesus has done.
4) Anyone who turns to God and believes in Jesus should, as a result, have a genuine desire to live a life that honors God out of gratitude,
because the motivation shouldn’t be to “not go to hell”, but to have a real relationship with God.
5) Becoming a Christian was not about behaving well, and being a Christian is not about being perfect, but, anyone who makes a consistent practice of disobedience to God needs to think again about where they stand and why they are doing what they do.
6) Properly understood, the Christian shares their faith out of concern for their fellow sinners and God’s glory. Sometimes people lose perspective and get prideful and instead of pointing out sin out of concern and compassion we do it with a self-righteous attitude, which is not only offensive to people, but also to God.
7) Homosexual behavior has always been considered a sinful practice by the church until recently, and as pointed out by others, one has to do significant mental gymnastics to say otherwise.
8) Jesus and all of the NT writers clearly said that not every one who says Lord will be in the Kingdom of God, and that false prophets will arise.
All of those points are pretty direct summaries of clear passages in the NT. To disagree in significant substance is to disagree with the NT, not me. As Hitchens is quoted, if one deviates too far from what Christians have historically believed, then either the word “Christian” no longer means what it once did, or they are mistaken.
And it should not be a competition of theological brownie points, but concern over truth that has eternal consequence.
Now, that is about the issue of Christian faith, not public policy over religious belief.
The issue about public policy over religious belief is that if the moral framework that this nation and government was founded on is abdicated, by what means is it decided what to replace it with? President Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. Well, he and his colleagues have been doing that quite successfully for quite some time now.
And feets, not out of anger, I’m telling you that the Bible says that those who encourage evil, calling it good, have the greater guilt.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 7:19 pmI’ve read and assume it is true that Thomas Jefferson had his own version of the Bible where he crossed out all of the things he didn’t believe. You and others can do it today as well, but when you do it, just make it clear that your version of “Christianity” doesn’t take the Bible as meaningful, except the parts that you like.
gay marriage isn’t evil that’s defining evil down to bosh and pickles
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/31/2014 @ 7:23 pmJD, did you look for a link in moderation?
I am a woman of faith and I don’t think someone’s selling a manufactured wedding dress or baking a cake or taking photographs is gonna put anybody’s soul at risk–and I don’t think refusing to do those things is anything at all similar to Health Care professionals who are practicing Catholics refusing to facilitate an abortion. It’s not even in the same ballpark. But I won’t attempt to change your opinion because I sense that you sincerely hold it.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 6:56 pm
elissa, I agree with you that it is not in the same ballpark. I’m not sure if Steve57 thinks it is in the same ball park either.
In fact, I’m not certain that what was done in any of the instances was the best thing to do,
but, to whatever degree the people involved felt like they were being asked to give approval by participating, it was reasonable for them to say they objected. Could they have said, “Well, you seem like nice enough people, we will rent out the space to you, or make you the cake, but it’s free, because what we think you are doing is wrong and we will not condone it or make money from it.” Now, in one way that might have been seen as even more offensive. It certainly would have made the point.
Between being forced to do an abortion and willing to prescribe meds for somebody who contracted HIV from gay sex there is a large continuum of interaction, and where that line is drawn will often be an individual matter of conscience specific to a particular situation.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 7:39 pmOf course, part of that is determining what is or is not sinful. I am not clear, and maybe you don’t want to clarify, whether the issue for you is that you think there is nothing wrong with SS marriage, or that baking a wedding cake or renting out one’s living room is not a place to draw the line.
And you elissa, are entitled to think that. So don’t you believe the Giffords are entitled to think what they think too, or do they have to conform to your interpretation of their faith?
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:00 pmJD, did you look for a post stuck in moderation?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:17 pmIf the judge followed First Amendment law to the letter, she took the Giffords’ expression of faith at face value and judged neither its validity nor its sincerity. The devil was in weighing the anti-discrimination law’s burden on the expression of that faith against the strength of the state’s interest.
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:22 pm==clarify, whether the issue for you is that you think there is nothing wrong with SS marriage, or that baking a wedding cake or renting out one’s living room is not a place to draw the line.==
I already called those things “hills” not lines, MD. Yes, I think they are rather silly bordering on frivolous, largely irrelevant, and extremely poorly -thought- out hills on which to die– and so, to an extent unfortunately, they serve to take more legitimate religious freedom arguments down with them. And it’s all the worse because they have literally nothing to do with the issue of homosexual activity/ sin (which was likely going on before the “wedding”), and like it or not, ss marriage is legal in NY state among others. The refusals have a lot do with the laws of public accommodation and laws against discrimination, though. I think the devout and well meaning persons who put the brakes on the cakes and the public farm venue and the dresses and the photos did not intend to, but actually diminished the religious freedom aspects of the issue for many people rather than affirming them.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:31 pm“The strength of the state’s interest”. It works both ways. Not all states have sexual orientation in their public accommodation laws. It’s their prerogative to consider whether it would be an appropriate exercise of their sovereign power. Does the federal government have one? Or only for hate crimes?
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:31 pmThe judge nk, completely disregarded the First amendment in favor of his own anti Christian prejudice. An anti-discrimination law is subordinate to the Constitution and if judges weren’t picked according to their leftist bias they’d know that. I’m sick and tired of judges and perhaps people like yourself nk, picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution to uphold based solely on whether they agree with the participants. What the judge basically said was it’s unlawful to be a Christian if it requires one to discriminate based on morality that he doesn’t agree with. Bull. If judges, lawyers and the law itself are going to be coconspirators against Christians then the country has really gone to hell. It’s really quite simple: which is more important a Christians right to practice his faith or a lesbians right not to have his feeling hurt? One is in the Constitution, one is not. Only lawyers could muddle up something so obvious and so simple.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:38 pm== So don’t you believe the Giffords are entitled to think what they think too, or do they have to conform to your interpretation of their faith?==
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:39 pmHoagie, please don’t be like that. Of course they are entitled to believe what they believe. Just as all the people who comment on this blog have the right to our opinions. But they, and we, also have exisiting laws of the state and the U.S. which we have to consider and occasionally conform to even when we don’t want to.
==clarify, whether the issue for you is that you think there is nothing wrong with SS marriage, or that baking a wedding cake or renting out one’s living room is not a place to draw the line.==
Elissa – hill/line, makes no difference. These people didn’t pick this fight, those that chose to she them picked this hill. They were perfectly happy living their lives according to their own faith until someone came along and tried to force the. To do something they didn’t want to be a part of. This wasnt a hill they chose, someone else chose it in the name of forced tolerance.
JD (f69330) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:44 pm@Steve 296
The reason those laws should have been stricken down as that it is immoral to discriminate based on skin color. It is wonderful that religion was used as a reason to do so, but arriving to the correct result based on misguided reasoning does not have anything to do with my analogy.
Don’t live in a fantasy world where religion doesn’t close people’s minds down. You don’t believe my example? Search youtube for “young earth creationists”, Kent Hovind or Eric Hovind, hell even more recently look at the Creation Museum and Ken Hamm. They proudly announce that people lived together with dinosaurs. That’s not anti science? That doesn’t prove that religion closes down minds? Come on at least be honest. Or are you standing in front of this forumn claiming there is no evidence dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans ever did?
As for the rest, I never said no religious person can be scientific. Of course there are religious people who contribute greatly to science. But for every one of those there are many more who actively work against it. Heres another example, 2 friends of mine – their kids are not allowed to watch Cosmos on TV!!!
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 8:57 pmI don’t “agree with the participants”, Hoagie. Their existence creates no obligation in me. Our mutual co-existence under rule of law is a different matter. And I prefer that law to be secular. Caesar should not be Pontifex Maximus.
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:02 pm@MD 293
Newton could explain mathematically why the moon went around the earth and the earth around the sun – even though previously it was thought to be the work of god alone. But it started to get too complex when all the planets came into the picture as they would affect eachother. Newton never stabilized the solar system (mathematically) instead opting for an intervening power – god – that occasionally “set things right”. I think it can again be argued that had he not been religious he would have kept looking, working, and maybe even solved it. Instead his religion ended his search.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:10 pmGil’s religious hatred is only surpassed by his ability to so proudly display his bigotry.
And his hatred of science.
JD (f69330) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:19 pmI agree with almost everything you said, up there, JD. But every day people get sued unfairly, or to prove something, or to punish someone, (believe me, I know). There is almost always a precipitating event of some kind in advance of the complaint or suit as there was in this NY. case. (That was the hill even though they may not have even recognized it as such at the time). But when that happens the defendants and the defense attorney have to look at the situation and the law and the options squarely and honestly, and decide how to best deal with it. One can blame the judge for finding a violation of the law if they think there was none and that the judge was “crooked”. That may in fact be the situation here, but I have seen no facts to show that to be the case.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:27 pmAnd it’s all the worse because they have literally nothing to do with the issue of homosexual activity/ sin elissa
I can see the reasoning behind that statement, I think, but I disagree.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:34 pmOne can say that the individuals are going to do what they want to do whether they get married or not, whether they get their cake or ceremony venue or not.
But I always thought the major reason for a wedding was not to throw a big party afterwards, but to make a public confession of their commitment to one another. Participation in that seems to me either an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of SS marriage (which means sanctioning the associated behavior) or compartmentalizing one’s life such that one’s beliefs have little impact on how one earns their money.
In fact, in a typical wedding isn’t there the question about anyone having an objection, that if anyone has a reason why this couple should not be married let them say so now? So presence and silence would reasonably be assumed to be approval.
MD why don’t you try to repost your earlier missing comment. Copy pasta it into the comment box now, and maybe change a word or two. Or if it’s really long post it in two smaller parts. I should think after all this time it will post not as a duplicate.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:34 pm313. Sorry kid, you’ve conflated scientists together.
Lagrange sorted the Solar system out nicely, within a century of Newton.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:35 pm318. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, a giant of 20th century astrophysics, spent the last years of his life interpreting Newton from the original Latin.
I rather doubt a lesser man could set his measure.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:43 pmThere is the concept of civil disobedience, that even though there was anti-discrimination on the books that including same sex attraction as a protected class, perhaps they would have refused anyway. If one thinks it is a decision between man’s laws or God’s law, to obey God’s law is priority.
Now Jesus was able to get out of entrapment with things like “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, and he might have had a more creative response that would not have violated the letter of the law but made the same point of disapproval.
But Jesus was always willing to point out sin when people were denying its presence. “Go and sin no more” was a creative way of not ignoring sin, at the same time making the statement that God’s mercy is greater than His judgment, for those who recognize His right to judge sin.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:43 pmMD–I accept that I’m in the minority here, but I really do try to look at issues rationally. For me, the owners saying “we’ll be very happy to allow you sinful homosexual fornicators to hold your celebratory reception at our beautiful facility, but we will not under any circumstances let you hold your 10 minute wedding here even if somebody else is performing the ceremony”, is just bizarre, illogical, and highly inconsistent with any possible “belief”.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:46 pmMy earlier comment is now lost. When In found it in then cache previously and tried to repost it, WordPress said I had already sent it, so I was convinced it had been sent/received and was in moderation. I don’t know if I can do it again tomorrow or not, I can’t anymore tonight.
The thing is not about disapproving of them as people, all have sinned and they would not be able to rent or sell to anybody, it is about disapproving of a specific activity that they think is wrong in God’s eyes, that they would view as participating and enabling. Jesus didn’t mind hanging out with prostitutes, but I don’t think he would be holding a sign at a protest to protect sex-workers rights.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:53 pmElissa, you are a very reasonable person, fair and kind. But I think that there is something a bit unequal in your reasoning, with respect. I understand your point about not fighting about this particular issue. Fair enough. But Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin certainly made a big deal. The Giffords were happy to hold the reception, just not the ceremony…in their own home.
True, that may be the problem, and I hope that people with strong conviction in this area learn from this: don’t use your home as a business place.
But more to the point, I have a suspicion. I don’t know if it is true. If I wanted to get married at a particular site, and felt that I was being discriminated against, why would I fight about it?—I would want my wedding to be about my partner, not proving a point.
Here is something I found from a news report a while back. It’s worth reading:
I smell a rat. Specifically, I smell a couple looking for such a situation, for political reasons—to have a cause, and not necessarily have an effect. Also, I am no lawyer, but I wonder about the legality of recording a conversation without the knowledge of the other party. Again, I draw your attention to the “…they had heard…” business.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-york-recording-law
Me? I look back on my marriage as a time of joy, not a battle and triumph over people who believe differently than I do. I guess people can differ, but I know what is more important to me: the bond with my bride.
And you are dead right, again: why fight about this particular issue? But elissa, that goes both ways. The McCarthys certainly went to some trouble here.
You know, I could see them use PR about this, and explain how discriminatory the Giffords were, and how happy they were to have found another vendor who was happy to help them. They would have had lots of media exposure do that, after all. Then let the market do its work.
What concerns me is the strong feeling I have that they were using their marriage to “go after” people with whom they disagreed politically. ethically, or in a religious sense. I’m nervous about that.
Let me be clear once again. I am certain that most committed Christians would not think me one of their co-believers, though I certainly was raised in a religious household. Nor am I opposed to gay marriage (I think government needs to keep out of people’s business, actually). I have deep respect for religious belief, even when those beliefs are different from my own (and this is why I become so irritable when I hear people insulting people of faith). I hear awful anti-religious bigotry on campus every day from professors—that religious folk are “stupid,” “don’t believe in science,” are “trailer park trash,” and so on. So perhaps I am too defensive of people of faith.
And even that isn’t straightforward My wife has a good friend who will not eat in our home, nor invite us to theirs, because they are conservative Jews. I don’t force myself upon them.
Yes, yes, this situation with the Giffords is different: it is a business. But I honestly think that this battle was not about marriage but about politics. That makes me both sad, and nervous.
These are just my opinions. Thanks for reading them.
I’m not trying to fight with anyone, or cause any trouble. But I do not think that this case is as it is advertised.
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:58 pmElissa…
Do you have any evidence that the Giffords actually put things this way to the McCarthys? I mean, while they were recording the phone call, possibly illegally?
I don’t have the telephone call recording, but I strongly doubt that they did. If they did, why, they are very rude people, and that information would have been great to talk about on morning shows nation wide. And it would have raised awareness and caused many people who didn’t think that way to offer their help, free, to the McCarthys.
But framing the situation that way does succeed in making the Giffords look very bad.
I think an equal examination of the actions of the McCarthys might be interesting.
But that’s me.
I continue to have the greatest respect for you.
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:05 pmThere is an irony in the situation. Christian conservatives, including Justice Thomas, do not think the Establishment Clause applies to the states. That states can have official religions, as they did for about fifty after the Revolution. Maybe New York has picked United Methodist or Episcopal Church of USA and not told anyone? 😉
nk (dbc370) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:16 pmOnce again you get it exactly wrong, as you did when you confused fetal stem cell research with stem cell research in general.
In order to say that “for every one of those [religious scientists] there are many more who actively work against it” you have to know very little about history, very little about science, and very little about religion. You are simply jumping to a conclusion based on your prejudices, not information.
Who do you think were the only educated people in Europe for centuries? Who do you think taught at the early European universities (and the forerunners of those universities)? Clerics. What entity do you imagined created the first European universities? The Catholic Church. Which is why clerics such as Roger Bacon figure prominently in developing the modern scientific method, and up until the last 150 years religion played a huge role in university curricula. Which is why religion played a huge role in developing the modern Western world. Christianity has never been anti-science, unless you got your history from Oliver Stone and your theology from Christopher Hitchens. When you throw in observant Jews, you’ll find that up until fairly recently non-religious scientists were the real rarity.
There is only one religion I know of which is anti-science. Unlike Christianity, Islam teaches that it is heresy to teach that there are natural laws that order the universe because if Allah wants to make rocks float into the air, Allah will make the rocks float in the air. And that’s why there have been only two Muslim Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, and neither of them did their award winning work in the Muslim world. Mohammad Abdus Salam is a physicist who had to leave Pakistan for Europe because the government declared his Ahmadiyya sect non-Muslim. Among other heresies, Ahmadis accept western science. The other is Ahmed Zewail who did his work in chemistry and physics not in Egypt where he was born but in the US.
In fact, it really was the Christians and the Jews in North Africa and the M.E. who preserved all the scientific, medical, mathematical, and philosophical knowledge in libraries like the one at Alexandria. The Muslims get far too much credit for preserving those works. Their major effect on the preservation of that knowledge was burning what works they could get their hands on as un-Islamic. They had no interest in reading what the infidels had written; in fact they couldn’t read them because they weren’t in Arabic and they had no interest in learning infidel languages either. Remember, Boko Haram! Un-Islamic learning is forbidden. Once the Muslims conquered Byzantine territories, the Christians and Jews didn’t disappear. And it was they who rescued what they could and translated it from Greek or Hebrew into Arabic.
So you really don’t know what you are talking about.
Steve57 (0634d5) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:30 pmSimon you are right about the set up. That’s obvious. I wish the paths of the Giffords and the McCarthy/Erwin women had never crossed. But they did. The women were certainly loaded for bear, and were probably backed by a gay rights organization looking to make an example of the Giffords after they’d likely previously been “fingered” for not doing ss weddings there for other gay couples. But in my opinion the Giffords made it much too easy for them to make a discrimination case as I tried to explain in #321, and nk also talked about upthread. I see the brides did find another facility to host both their wedding and the reception but I do not know where that occurred on the whole timeline of events.
I’m afraid we who want to live in a civil society with a primarily secular government must bear the constant tension of one person’s or one group’s perceived legal rights butting up against someone else’s or other group’s perceived legal rights.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:43 pmMy point, elissa, was that this was a metaphorical hill that the McCarthys were happy to risk their marriage upon.
And people like that count on other people being reasonable…when they are not reasonable. And that is how social warfare works. The solution I portrayed above would have still given them great PR, made the Giffords look bad, and probably gotten them many offers of free marriage sites.
But that wasn’t the point, elissa. It was about punishing another point of view.
Notice how you portrayed how the Giffords put it? If I portrayed how the McCarthys acted in a similar way, why, I would be horrible person. But that is how society now frames this topic.
And it frightens me, because that means government can direct how people feel about other people.
That’s how culture wars work, I fear.
I don’t care about this one. But what’s next, when it comes to “everybody knows”? Heck, I don’t know.
There are folks in the UK afraid to speak up about horrific acts involving children for fear of being called racist. I’m sure you read the report If you would have asked your average Briton about this in 1980, they would have laughed at you.
Oh well.
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 8/31/2014 @ 10:50 pm324- Gosh, no Simon. I didn’t think anybody would take that literally. I was making up that “conversation” as a vehicle to try to make a point that by them accepting the exact same “sinners” for a reception- but not the wedding- it looks illogical and inconsistent from a religious moral values perspective. So I guess you could say I was framing it that way for clarity of argument.( Hah! that clearly didn’t go as planned!) I’m really quite sure the Giffords are decent people and didn’t call them sinful homosexual fornicaters although I imagine that’s what they think! But if in fact the call/calls were recorded it’d be very interesting to know what was said by all sides, wouldn’t it?
It’s past the witching hour here in the great midwest and I’m going to be dropping off the thread, now. Thanks all for the interesting discussion.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:05 pmGov. Cuomo in January said:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-york-gov.-andrew-cuomo-pro-life-people-not-welcome-in-new-york/article/2542475
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:20 pmBut the owners weren’t passing judgement on the “sinful homosexual fornicators.” They were saying they couldn’t be a part of facilitating a same sex marriage. This is different from passing judgement.
I agree the line they drew is somewhat arbitrary. I don’t see why they’d be happy to do the reception if they’re opposed to SSM. But then it’s their line to draw, and if they draw it at the ceremony only because a reception has zero religious significance then that’s their right. The government has no business telling people their religious beliefs are correct or incorrect theologically. That’s the kind of thing they do in the PRC where the only churches allowed are approved state churches.
And, no, I didn’t mean to say that facilitating a same sex marriage by making a cake is as serious as facilitating an abortion. But it seems to me that if you keep deciding this isn’t the hill to die on, pretty soon you run out of hills. And we are running out of hills. The government is doing all it can to eliminate your right of conscience. And if you don’t have the right to your own conscience you don’t have the right to yourself. You are owned.
Steve57 (0634d5) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:22 pmElissa, I know you have dropped off (I need to do so, as well). I realize that you didn’t mean that literally about the Giffords. But here is the thing. I know lots of people (and so do you) who would have utterly no problem with describing the Giffords that way, based on their opposition to SSM. Yet those same people would be horrified if I described the McCarthys in similar polarizing terms. Notice that not a one of us knows ANY of the participants here. But that doesn’t stop our cultural obsession with angels and demons.
Some concepts are considered to be what “good people” think, others what “bad people” think.
We see examples of this everywhere, including here.
I’m getting tired of bigots accusing other people of bigotry. There are other solutions. Unless the goal is shut everyone up who doesn’t share the government approved point of view.
Which I think it is.
Glenn Reynolds puts it best by saying the Progressive argument is usually “Because shut up.”
And he is right.
Good night and best wishes.
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:27 pmJust because the government is primarily secular does not mean it can force it’s citizenry to be secular. We do after all have a first amendment and we do have the right to the free exercise of religion. We do not merely have the right of “freedom of worship,” which is how the left is trying to redefined that freedom. A ceremonial right only.
Steve57 (0634d5) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:27 pmSounds like something happened after the law was passed:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/new_york_approv.html
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:29 pmYou are correct, sir. Which is why the goal is to follow the communist example and only have state-approved churches. Which must never contradict government policy, but must support it.
We are already seeing this in the military where the chaplains must get approval before speaking of their religion.
Steve57 (0634d5) — 8/31/2014 @ 11:34 pmSo it’s like Sandra Fluke deciding to go to GeorgeTown, to break their ethical code, not that they have much remaining,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:31 amWhat is the relevance of whether you see their position as logical elissa? Does it have any bearing on whether they have a right to hold to those views? That’s Gil’s way of “thinking” – that since he doesn’t see their way of thinking as rational they have no right to hold to their views.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:36 amI’m kind of scandalized by the Washington Post:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/08/31/washpost-sports-section-scandalized-inappropriate-mix-college-football-a
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:39 amthe illogic is a clue as to the real nature of what underpins the Giffords’ anti-gay attitudes i think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:54 amSammy as I pointed out he is not suggesting he was a prophet of God. Certainly nothing in the context would suggest that he was. He appears to be making a putdown of Cretans in calling Epimenides one of Crete’s own prophets.
As for Epimenides’ statement, it’s fair to assume he didn’t take it as literally true. Epimenides probably did not even mean it literally. The basic sense of the Titus passage is: Cretans are not people of admirable character.
Is this really the best you’ve got?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:05 amCarbon dating cannot be used to establish the age of the earth, if that’s what you’re suggesting. As others pointed out the stem cells treatments that actually work are from adult stem cells, not fetal. Strangely, liberals only seem to like the fetal stem cell treatments.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:14 amThe problem is the meaning of the Greek work “prophetes”, meaning seer/fortune-teller, which is different from the Biblical sense of the Holy Sprit speaking through a person. Fortune-telling is a no-no in the Old Testament. (And in some Greek cults, like the Eleusinian, too.)
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:20 amGerald, if you want to see a Progressive demonstrate they aren’t really pro science, ask them about GMOs. Like everything these days, it’s just cool versus traditional politics, and relatively fact free. Sad. It’s all about painting one’s opponent of being evil, or worse, uncool.
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:36 amSounds like something happened after the law was passed:
That’s this whole issue from beginning to end: shell games run by lawyers. Maybe some day we’ll get wise and start taking their toys away from them, even if we have to use rather crude methods to do it.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:37 amMD–I accept that I’m in the minority here, but I really do try to look at issues rationally.
You’re not getting the job done. The legal regime tricked into being here is coercive. What’s the justification for the coercion?
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:38 amWho is they? Please cite the people who believe your assertion. Your misrepresentation of what religious individuals believe is comical. Are religious individuals not scientists and doctors? Of course they are. People are caricatures that you make them out to be.
hadoop (f7d5ba) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:41 am“That’s this whole issue from beginning to end: shell games run by lawyers.”
Art Deco – Well I was hoping somebody from the Empire State would take a couple of minutes and explain the history of the related laws so people don’t continue to bloviate blindly on the subject.
No such luck I guess.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:55 amMaybe that is because Cosmos is junk:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/five-things-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-gets-wrong/
In particular, note the first:
“1. Venus Was Not Caused By Global Warming”
That’s the problem with a lot of science shows these days – they wind up serving as vehicle to evangelize for the Science sect of Atheism.
Sam (e8f1ad) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:05 amWhich of course means they aren’t really about science in the first place, and there is no more reason to watch them to learn about science than there is to watch a typical History Channel show to learn about history or to listen to a Jehovah’s Witness drone on about how you are damned because they picked your door to knock on.
Here’s a text of the amended bill. Religious institutions, their personnel and facilities are exempt. http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/GPB_24_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY_BILL.pdf
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:10 amIt could get funky if they weren’t: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to join this man and this woman … Whoa! What? Ok, ok, ok! Which one of you muff-divers wants to play the man part today? You? You even brought the strap-on? Good, good! Let’s get on with it!
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:16 amyou’d think dedicated segregationists like the Giffords what are so keen to keep the depraved homo marriage ceremonies out of their churches would be eager to see that gay people had a nice array of attractive and dignified alternate venues to choose from
but you’d be wrong
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:17 amHadoop, he must be thinking of this guy.
http://physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, S.J., the famously anti-science Roman Catholic priest, astronomer, and phycisist who is credited for coming up with the Big Bang theory in the first place.
It’s amusing that Gil doesn’t know that a Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory. But then I wouldn’t expect Gil to know that. He’s demonstrated he’s anti-science.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:19 amhappyfeet @352, why do you hate America, the Constitution, freedom, and instead love fascism?
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:24 ami do not like the fascisms
i do not agree these Gifford people should’ve been sanctioned by the state
at most the state should just make a note that this is a business what discriminates for so no state functions would ever get accidentally booked there
the lesbians should’ve just gone to yelp and said hey these are not nice people here’s what happened when we tried to book a wedding there
but hello this is New York
the Giffords are already vigorously supporting an incredibly robustly fascist state just by choosing to live work and pay taxes in such a place
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:31 amto listen to a Jehovah’s Witness drone on about how you are damned because they picked your door to knock on.
I’ve been canvassed by Witnesses I do not know how many times, lived two blocks from one of their halls, and had a close co-worker who belonged. I never heard them say anything remotely like that, nor do you see that in their first-impression literature.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:44 amArt Deco – Well I was hoping somebody from the Empire State would take a couple of minutes and explain the history of the related laws so people don’t continue to bloviate blindly on the subject.
No such luck I guess.
Read the bloody judicial opinions yourself, if that sort of sophistry interests you.
It’s not that complicated, but it can be made so if someone’s got something to obscure. In a free society, merchants define their custom. The Giffords’ are not a monopolistic common carrier. They are a service provider who wish to provide x service with x features and not y features. If you want y features, find yourself another vendor.
We can all see what’s going on here, which is making use of law to distribute recognition between subcultural groups. Of course law promotes some interests and parties at the expense of others. It promotes the interests of property holders over thieves. However, there is no cultural consensus here nor any sort of order maintenance function taking place. There are no common property resources being managed. There are no externalities in these transactions. There is not any sort of cultural Gresham’s law that you might posit. The only thing that’s here is this: lawyers favor pooftars over evangelicals and will abuse evangelicals if they won’t treat pooftars with the cloying deference said pooftars fancy they are due.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:54 amI’m afraid we who want to live in a civil society with a primarily secular government must bear the constant tension of one person’s or one group’s perceived legal rights butting up against someone else’s or other group’s perceived legal rights.
Elissa, there is nothing that compels the State of New York, whether through legislation or the free-booting of judges, to say that the pushy poofs in these cases have a cause of civil action against the vendor. The tension is generated by lawyers who are going out of their way to harass small business and supply their clientele with more tools to harass small business (and landlords).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:59 amyou’d think dedicated segregationists like the Giffords what are so keen to keep the depraved homo marriage ceremonies out of their churches would be eager to see that gay people had a nice array of attractive and dignified alternate venues to choose from but you’d be wrong
They’re not ‘eager to see to it’ because it’s not their job. Neither of the Giffords is your mother or their mother.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:01 amit’s not their job to discriminate against gay people either
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:12 amDaleyrocks, while I live in NY, i’m more properly a Californian, and it’s hard for me to comment on NY *history*.
The original law was apparently passed in 1945. Sexual orientation was added by the legislature in 2003.
It’s illegal to discriminate *in the provision of public accomodation* in the state of New York, if that discrimination is based on sexual orientation.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/civil-rights/sonda-brochure is the state AG’s web site on the issue.
New York state defines public accomodation this way (formatting added by me, since the original has no breaks and is therefore painful to read):
—————
A place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the meaning of this article, shall be deemed to include
inns, taverns, road houses, hotels, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest,
or restaurants, or eating houses, or any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises;
buffets, saloons, barrooms, or any store, park or enclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold;
ice cream parlors, confectioneries, soda fountains, and all stores where ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises;
retail stores and establishments, dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, bath-houses, barber-shops, beauty parlors, theatres, motion picture houses, airdromes, roof gardens, music halls, race courses, skating rinks, amusement and recreation parks, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors;
public libraries, kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, high schools, academies, colleges and universities, extension courses, and all educational institutions under the supervision of the regents of the state of New York;
and any such public library, kindergarten, primary and secondary school, academy, college, university, professional school, extension course, or other educational facility, supported in whole or in part by public funds or by contributions solicited from the general public;
garages, all public conveyances, operated on land or water, as well as the stations and terminals thereof;
public halls and public elevators of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants.
—————
This is not inconsistent with the way public accomodation is defined at the federal level (in the civil rights act and the ADA).
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:18 am“Read the bloody judicial opinions yourself, if that sort of sophistry interests you.”
Art Deco – Thanks. Any idea what the decision was based on or are you just pulling your comments out of your butt as usual?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:19 am> Elissa, there is nothing that compels the State of New York, whether through legislation or the free-booting of judges, to say that the pushy poofs in these cases have a cause of civil action against the vendor.
There is nothing which *compels* the state. But the legislature *chose* to add sexual orientation to the list of things that it’s illegal to discriminate based on.
You view that as a result of interference by lawyers, but it seems more likely to me that the legislators thought there was a political benefit to them to do so.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:19 amArt Deco – It is much more enjoyable to read the sophistry in judicial opinions than the puerile garbage you spew here. 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:21 amDaleyrocks, I can’t find a link to the actual decision, which isn’t surprising as it’s by an administrative law judge under the aegis of the human rights commission. I don’t have westlaw or lexisnexis access at this time, so pursuing it further is difficult.
But one of the linked articles explains:
> The decision said Liberty Ridge qualifies as a public accommodation because it regularly collects fees for space, facilities, services and meals, so it cannot be considered “distinctly private.”
given the quote I pasted above, that’s clearly covered by “any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises.” Given that the law was passed in 1945 by legislators allied with the Dewey administration, and that it was originally intended to address racial and ethnic discrimination, I strongly suspect that it was intended to be interpreted liberally in favor of the claimant.
that said, i’m also convinced that this law is routinely violated in new york city, and think it’s highly likely that private individual complaints are in fact the default enforcement mechanism.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:26 amIn particular, to me, the list looks like a laundry list of everything the legislators of the day could think of – what were the common entertainments of the day, and list them all.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:28 amso if the Giffords wanna make anti-gay potato salad and only sell it to straight people not gay people then they’re gonna probably get convicted AGAIN of doing the discriminations on gay people
i wonder what the fine for a second offense would be
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:36 amYou view that as a result of interference by lawyers, but it seems more likely to me that the legislators thought there was a political benefit to them to do so
Elaborations in case law are the work of lawyers. Any annulment of statutory law based on fraudulent constitutional principles is also the work of lawyers. Gov. Cuomo is a lawyer, though, unlike his father, he has scant history as a working attorney (< 5 years). Three of the four caucus leaders in the state legislature are lawyers. A sociology of the bar will help you more than a study of law if you want to understand the forces behind this.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:42 amI don’t see an “annulment of statutory law based on fraudulent constitutional principles” in this case, nor do I see an “elaboration in case law” (although admittedly I haven’t been able to read the ALJ’s decision).
To my eyes, the behavior of the owners looks like it’s a clear and unquestionable violation of the state’s antidiscrimination law.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:45 amGil,
If you read this, I want you to consider something. People who developed the underpinnings of science believed in God. For example, Copernicus and Kepler were both Christian. They established the principles of uniform planetary motion while still having firm faith in God. They weren’t the only ones – thermodynamics and electromagnetism were built by Christians (Lord Kelvin, for example, was an outspoken Christian, as was Faraday) Maxwell, one of the legendary physicists right after Newton and Einstein, was a devout Christian.
These people believed in God, but in a God who behaved rationally, who created a universe that follows certain laws. The idea of “God did it” as a crutch is a lot less common than you might think. If God is the First Cause, that leaves the second, third, fourth, etc. causes to be studied and analysed.
Miracles fall under the idea of intervention – an agent changing the conditions to allow something to occur. If I cool down a room below the temperature of its surroundings, I haven’t violated the second law of thermodynamics, I’ve just taken an action to alter what is going on. Similarly, it’s not unbelievable for a science fiction setting to use technology to create food, heal injuries, alter the environment, or more. Why should a miracle be different?
OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:46 amaphrael – What I find interesting is that if the story to which I link above is to be believed, in order to get the SSM law passed by the legislature, exemptions had to be carved out specifically for cases like the Giffords, so conscience exemptions were specifically contemplated prior to passage.
Given events at the Supreme Court this year it is clear religious conscience can still weigh heavily against interests interests of the state in compelling private citizens and businesses to do things against their religious convictions. I don’t know in New York state whether the law was modified post June 2011 or superseded by other laws, but the fact that religious accommodations were contemplated and nobody here was mentioning that prior to me cutting and pasting that comment means people have been commenting blindly on the situation.
I don’t believe anybody has mentioned the mandatory reeducation training New York state is forcing the Giffords to conduct for its employees either, which has become de rigueur for thought crimes.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:49 amAny idea what the decision was based on or are you just pulling your comments out of your butt as usual?
I am stating a political principle, not elaborating on the content of the statutory law or the case law. Statutory law should reflect appropriate political principles, which it has not in New York for some time. Sorry that doesn’t interest you.
The judiciary here has a higher standard of professionalism than their counterparts in Iowa and California. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals was quite explicit when the issue arose concerning the issuance of a marriage license by a municipal clerk that such matters were at the discretion of the legislature and that the plaintiffs could not claim that the statute conflicted with constitutional principles.
Anti-discrimination law is plain bad, both the components enacted in 1946 and components enacted more recently. (Some sets of plaintiffs are more winsome than others; the one’s under discussion here are the least in this regard). Amendments to matrimonial law instituted in the last 50 years are also bad.
A good constitution should have within it protections for property rights and freedom of contract. New York’s does not, for the most part.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:49 amThe carve out is for religious institutions. Per the NYT report, “The amendment that was passed stated that barring access to same-sex ceremonies, or failing to provide services for them, would not “result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation.””
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/religious-exemptions-were-key-to-new-york-gay-marriage-vote.html?_r=0)
That doesn’t apply to the Giffords.
> means people have been commenting blindly on the situation.
Of course they were! It’s a hot button social issue involving the application of law! 90% of comments *everywhere* are blind comments with no knowledge of the legal details.
[You might conclude that I find this frustrating. :)]
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:52 amTo my eyes, the behavior of the owners looks like it’s a clear and unquestionable violation of the state’s antidiscrimination law.
I am taking to task the statutory law and I am taking to task the free-booting of judges in other circumstances (and it’s a reasonable supposition that the law will be rewritten post hoc, which is what happens with ‘civil rights’ law).
The pair of you seem to fancy we should all think and speak as if we were giving precise fee-for-service advice to clients, which I am not doing.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:53 am“so if the Giffords wanna make anti-gay potato salad and only sell it to straight people not gay people then they’re gonna probably get convicted AGAIN of doing the discriminations on gay people”
Mr. Feets – I don’t think you’re reading the same story I’m reading cause I don’t see nothing about potato salad, even metaphorically. It’s about wedding ceremonies.
You say you don’t get this. I think a better word for this is you don’t accept this, which is fine, because it’s been explained to you why the Giffords did what they did a dozen different ways on this thread alone. You are either dumb or pretending to be dumb and I don’t think it’s the former.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:55 amOf course they were! It’s a hot button social issue involving the application of law! 90% of comments *everywhere* are blind comments with no knowledge of the legal details.
Stop being obtuse. The ‘legal details’ are not of interest to anyone, nor should they be if you’re not a party to the case. The state manufacturing a cause of action is of interest to people.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:55 am> The state manufacturing a cause of action is of interest to people.
The legislature of New York chose *69 years ago* to say that it’s a violation of the law for people who are engaged in businesses that interact with the public may not discriminate based on certain criteria.
That cause of action is extremely well established. It might have made sense to argue that it was ‘the state manufacturing a cause of action’ back then, but at the point where I’m 40 years old and the law predates my mother’s birth, it’s hardly a new thing, and to speak of ‘manufacturing’ incorrectly implies that it is.
That cause of action is, from what I can tell, accepted by the overwhelming majority of people as legitimate. The idea that the bodega down the street can’t refuse to sell to me because I’m white, even though the people working in it are all first generation immigrants from an Arabic-speaking country, is not controversial, and an attempt to repeal this law would probably generate zero votes in the state legislature.
In 2003, the legislature expanded it. That *expansion* was controversial, and remains controversial. But it’s not clear to me that adding an item to this list – something which has been done regularly over the lifespan of the law – is “manufacturing a cause of action”; it’s expanding and refining an existing cause of action.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:00 pmDaley, I still don’t get the idea of turning my marriage into a lawsuit. I wanted my marriage to be about my wife and my friends. But even if it’s about some spectacle, there are other approaches. Take your story to the “Ellen” show, you get national exposure (almost certainly a free super fancy wedding that would be a positive memory), bad PR for the people who you feel have wronged you, a feeling of victory, and no money for lawyers.
Oh. I get it.
I think it is also about crushing people with whom you don’t agree, like all this silly lawfare business. But I’m not a lawyer.
Again, Glenn Reynolds…the goal is for the Officially Respected Response to be “Because shut up.”
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:01 pmaphrael – nk posted the law passed by the NY Senate up in #349. It does not look like applies to the Giffords as the NY Times article indicates.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:02 pmIt’s about wedding ceremonies.
yeah but the Giffords don’t do those no more so if they get a wild hair to do the discriminations on gay people they’re gonna need to think of some new way to do it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:02 pmGerald A (d65c67) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:05 am
Sammy as I pointed out he is not suggesting he was a prophet of God.
Yes, he is, especially sionce he thne goes on to say that it is true. Now the concept of non-Jewish prophet is not unknown. Balaam was considered one, and that after Mount Sinai.
What’s really astonishing is the “prophecy” – something, then as now, only remembered because it was a paradox.
Certainly nothing in the context would suggest that he was.
I think it is fair to say, that as far as is known, nobody but Paul of Tarsus ever called him a prophet. But it is also fair to say that Paul does.
He appears to be making a putdown of Cretans in calling Epimenides one of Crete’s own prophets.
But then he goes on to state that it is true.
As for Epimenides’ statement, it’s fair to assume he didn’t take it as literally true. Epimenides probably did not even mean it literally.
This was famous as something that could not be meant literally, at least if you took i as meaning that everything a Cretan said was a lie.
And then Paul goes don to say it is prophecy, and true!
The basic sense of the Titus passage is: Cretans are not people of admirable character.
But it is his “supporting proof” that is the problem.
Is this really the best you’ve got?
Maybe the best thing to show that nothing that Paul said can be taken as valid.
Sammy Finkelman (335ac9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:04 pm“Daley, I still don’t get the idea of turning my marriage into a lawsuit.”
Simon – I think that is about creating public examples of people who do not share your opinions, which is why the young lesbians recorded their phone call with the Giffords (they had previously heard they did not do gay weddings) and got the ACLU to represent them in punishing the Giffords.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:05 pm“yeah but the Giffords don’t do those no more so if they get a wild hair to do the discriminations on gay people they’re gonna need to think of some new way to do it”
Mr. Feets – And meanwhile if teh gay people want to continue punishing the Giffords after the fine and reeducation they can just keep writing nasty stuff about them on facebook and social media. Winning!!!!11ty!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:08 pmthat is about creating public examples
this case took like two years to resolve Mr. daley and i bet the state was eager to settle
we don’t get to hear their side of it
the fact that the Giffords chose to be represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom – virulently anti-gay organization founded by James Dobson and Donald Wildmon – suggests they were eager for a confrontation not an amicable settlement
i bet if they’d told the Commission upfront okeydokey we’ll just get out of the wedding business they’d have $13K more than they do today, which is a lot of pop tarts to where they could get multiple boxes of each variety
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:10 pmthey can just keep writing nasty stuff about them on facebook and social media
well the key thing is the facts are out there Mr. daley
this is a business what got slapped for discriminatory and anti-social practices, and people need to know that
how embarrassing if your business accidentally booked an event at a notoriously anti-gay venue and you invited gay clients
you could lose your job for doing something like that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:13 pmGerald A (d65c67) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:14 am
As others pointed out the stem cells treatments that actually work are from adult stem cells, not fetal. Strangely, liberals only seem to like the fetal stem cell treatments.
Because only that would create an ethical issue, one where it could be argued that “right-to-life” people were on the wrong side of.
If fetal stem cells aren’t any good (because they have different HLA’s than the people that it would be transplanted into and there’s a resistance problem) there’s no moral issue.
It should have, and in fact was obvious to any impartial observer from the start that fetal stem cells were no cure for anything, but it was something to beat right-to-life and anti-abortion people (some of them, anyway) over the head with.
And people who wanted grants could get support from others who would attribute any skepticism to the moral issue posed by fetal stem cells.
Why, a gigantic fetal cell grant program passed in a referendum in California. That would not have happened had the scientific research to be funded not had any kind of moral question attached to it. It could then be argued opponents were irrational, or had wrong religious beliefs – they came down on the wrong side of that ethical question, and that’s why they opposed it.
No need to examine the actual science. Just assume facts and decide it beased on the assumed facts.
By now, of course, it is known that the science isn’t good, but Gil remembers the old arguments.
Sammy Finkelman (335ac9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:18 pmI left a dangling clause in there, but beyond that . . .
Really?
Sam (e8f1ad) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:20 pmThen you haven’t paid attention to what they say.
They are quite clear that either you believe what they believe or you are simply not going to qualify at the final judgment, which of course results in eternal damnation.
Do they get up in your face and shriek it out directly like a Chick Tract?
No.
But they are crystal clear that their are two, and only two, possible options, and not being on their side is the bad one.
And it is even more clear in their little handouts, which are the only way they are permitted to interact with the Bible.
*a* virulently anti-gay organization is what that should’ve said about the Alliance Defending Freedom
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:22 pmi bet if they’d told the Commission upfront okeydokey we’ll just get out of the wedding business they’d have $13K more than they do today
I bet if the lesbians didn’t record the phone call and get the ACLU to represent them and make a complaint to the state human rights commission and just say okey dokey we ‘ll just take our wedding ceremony and reception somewhere what wants us the farm would have $13k more than it had today.
neener neener
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:22 pmThank you for the information nk and aphrael.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:24 pmthis is a business what got slapped for discriminatory and anti-social practices, and people need to know that
that’s what making examples is all about mr. feets as i’m sure you know so that other people know that it could happen to them too its such a glaring statement of the obvious that i’m surprised you would stoop so low to try to avoid mentioning it as a goal
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:27 pmmr. feets – i don’t get why you are avoiding the truth
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:29 pmoh. well ok yeah.
I guess yes this is one example of what can happen if you discriminate on lesbians in New York. But still I’m curious if the state was super eager to go to court on this.
This happened more or less right after gay marriage was first legalized in NY.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:31 pmYes, daley, I posted some evidence of that upthread. This will all seem like freedom until the State really gets grinding. Which is the point, in my opinion.
I find that people don’t think about consequences down the line. It’s all about either lawyerly details or feeling good about oneself for having the “right idea.”
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:32 pmIn fact, I wonder why we cannot get the transcript of the telephone call. I’ll bet it would be instructive.
Again, I think they would have been far better served going on “Ellen.”
I mean, if the goal was to have a great wedding.
Simon Jester (a6404f) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:33 pmEvidently NY State passed a narrower law – which was still held to apply to things like horse racing establishments – in 1873.
How long does a law prohibiting business owners from discriminating on a set of characteristics have to exist before it ceases to be a ‘manufacture’ but instead becomes part of the assumed background?
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:39 pmeveryone thinks Ellen’s SOOOOO nice except for the people who work for her
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:41 pmThank you Simon.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:42 pmEllen dancing is gayer than Putin riding a great white shark shirtless
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:44 pmi’m not a fan of either of em but I thought Finding Nemo shoulda got best pic that year
man that movie had everything
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:46 pmA friend held the wedding reception for his daughter in a barn on a family farm outside Burlington, Vermont about 10 years ago. A bunch of the couple’s friends were farmers and they brought samples of their crops to the reception. I don’t think what they were growing was legal, but it made for a very convivial reception.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 12:57 pm==Daleyrocks, I can’t find a link to the actual decision, which isn’t surprising as it’s by an administrative law judge under the aegis of the human rights commission. I don’t have westlaw or lexisnexis access at this time, so pursuing it further is difficult.==
Aphrael, Unlike a few people here who do not care to be bothered by steenkin details I think it would be *very* helpful to see the actual Liberty Farm decision and how the judge related or tied it to either/both the Public Accommodation laws you outlined in 364, and the 2011 NY. marriage equality law daleyrocks researched and nk linked at 349. If anybody can get it, please link it.
elissa (c63320) — 9/1/2014 @ 1:46 pmAs an attorney, asked if a business was exempt from the public accommodation law by way of the marriage law, the first question I’d ask would be, “What kind of sales tax exemption certificate do you have?” If a re-seller’s certificate, then the answer is you are not exempt. If a 501(c)(3) certificate, I’d want to see your articles of organization. Religious, for sure exempt. Charitable or educational, maybe exempt and maybe not.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 2:21 pmThere is something that has been rubbing me the wrong way about this and it’s the “I’m wronged because I’m righteous; pity me” attitude of the Christians. I’d like them better if they came out and said, “A couple of sodomites wanted to hold their wedding at my place of business and I told them where to go. It cost me $13,000.00 but it was worth it.” Never let them see you hurt, guys. Nobody truly pities the pitiful.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 2:27 pmnk, you must know I respect your seriousness, your humor, and what I consider to be your even-handedness. You have never been rude to me, and have been patient with my differences. Thank you for that. So while I don’t think we can agree, I hope to at least suggest a different perspective, from a nonlawyer who is concerned with freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Please hear me out.
Notice that the Giffords said none of you described above. Ditto how elissa, as an example described them upthread. Elissa went on to say that of course she didn’t intend to ascribe those statements to the Giffords, but as I said, there are many people, some of whom post her, who would agree with the original statement she made as a thought experiment. Repeatedly, people assign to the Giffords statements and sentiments for which no evidence exists. It degenerates into “Two Minute Hates,” and for (I believe) much the same reason. These negative memes seep into the mindsets of people with busy lives, who make snap judgements from the heart and not the head…and in particular, not thinking of downstream consequences.
It would be equally wrong if I described the McCartys in the basest and most venal terms possible, again with no actual knowledge of their statements. But as you know, many people would object vociferously to such a characterization of the McCartys. It bothers me that folks are so willing to believe ill of the Giffords—or insult and denigrate—based on so little information. It’s bumper sticker thinking, in many ways.
What concerns me here, and continues to do so, is that this is being couched as some kind of justice issue (apart from the legalities)—when I am instead concerned by the precedent it sets. Look at how quickly “the good point of view” has changed with regard to SSM. Even the President was against it before he was for it. Heck, Clinton signed DOMA into law….and says he has “evolved.”
Riiiggghhht.
Okay, fashion is fashion, in politics as in everything. And perhaps even with the law. But I am concerned about what is going on in the UK, right now.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/brendan-oneill-when-political-correctness-took-over-in-yorkshire-1409249308
No, of course the situations are not the same. Please; I am not unintelligent, nor prone to labeling people unfairly.
But notice how the “New Conventional Wisdom” shut people up in that case, and closed their eyes to unequivocal evil…for fear of being labeled…just as we have seen people labeled so quickly and avidly on this topic. I would have no problem with strict legal interpretation. It’s the venom that keeps creeping in that concerns me, because so little is known of the people themselves.
As I have said repeatedly, I actually have no problem with SSM, nor would most Christians find me Christian by their lights.
But this whole situation stinks to high heaven of NewThink and ThoughtCrime. Of shutting people down with lawfare.
I want to say it again: there were other ways to deal with this. It depends on what the true goal was. And I don’t think it was finding a place to get married and make a beautiful set of memories.
Again, I don’t expect you to agree with me. But I have a horrible feeling we will be revisiting this general type of subject in the years to come, and not pleasantly.
Thanks for listening to me politely, and being (as you generally are) thoughtful and serious.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/1/2014 @ 2:51 pmYou’re right. I should not have pointed at the Giffords so specifically. I was ascribing a general attitude I saw to them.
As for thanking me for engaging you courteously, you forgot that I did not steal your wallet either. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:02 pm“As an attorney, asked if a business was exempt from the public accommodation law by way of the marriage law, the first question I’d ask would be, “What kind of sales tax exemption certificate do you have?” If a re-seller’s certificate, then the answer is you are not exempt.”
nk – Would that mean they do not have to make unreasonable accommodations for the religious preferences of their employees, honor conscience exemptions for dispensing abortifacients or provideding coverage for abortifacients under an employer sponsored insurance plan? Of course not.
The treatment is not parallel.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:06 pmwell you can imagine what you want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j86C8KP7Ec
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:09 pmthis is who the McCarthy’s atty has recently represented:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/declaration_of_mariko_hirose_with_exhibits.pdf
this probably fits in the other thread:
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:14 pmOh horse crap, Jester. The lesbians made a point. They went to court. They won. Lawfare? What the hell is that? They shut down Christian people because they could. They did it because the law cares more about the “feelings” of lesbians than it does about the Constitutional rights of Christians. Listen to you politely, indeed. That’s how civilization goes down the crapper. They listened, Christians 0 gays 4. May as well forgetaboutit. So now gay rights trump Constitutional rights? I love lawyers, they manage to screw up the law.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:14 pmAnd you have attys who will gladly defend Gitmo detainees, and veto any DOMA or other legislation
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:18 pmnk, I strongly believe one of the big problems we face as our culture is a lack of civility. That does not mean weak, let alone a doormat. It means polite. To learn to disagree without being disagreeable. I fall short often, and I hope to improve as a person.
So when someone acts in a way that I appreciate, I simply say so. There isn’t a lot of that, either, nowadays. Most people have no trouble singing out when things are not to their liking; we seem to have trouble thanking people for acts which we appreciate. So thank you. And to daley.
Also, I am missing 50 bucks from my wallet. You are smooth.
Finally, I appreciated your conversation about knives. Wish I could show you a photo of my volcanic glass knife and Alaska Damascus knife.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:20 pmwhy would you do a press conference to trumpet how you don’t like having lesbians in your house
interesting marketing strategy for targeting large parties
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:26 pmI said “by way of the marriage law”, daleyrocks. It’s pretty clear that it, the exemption contained in the marriage law, is a defense for religious 501(c)(3)’s when it comes to hosting same-sex weddings. The other things you mentioned are covered by other laws.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:35 pmSimon, I may have acquired my fetish for sharp things from an uncle who was a from-scratch shoemaker. He made his own leather knives and it was amazing how sharp he kept them. He could resharpen a disposable twin-edged razor blade with a water glass. He served six months in prison for atheism. In 1970.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:39 pmnk, I had to learn in the Boy Scouts that sharp knives were not a plaything. Ouch.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:41 pmthis was under the Colonels?
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:41 pmI kind of wondered about that too, happyfeet. Gays are the bread and butter of bed and breakfasts and the watch-the-leaves-change-color tourist traps. I guess the Giffords don’t have that kind of business.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:42 pmnarciso, yes.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:44 pmnk, I don’t know if you read science fiction, but Gregory Benford wrote a novel, “Artifact” set in a near-future Greece.
I wonder what you would think of it, should you give it a read.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:46 pmi don’t think they have places for people to stay the night
they’re right off the hudson though and foliage cruises are a thing?
indeed foliage cruises are a thing
not going on the old bucket list though
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:48 pmSimon reminded of this other Hellenic themed story:
http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/09/01/amphipolis-tomb-all-circus-no-bread-at-greeces-newly-found-archaeological-disneyland/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:49 pmcuriously enough the word “lesbian” comes from the greek word for “delightful house guest” a lot of people don’t know this
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 3:51 pmNo, it comes from the poetess Sappho who lived on Lesbos and it means “man-hater”.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:02 pmwell yeah if you’re using the dictionary definition yes
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:05 pmThe Greek word for guest, including house-guest, is xenos which means stranger. Cf. Sodom and Gomorrah.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:12 pm423. Not that I can recommend my practice, I came to college believing that science was mankind’s uncovering the how of creation. Part of my interest led to taking Greek freshman year.
Imagine my delight at finding our English translators had taken ‘create’ as the translation of ‘ginomai’ in the Septuagint.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:18 pmI haven’t read it yet, but the decision is at http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:20 pmit really does seem like a deliberate provocation:
http://www.albanyupdate.com/blog1/68-preserving-religious-liberty/397-liberty-on-the-line-family-farm-faces-trumped-up-allegations-of-discrimination-from-same-sex-partners
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:30 pm428. Well, it’s not like we weren’t warned. H8rs gotta get our God.
He so deserves it.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:38 pmInteresting. The decision jumps to the conclusion that not wanting a same sex wedding ceremony is the same as not wanting homosexuals. That’s not necessarily so. I don’t think the Giffords would have objected to Richard Gere marrying Jodie Foster. But it was the administrative judge’s call. If New York has a rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be narrowly construed, an appeals court might rule differently.
The “private property” claim is dead in the water. The place is clearly a business and a place of public accommodation as defined under the statute.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:54 pmThere is something that has been rubbing me the wrong way about this and it’s the “I’m wronged because I’m righteous; pity me” attitude of the Christians. I’d like them better if they came out and said, “A couple of sodomites wanted to hold their wedding at my place of business and I told them where to go. It cost me $13,000.00 but it was worth it.” Never let them see you hurt, guys. Nobody truly pities the pitiful.
nk, I haven’t gotten that impression from direct statements from the Giffords themselves. However, I can see where their lawyer was attempting to squeeze out sympathy for them. I like that they stayed focused on their faith and did not attack gays at large, nor the couple.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 4:58 pmThis has always been my point, Dana. People like to assign the Giffords a particular unpleasant meme—without knowing anything about them, or even (in my opinion) looking into the matter. It rankles me no end, because a similar approach to the McCartys would be considered hateful.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:20 pmFor example, I could easily paint the McCartys are a “pity me” sort of couple, out to punish people who disagree with them. I do suspect their motives, based on their behavior (and the comments from interviews), but I do not know that for sure.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:21 pmthe Gifford lady did that whiny press conference though whereas as far as I can tell the nice lesbians she discriminated against didn’t attempt to rile up anybody they just gave their testimony in court
no press conference
no media campaign
whereas the Gifford chick did another round of press to publicly martyr herself and announce that she’d rather not do any wedding than the have to do icky lesbian weddings with her children right upstairs
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:31 pmrather not do any *weddings* i mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:32 pmplus the Gifford chick had all those rapid gay-bashers behind her holding those weird pink signs that had nothing to do with gay marriagings
what was that all about?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:33 pmhere’s the link again so you can see the entourage of hate the Gifford chick surrounded herself with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j86C8KP7Ec
yup i think puddin pop has quite the agenda going on
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:35 pmomg *rabid* not rapid I mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:38 pmI ate at Chik fil-A three times last week. It would have been four but it’s closed on Sundays. Just so you know.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:39 pmgo get your nespresso, pikachu, you might start making sense
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:40 pmI went to KFC for grilled chicken last week for the second time
I learned some knowledge!
if you get a 2 pc meal they give you one nice-sized piece and then a squidgy lil piece
if you get a 4 pc meal they give you one nice-sized piece and 3 squidgy lil pieces
everything’s a racket anymore
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:44 pm@Steve 326
Im sorry for this sentence not being totally clear. Many more Christians in general that work against it is what I should have said. I listed you off prominent Young earth creationist Christians that are actively misleading the masses again search Youtube for Eric Hoving or Ken Hamm or the Creation Museum which all say the earth is <10K years old and that humans lived with dinosaurs. Is this not an example of Christians working against science?
Oh no? Just 500 years ago the Church convicted Galileo of heresy for daring to believe that that the sun revolved around the earth. That’s not anti science?
Talk about tunnel vision.
Gil (27c98f) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:46 pmA few points in separate posts.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 5:54 pmSorry Sammy, but I will give more weight to nk’s commentary on Greek words in the NT and their interpretation.
(But I likely will tip my hat to you if the question is about Hebrew).
Legal issues,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:01 pmI’m not a lawyer. What I understand from the discussion is that under NY state accommodation law, same sex attraction is a protected category, and it is not likely that any religious freedom claims from the feds will make any difference, so as far as legal rulings, the thing stands, correct?
MD, Comment 444. No, it’s only an administrative ruling. Under the usual rules, a real judge reviews it de novo on questions of both facts and law. The last time I did one in Chicago, I went over to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, filled out a form, and paid $200.00. The City supplied the judge with a transcript which was mostly “unintelligible” and two months later the judge told me I’d won. (It’s been a while, the fee doubtlessly has been raised.) And then there’s the appellate process, from the New York court of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court on the religious claim. If the Giffords don’t appeal it becomes binding on them, and it’s precedent of a sort within the administrative unit.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:12 pmhere’s the link again so you can see the entourage of hate the Gifford chick surrounded herself with
happyfeet, I don’t think you’re able to be the least bit able to be objective here. The people surrounding Gifford didn’t say anything. Couldn’t tell what the sign said, perhaps Don’ Erase Moms and Dads or something.
Further, Gifford’s statement was controlled and seemed rather to state the facts in order of their occurrence. She also very plainly illustrated how the decision to deny rather than participate in something they morally disagree with was made. So what? She didn’t call anyone names, she didn’t belittle, mock, ridicule, profane, nor file any sort of complaint against the gay couple for singling them out as haters.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:22 pmReligious expression comments:
So they taped the phone call, eh? Sounds like a set up. Been there, done that…
Then they went and told the king in order to get Daniel into trouble, hence the lion’s den episode.
From Daniel 6
Apparently Daniel could have saved himself some trouble simply by not praying so loud, but his conscience said that would be compromising his faith and appearing to disregard his God in deference to the king, so he carried on as usual.
The one link says that the Giffords have at least one openly gay employee and have held events with gays in attendance before. The issue is not that they don’t like or get along with gay people, the issue is that they believe that same sex marriage is not legitimate and they do not want to be part of making one happen. They believe that renting their facility for the event is enough of an entanglement in it that they do not want to do it. (I am sure there is some legalese about being a “participant” in a crime or a business deal or such that might come into play here).
Now, one my disagree with them on their view on gay marriage, or how “enabling” they are being by allowing the event to be on their property, but it seems to me the principles are pretty clear.
There is an astounding book called “Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed”, about a village in France that hid Jews from the Nazis. At one point the pastor (and leader of the effort) and 2 friends were arrested for something by the Germans. There were offered freedom in exchange for signing a statement to the effect they wouldn’t help Jews and would obey the Germans. They refused to sign it. Other prisoners said they were fools, they could have signed it, been set free, and then gone ahead and do what they wanted. For some reason they were released anyway, and within a few days the other prisoners were sent back to Germany to a concentration camp.
In one way what the Giffords have suffered is trivial compared to many people today in other parts of the world, but it has happened here, and that is the logic to it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:24 pmThanks nk, so it is still pending who knows how many rounds of whatever,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:25 pmas long as there is money to pay the lawyers.
446. Clearly you do not mind read.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:28 pmMD, like I said above, the best appealable issue I see from the decision is whether refusing to host a same-sex ceremony, but allowing the reception and with a record of otherwise being welcoming to gays, is per se discrimination under the human rights statute. It’s a good, appealable issue, more than just colorable. But it’s only question of how broadly the statute can be construed. A court could call it either way.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:29 pmI went back nearly a year and a half, to see what the real story was.
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:32 pmI think, too, happyfeet, there is something to be admired in people who stand by their convictions – especially self-proclaimed Christians. I have known a number in my life who were Christian in name only because when it came to actually *living* their faith, they weenied out. Fear of criticism, judgement, not being popular, whatever and their supposed faith took an immediate backseat to giving lip service and saying what they believed people wanted to hear from them. Sadly, this from those in the pulpit, too.
The point is, they made a moral decision that was right for them. Let’s face it, the gay chicks weren’t hurt by this, they weren’t denied the ability to express their love, their commitment to one another, their ability to marry one another – and they weren’t denied the ability to live their lives out in the open. What they were was angry that a family didn’t believe the way they did. And because they were so narrow-minded and judgmental and bigoted toward this family, they behaved in a far worse manner than the couple they accused of being haters.
I hope the gay couple learn about tolerance and mature into people who can accept differences in ideals and beliefs. This is a teachable moment for them.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:32 pmIt seems like both sides are getting free lawyers. The two ladies from the NYACLU and the Giffords from the CoMaF and/or AFA. (If I have the initials right.)
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:33 pmActually Copernicus was a cleric (and Keppler was a Lutheran Minister). And Copernicus developed the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and wrote about it a century before Galileo. For some reason anti-history, anti-science, anti-religion types think it was Galileo’s teachings on heliocentrism was not the Catholic church’s problem with Galileo.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/
The Church’s real problem was with Bruno, a Franciscan friar, who had rejected a whole host of Christian beliefs such as the divinity of Christ. Bruno was a firm believer in Copernican astronomy, but for completely unscientific, even occult reasons. So unlike Martin Luther and other Protestants at the time, the Church didn’t oppose teaching Copernican astronomy because it conflicted with scripture.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Bruno had done a great deal to convince the church that the heliocentric theory of the solar system was based upon mere superstition and it was all just a cult. The problem they had with Galileo was he was teaching Copernican astronomy as established truth. What he offered as proof was laid out in his On the Ebb and Flow of the Tides, in which he claimed it was the mechanical action of the motion of the earth causing water to slosh around that was the only conceivable explanation for tidal action.
As the above notes, the Church and Galileo’s other critics “had rather the best of it.” They didn’t claim to explain what caused the ebb and flow of the tide but they were able to point out huge scientific holes in what Galileo offered as complete proof of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Those criticisms remain valid. Which is almost axiomatically true, since we know it’s lunar gravity and not the mechanical action of the earth moving around the sun. Galileo was completely, 100% wrong on that point. It wasn’t just that he got it wrong; Galileo ridiculed the idea that lunar gravity could possibly influence the tides as absurd.
The fact is, Galileo wasn’t much of an astronomer. He was a famous astronomer, but really his primary talent was in the field of mechanics. Which is why he virtually invented the telescope (and whatever contributions he made to astronomy were do almost entirely to that invention). But then that would also why he seized on a mechanical explanation as the only one possible for tidal action and was blinded to any other explanation. It’s hard to see what he really undertood about the universe, and for that matter what advancements he made over Copernicus. Like Copernicus he believed that the planets orbited around the sun in perfect or near perfect circles. So his theory of planetary motion had to incorporate epicycles just like Ptolemy’s theory. It took Kepler to make a true advance and discover the planets’ orbits were elliptical.
Had Galileo taught and written about the heliocentric view of the universe as Copernicus had done, as a theory, the Church wouldn’t have had a problem with him. Even the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy (link to it yourselves) admits as much.
The problem was that Galileo refused to do so; he taught and wrote about it as established fact. As we have seen, his evidence fell far short of proving that. The Church did not allow unproven theories to be taught in its Universities as fact; they certainly didn’t allow these theories to be taught if they were convinced they were factually incorrect.
That’s why Galileo forced into what amounted to involuntary retirement. Not because his assertions ran counter to scripture, but because he couldn’t prove what he was saying was true. They simply required more evidence, and Galileo’s was completely inadequate. And you will note Galileo’s fate was far different than Bruno’s, Galileo’s villa near Florence, where he remained for the rest of his life, was a very nice place. Bruno really was a heretic.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:33 pmPublic Policy
It would be interesting to see what the married couple and their friends have posted on Facebook and Twitter, etc.
The argument was that the homosexuals just wanted to be able to do what they wanted and how could it ever hurt anybody else. Long ago I said the issue was they wanted to make a public morality statement put into law to punish people who disagreed with them.
So I am not surprised by these recent events at all, especially in a state where the governor says he doesn’t want us pro-lfe types around. (He may be interested to know, that unless he changes his ways, he will get his wish for eternity).
It would be interesting to know how many people like our host, who has repeatedly said he was in favor of SSM, thought this was going to be the eventual effect and wanted it, or are surprised and thought they really just wanted the freedom to do their own thing.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:35 pmMy grandfather’s brother and his two sons were gathered up by the Germans to be executed for partisan activity along with a dozen other men from the village. The Germans offered to let the old man go. He refused, marched along with his sons to the execution ground, and was machine-gunned too.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:37 pmSteve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:33 pm
There you go again, appealing to facts…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:41 pmFurther, Gifford’s statement was controlled and seemed rather to state the facts in order of their occurrence.
if you listen to the Gifford chick read her prepared statement at the youtube link a few things pop out
1. “we built a 3-story barn we call The Gifford Barn… the first floor has a great hall, and our family resides on the second and third floors.”
2. “Couples started asking us about having weddings outside on the grounds and having their reception in our beautiful barn…”
3. “In 2004 we hosted our first wedding and reception…”
4. “In 2011 New York state enacted a Same Sex Marriage Act. We felt that the definition would not apply to us – that this was our home, our farm…”
Here’s what the Liberty Ridge web site says about The Gifford Barn:
So there’s a discrepancy there as far as dates go…
This is interesting cause what happened in the Liberty Ridge Farm area in 2004?
95 miles away in New Palz, same sex marriage in NY became a real actual thing for the first time ever. It must’ve come as quite a nasty shock for the devout Giffords and caused quite the ruckus among their associated clans.
So all of this was early 2004, and per the website the infamous Discrimination Barn was designed in early 2005. And then…
So we’re left to wonder…
Did the Giffords design their accommodations as they did for the purpose of laying a foundation for a defense against an eventual claim of discrimination?
The other thing that should be noted – from the opinion aphrael links – is that the oft-repeated claim that the Giffords were ok with the lesbians having a reception but not a wedding was never communicated to the lesbians. This is just an assertion the Giffords are making with no evidence to back it up – e.g. any examples of a prior same sex wedding reception they’d hosted.
But yeah that was quite the posse Mrs. Giffords assembled.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:45 pmfeets, I hope you realize that you long ago lost the claim to any credibility as an impartial arbiter of facts on this issue.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:49 pmIt’s what happens when you are rude, derogatory and insulting, people don’t think you can be objective.
It really is striking the truth about Galileo, I had always heard the ‘e por se move’ line, as proof that was the reason for his censure by the Church, as with most everything, that wasn’t the whole story,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:51 pmWe gotta do that compendium of things you know that aren’t true sometime.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:54 pmFor bedtime reading.
“In 2011 New York state enacted a Same Sex Marriage Act. We felt that the definition would not apply to us – that this was our home, our farm…”
They should have read the Equality of Marriage Act. They could have built a separate chapel, organized it as a religious non-for-profit, gotten a 501(c)(3) letter from the IRS, and they would have their defense under the religious exemption in the marriage law itself.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:56 pmI’m biased on this one Mr. Dr. and I’m not a big fan of these Giffords people
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:57 pmDon’t you want the lesbians to be open-minded and embracing of others from all walks of life, happyfeet?
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:03 pmI don’t believe gay people are inherently apart or otherwise separate from Christendom Dana.
I believe that this belief is evil, un-American, and fundamentally unchristian.
I also have some very strong beliefs about KFC’s meal deals.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:06 pmI don’t believe gay people are any more inherently evil than anyone else either, we are all sinful and fall short of the glory of God.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:12 pmIt’s what we do with that next that is the issue.
How do you feel about kimchee, happyfeet? If your lease says you cannot ferment it in your apartment, is it automatically discrimination against Koreans?
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:14 pmthe Giffords fall a LOT short I think cause of how prejudiced they are
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:14 pmI think the behavior would have been prohibited before the enactment of the same sex marriage act – allowing the rental of the property for a marriage, but not for a commitment ceremony, would have have been just as problematic.
At least, that’s how other jurisdictions have handled it. The cake and the photographer were being hired for marriage ceremonies that wouldn’t be officially recognized, after all.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:16 pmWhat about sacrificing live chickens to Erzulie Freda Dahomey? If the Giffords refused to allow that, is it automatically discrimination against Haitians?
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:16 pmHi Steve, nice wall of text trying to explain away Galileo. Why don’t we look at the actual text of the indictment and read what the words mean.
So the standard of evidence they required was that it should not have been declared to be “false and contrary to the holy scriptures”.
Any response yet for the young earth creationist Christians actively pooping on science today?
Also, I did not bring up Bruno, but I am very much relieved to read that he wasn’t burned at the stake because of his ideas on the universe. It is so much more reassuring that it was only because he rejected the teachings (divinity of Christ) of the church.
Gil (27c98f) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:18 pmkimchee is gross
it’s ok if you serve me a smidge on the side
but fishing that slime out of a jar that set me back like $8 isn’t really a me thing
I mean i get how probiotic it is, but so are dill pickles
but I don’t know if that’s a reasonable thing to put in a lease
In traditional preparation kimchi is often allowed to ferment underground in jars for months.[
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:18 pmLink to Full Text
Gil (27c98f) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:18 pmThis is what I could find based on some quick internet searches.
that was from wikipedia
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:19 pm466. Mr. Feets, Christians don’t believe they’re better than you. They don’t believe God can accept them as they are, apart from Christ hung on a tree.
That said calling some portion, some aside, some jot or tittle of Scripture optional, unenlightened, is not Ok, Ok?
Get your mind right, Son.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:21 pmgood point Mr. aphrael
I’m just struck cause the Giffords pretty much pegged their whole case on the “this is our home” argument
and there was a huge local gay marriage brouhaha in the backdrop as they were designing and building that home… which included a great hall tailor-made for wedding receptions
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:21 pmThat’s troubling at many levels, aphrael. Because, unlike race or sex, it defines status by behaviors.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:22 pmI think it is ok Mr. gary cause I don’t think Scripture is particularly articulate on this subject of gay marriage
it’s all fuzzy penumbras and emanating emanations which just so happen to conveniently affirm a lot of people’s prejudices
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:24 pmYou must have seen, on the internet at least, signs in stores that say “Pull your pants up”. One town even passed an anti-saggy pants ordinance. Is that racial discrimination under human rights statutes such as New York’s?
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:26 pmbut Mr. nk I’m not super-concerned with the legality of what the Giffords did on those lesbians
I think it was wrong even were it to be legal
I think treating those lesbians like that was just really mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:26 pmI mean for crying out loud
if one of your “core values” is you have to be mean to gay people
your core values are lame
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:28 pm482. “Not articulate”.
Trace of self-awareness, lost in moderation somewheres?
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:34 pmah pikachu, you’re like the annoying weatherman in ‘Ground Hog Day’
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:35 pmdesolation of smaug is on HBO go btw
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:35 pmWell, Christ taking a rawhide to the moneylenders in the temple was probably thought mean too. By them, at least. We’re talking about the government and religious convictions and freedom to pursue a lifestyle and freedom to exploit your land.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:40 pmMoney changers.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:42 pmmoneylenders aren’t supposed to be inside temples though
lesbians are our friends and neighbors and they’re our fellow americans and they’re part of our communities and they shouldn’t be treated like they were less than everybody else
cause they’re same as everyone else just trying to stumble their way through this vale of tears god bless america
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:46 pmmoney changers i mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:46 pm486. It sort of seems like Jesus saved his worst for the hypocrites, chief among them the Pharisees.
But one should remember that was Jerusalem. Today who might be the most outstanding hypocrites be?
In the mainline churches? Seriously?
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 7:55 pmWell Saul was a Pharisee, and yet he came to be annoyed with them, he was imprisoned, tormented, shipwrecked multiple times for his faith,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:08 pmIf marriage was what these 2 lesbians actually wanted they’d look for pleasant and congenial accommodations, a pretty place suitable for a joyous occasion and one that accepts their peculiar association. But that’s not what motivates them. They’re out to offend conventional sensibilities, to flaunt their so-called “marriage,” and to enjoy the perverse notoriety that comes with punishing disapproving traditionalists.
ropelight (b27b81) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:16 pmit seems like that farm woman was way more enthusiastic about putting her face all up into the cameras and getting media attention than the lesbians were Mr. ropelight
i can’t really see where the lesbians did any press at all
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:19 pmA prophet is without honor in his own country. He’s just a meanie.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:24 pmbash and pickles Mr. gary
these farm woman types, they’ve very very selective in terms of the precise exact particular “wicked people” what actually ring their watchman bell
and nobody’s explained with anyhing remotely approaching coherence how ostracizing gay people is doing them some kind of big goddamn holy favor
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:29 pm*anything* remotely approaching coherence
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:29 pmand that should be *bosh* and pickles
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:33 pm495. “very very selective”
Sure, Mr. Feets, and they are no more familiar with these words they putatively live by than you.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:36 pmBe that as it may going forward I want us all to try and be more nicer to the lesbians.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:37 pmJust put your best foot forward.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:37 pmhappyfeet, the lesbians got what they wanted, why would they need or want to do press? They weren’t fined a chunk of change. They weren’t the subject of a complaint. They weren’t pushed to the corner in what they had to do with their private business.
And if Giffords appeared “enthusiastic” to you at the presser, I shudder to think what you see as serious and sad.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:38 pmShe assembled an entourage bigger than Michelle Obama’s.
That’s what I mean by enthusiastic.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:39 pmThe lesbians did NOT get what they wanted Dana they wanted to get married at this charming little farm like everyone else instead of being told we don’t want your kind here
all they got out of this is $1500 each
and that’s not real money in NY
it’s just not
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:40 pmhow ostracizing gay people is doing them some kind of big goddamn holy favor
That was the dilemma of the Grand Inquisitor. He “knew” his flock were irredeemables and this was the only life they would have. So what to do? Whip them and tell them to straighten up and fly right, making the only life they would have even more miserable, or pat them on the head and lie, “God is love, everything will be alright”?
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:41 pmthat farm woman didn’t even have the graciousness to apologize
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:41 pmI don’t know who assembled the people around her, happyfeet.
I think the couple got the ultimate out of this: a big score for the LGBT movement – they were instrumental in the effectual shuttering of a business owned by Christians.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:44 pmI wonder what the Yazidis would do? I mean after they got a drink.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:45 pmMr. nk the Lord moves in mysterious ways
and God sent those two lesbians to that farm woman
and that farm woman, she let God down
she had a chance to embrace those girls and imbue their wedding with as much Grace as a good Christian farm woman can muster, which more often than not is an ample amount of Grace can i get an amen
but she sent them away, coldly and ungraciously
she sent them away from her little corner of Christendom
as the good Mr. gary explained
in her mind she sent them away to die
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:46 pmActually having principles is a very inconvenient thing, unless, of course, they are the correct principles.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:48 pmthe effectual shuttering of a business owned by Christians
that remains to be seen have you been to the website?
this is quite an expansive enterprise of which the wedding business comprised just a small part
granted I can’t imagine respectable companies doing any further business with her
but that’s kind of on her
she has her own unique philosophy about nurturing a business
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:48 pmand that farm woman, she let God down
Oh hell, happyfeet, we all let God down. Wisely, He knows better than to have much expectation from us in the first place. Hence, grace.
With that, I wonder if you have a real life experience in which you opted to stand by your principles and convictions in spite of the adverse consequences and negativity that might come your way?
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:49 pmi do not believe in my heart that the farm woman was acting in accordance with principles and convictions
i think she hates gay people
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:51 pm(did you see that posse?)
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:52 pmDana, I keep repeating myself, and I apologize. I’m very interested to hear the recording that the two young ladies made. It may not be illegal to record people without telling them so in New York, but I find it reprehensible. And telling.
I do not think that this was about getting married, and making wonderful memories. It was about making what is in essence a political statement. Otherwise, as I have mentioned, going on “Ellen” (or any morning show at all, like “The View”) would have given them more airtime, more PR, and a fabulous wedding. Can’t you see Matt Lauer bragging about what his show gave them? I can.
It would have accomplished every single thing the young couple wanted, except one.
Punishing someone who disagreed with them.
Again, I keep hearing the Giffords described as “hateful,” “evil,” “bigoted,” and so on (and not just here, of course). This is, naturally, from folks who are not interested in finding out what really happened, but it is from folks with a vested interest in the “Because shut up” movement in politics. It’s fascinating to watch the Giffords put under a microscope, but not the other couple. And if they wanted silence, please go back to the Ellen Gambit.
This was quite intentional, and I cannot for the life of me understand doing something like this for a wedding. It should be celebrating one another, not about a victory over people with whom one does not agree.
And as I discussed earlier with nk, what will happen down the line? What “fashionable change” will take place next, and then who will we vilify next for not agreeing? What precedent does this set?
We have always been at war with EastAsia, after all.
Robert Heinlein used to call this period we live in, in his fiction, as “The Crazy Years.” Indeed it is.
Simon Jester (a3c84b) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:55 pm508. So Feets, who wouldn’t know Jesus when he comes, even if He were to bite him on his hinder, will see fit to correct His thinking, and cause Him to be more articulate on issues of import He has been remiss to address explicitly enough, and we will all the the better for his doing so.
Some how I may have missed where this makes a lick of sense.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:57 pmAnd by the way, Dana, thank you for your calm, honest, and fair minded commentary, both in terms of your posts, and in your interactions with others.
Simon Jester (a3c84b) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:58 pmi’m a giver Mr. gary give give give never take always give
no zero days
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 8:58 pmThey’re gearing up for the Supreme Court showdown next year, Simon. The more states, through state action not federal district court action, have and approve of gay marriage, the more likely the “living Constitution” will be found to contain it. It’s the Supreme Court’s modus operandi for new rights. After that, unless all the states raise their age of consent to eighteen, we’ll see what the original meaning of “chickenhawk” is.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:09 pmMr. Jester the opinion aphrael found includes a recap of the phone call
it was a brief call
the farm woman didn’t say anything about being willing to host a reception, which means “Religion News Service” got it wrong when it reported the following:
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:13 pm508. and God sent those two lesbians to that farm woman
Indeed, Xians often do look at things this way, if they are attentive.
in her mind she sent them away to die
There you go, reading minds. Could you be right, sure, but here’s a snippet of my own making I’ll reprise once again.
“Men fear most that evil they know to reside in their own heart”.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:13 pmThis was never about getting married. It’s always been about a big ol’ YOU MUST LOVE ME AND UNCONDITIONALLY ACCEPT MY DECISIONS! from people who have experienced discrimination and are more interested in getting some payback “for the cause” than in kicking off their supposedly happily married life.
Do they deserve to have a happy life? Yes. We all do. But if their happiness in predicated on taking Christians “down a peg”, I’m afraid that their union will eventually fail like a British automotive electrical system in a light drizzle.
Russ from Winterset (830aac) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:14 pmMr. Russ the lesbians did end up getting married at The Olde Tater Barn if I remember right
they were for reals looking for a barn where they could start their married life together
but the The Olde Tater Barn wasn’t their first choice
which, I get that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:16 pm
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:17 pmthePlease, Mr. Feet. We have an agreement. If I had that computer program that eliminates posts, I would use it.
We are not going to agree, and you are going to continue to lie, misstate things and say terrible things about people. It bothers me deeply, and saying what you say is your right.
I would rather engage other people who are serious and even minded. Who listen politely and respond in kind.
I wish you the best, but again, please leave me out of your unserious and bizarre comments.
Simon Jester (a3c84b) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:23 pm522. Any pics of the blessed couple?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/12/feds-pay-for-study-on-why-lesbians-are-fat/
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:25 pmbosh and pickles Mr. Jester
you want a transcript of the call that was taped the closest you’re gonna get is the opinion which references the “exhibit” which we can infer is the recording
the opinion appears to walk us through this brief call in comprehensive detail
as far as I know our lesbian friends and the godly farm woman have never met, and perhaps in this life they never will
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:30 pmU MUST LOVE ME AND UNCONDITIONALLY ACCEPT MY DECISIONS!
I think in happyfeet’s view, it’s If you love me unconditionally you will accept my decisions. Because that’s the Necessary Proof. Otherwise, you’re a bigot.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:31 pmNo more, Mr.Feets. I have asked twice.
Simon Jester (c12cc3) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:34 pmhere’s a pic Mr. gary
looks like our lesbian friends at least talked to a local NBC station
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:35 pmmy view is discriminating against people cause they’re gay is wrong
mom and dad would be real disappointed in me if they ever caught me doing that
mom would say “well i just would hope you were gracious… one must be kind”
i’d be all like yeah mom I know
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:39 pm527. C.S.Lewis, in the “Great Divorce”, writes that the vast majority of “the righteous in there own eyes” will find the LORD of Hosts icky, and mean and lame and self-involved and choose to live apart and alone.
I think we’ve found the plaintive plea that will issue sans fond goodbyes.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:40 pmA more flattering one. http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/19/farm-owners-fined-saying-lesbian-wedding/ Size 16 easy, though.
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:43 pmyeah way better pic
the NBC report says the farmer GUY also talked to the lesbians in another call and that he was super polite and apologized for not being able to help them
i wonder why that’s not documented in anything we’ve seen so far
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:47 pm530. “my view is discriminating against people cause they’re gay is wrong”
And lots of our fellow commenters think discriminating against Mr. I Have a Pass for That, by our expectation that he be on our side is unworthy.
No kidding.
What do you suppose our reaction ought to be? Oh God, I am so sorry. I’ve been wretched, I hate myself.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:50 pmno i just think people should do their dead level best to provide gay people the same quality of service they provide everyone else
and stop being so hung up on gay marriage
getting gay married doesn’t make a gay person gayer
it’s a constant, the gayness
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 9:53 pmSomething prettier. http://www.amazon.com/Now-Sale-Handmade-Damascus-Beautiful/dp/B008PST2WQ/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1409634509&sr=8-13&keywords=perkin+knife
nk (dbc370) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:10 pm535. If you could settle for “don’t give a sh*t” we might have a deal.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:14 pmwhat is bigotry if it’s not what that farm woman did Mr. gary?
the tendentious assertion repeated ad nauseam is that we’ve “redefined marriage,” and that this is ghastly and bodes ill
must we redefine bigotry as well?
and how could this be any less ghastly?
and what ill doth this forebode?
I worry Mr. gary
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:24 pmWithout redefining bigotry, as bigotry is currently defined, aren’t you being bigoted mr. Feets? Aren’t you being intolerant of the Gifford’s views?
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:31 pmWhy should we be nice to the fascists you say you don’t like, if they’re recording our phone calls to catch us in speech and thought crimes?
You answered that yourself; because you love fascism.
MD in Philly @457 was correct.
You could see this coming a mile away. But as the doc is certainly well aware this is all part of the effort to “fundamentally transform” the US as promised. And to do that you have to eliminate all other sources of conscience and character formation except the fascist state. Such as the family and church. And destroy the constitutional limits on governmental power, because our Constitution was intended to prevent what’s going on here. If any one entity in this arrangement was supposed to fundamentally transform the other, it was supposed to be the people transforming the government and not other way around.
The fascists seized upon issues such as gay marriage and abortion and birth control precisely to destroy the first amendment guarantees. The free exercise of religion is now illegal; you simply do not have the right to follow your own conscience. You have the right to have any opinion you want as long as it’s the government-approved fascist opinion.
Given how much you enjoy using the exact same insults against the Giffords that the fascists use and for the same reason, because they tried to freely exercise their religion…
…you can’t deny being part of the fascist project. You use the same fascist techniques; the government gets to say who is and what is religious. And then you call them the same names.
Deny you’re a fascist all you want feets. But if it honks like a goose, goose-steps like a goose, it’s a fascist goose.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:37 pmTanny i’ve done nothing to circumscribe Mrs. Gifford choices
her freedoms, religious or otherwise
her speech
her choices
I’ve treated her ever so fairly looking at her deeds and evaluating them same same as I would anyone who had committed such deeds, be that man woman straight gay catholic protestant or californian
her views I have no trouble with and she can hold them all she likes
but really now
if in truth she can find no way to accommodate two young girls who’d like to borrow her farm for just the briefest moment – a fairly compensated moment – and have a nice day of it
well then what she’s done, in exiting the wedding business
is indeed the HONORABLE thing to do
so why does she have to act like such a snappish beaten dog about it?
because she’s low class I’d venture
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:42 pmMr. 57 please to accept the previous comment in reply to your #540
I’m just a bit tired of hearing my own comments all of a sudden, so #541 must be pressed into double duty
I’ll make it up to you later I promise
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:44 pm*Mrs. Gifford’s* choices
sorry
I hit play on the smaug thing and now I’m hopelessly distracted
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:45 pmhobbits.
god love em
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:46 pm@ Steve 455
Im sorry this just bears repeating. Steve you are 100% wrong. You claim the church did not convict because Galileo’s ideas ran counter to scripture. We find in fact, this is previsely the reason they did convict him. In fact one of the things they convicted him of was beliving that an opinion could be valid after it was “declared” to be contrary to scripture. Truly a laugh out loud moment. Religion and its blinders. Again: from the Indictment
And your assertion that his punishment wasn’t so bad is ridiculous. They put this man in house arrest and forced him to sign a document disavowing his beliefs. For what? For thought crime. But he should be happy – at least he wasnt burned alive. Oh yes how wonderful.
Gil (27c98f) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:46 pmmr. feets is spinning worse than Jay Carney, which takes talent, pretending he has a direct pipeline to God and knows what is in everybody’s heart, but fails to mention whether the Giffords are mean to their gay employees or just gay people who want to book weddings at their farm hes like the energizer bunny of bigotry and bad hyperbole
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:50 pmwho are these gay employees exactly and why could they not be entrusted to handle the McCarthy account Mr. daley?
it’s like peeling an onion of bigotry
i need a tissue
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 10:54 pmGil, I’m glad to see you’re still displaying your ignorance. From the original source documents, A letter from Cardinal Bellarmine, the Church’s chief theologian and the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition to a Father Foscarini
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/depositions.html
In other words, it was the chief theologian’s conclusion that had Galileo, or anyone else, been able to come up with convincing proof of Copernican astronomy then they would have had to conclude that they hadn’t really understood the scriptures then to deny scientific facts.
Then Galileo’s 1633 deposition:
Galileo refers to the same letter I cited earlier from Cardinal Bellarmine to Fr. Foscarini, and even quotes it (which was italicizedThe Church concluded that Copernicus’ theory was just that; a theory. The problem was that Galileo held Copernicus’ doctrine “absolutely.”
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:43 pmProvidence said homosexuality is an abomination.
Happyfeet said Providence wants everyone to be nice to people who are actively engaging in abominable acts, and to take part in a celebratory activity blessing those abominable acts.
Providence is not mocked. But happyfeet is trying to do just that.
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:47 pmWell, that one got away from me thanks to optical mouse.
But the bottom line is that in the chief theologians own words they determined that Galileo’s works were false and therefore counter to scripture. Had he been able to prove his hypothesis they would have had to have another look at the scripture and figure out why they got the scripture wrong. Had Copernican astronomy proven true then it would not have been contrary to scripture.
Galileo could not prove it to be true because what he offered as proof was woefully inadequate even then. And we’ve know for a very long time Galileo got it very, very wrong.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:48 pmi got your providence right here
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:54 pmAnd there you go, happyfeet. You directly reject large portions of Holy Scripture to come up with your own false religion, and you try to mock Providence. All is not well with your soul (to borrow from a very good hymn).
John Hitchcock (5131d7) — 9/1/2014 @ 11:58 pmYes, Gil, those “religious blinders.” Also known as “being open to evidence,” something left wing ideologues like you would no nothing about.
In the absence of evidence they wouldn’t abandon their understanding of the scripture. But had there been evidence they would have had to come up with a new understanding of scripture.
Something the Gaia worshipers would never do. They’d never abandon their holy scriptures they’d simply excommunicate whoever came up with the evidence that proved their holy writs to be false.
I give you anthropogenic global warming, which they still believe in despite their holy scriptures (the climate models) having been contradicted for the past two decades by the actual evidence.
It is a laugh out loud moment, Gil. Because you’re not exposing religious blinders. You’re demonstrating your own ideological blinders. You still hold onto your demonstrably false premise that religion teaches people to hold onto their “irrational superstitions” and “deny science. In the face of overwhelming evidence that the exact opposite was the case.
Thereby exposing the fact that it’s instead you that are holding onto your irrational prejudices by denying the existence of overwhelming facts to the contrary. Because you’ve been indoctrinated to cling to your superstitions no matter how irrational you must be to do so.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:02 amI forgot to add the link to Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter in which he says the church would have to revise their understanding of scriptures rather than deny demonstrated facts.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html
Don’t we wish that everyone was as open to the facts when it ran counter to their accepted dogma?
Ahem, Gil. Ahem, fanatical global warming leftists.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:07 amYou are not responding to what I said, you said:
And I asked:
So let’s see how bigotry is defined.
Let me ask again, aren’t you being intolerant of the Gifford’s views? Aren’t you being bigoted?
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:10 amYes, Gil. Very quick, and it shows in your cliff notes understanding of the issue.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/#4
Your cliff notes version of events is way, way out of date, too.
The Church did not declare Galileo’s teachings false because they ran counter to scripture. They declared his teachings false because he had no proof for them, and therefore counter to the then accepted understanding of scripture.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:20 amI have to defend happyfeets here. It’s not really his won false religion. Lot’s of people share it.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:31 amwho are these gay employees exactly and why could they not be entrusted to handle the McCarthy account Mr. daley?
do you want to name them and shame them like the Giffords too mr. feets is that why you want to know who they are? Why should they be entrusted to handle a wedding their bosses do want to on their property because it would violate their religious beliefs, your juvenile logic makes absolutely no sense?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:42 amGil is not the sharpest marble in the box.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:50 amNo he’s not, daley. But then neither was Galileo in many ways. Maffeo Cardinal Barberini was from a powerful family with branches in Florence and Rome. Maffeo was a Florentine, as was Galileo’s family. So they had that connection. When the two met at a state dinner in Florence in honor of two visiting Cardinals (Barberini being one of the two Cardinals), Cardinal was very much impressed with Galileo. Barberini became Galileo’s primary benefactor and patron within the church.
So much so that when Cardinal Barberini was elected Pope Urban VIII in 1623 he invited Galileo for a series of audiences. In 1624 he told Galileo, much like Bellarmine did earlier, that he could write about what he liked including Copernican astronomy as long has he treated it like a hypothetical.
But Galileo was stubborn and insisted as treating the heliocentric theory of the solar system as if he had proven to be true. What’s more, he apparently was reckless and arrogant. He apparently wanted to pick a fight and he couldn’t help but insult people who didn’t accept his views on the subject. So when he published his Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems in 1632 he put an argument the Pope had advanced on a related subject during one of their discussions into the mouth of a character named Simplicio. In other words a simpleton. And if the insult was lost on anybody, during the dialogues Simplicio’s arguments had already been destroyed for something like 400 pages.
That killed their friendship. The Pope never forgave him for the public insult, and also the Pope felt Galileo had lied to him for continuing to treat Copernican astronomy as “settled science” when he was under the impression Galileo had agreed to treat it as a hypothesis. So the Pope absolutely refused to defend him, and later refused to pardon him.
Basically, Galileo could have avoided the whole ordeal but he had already burned all his bridges. He had no defenders, and he honestly didn’t have the evidence to support his conclusions. Even he acknowledged certain of these basic facts, even if he still didn’t seem to recognize his own role in how things played out, in a letter he wrote about a year after his trial.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/lettergalileotodiodati.html
It was no where near as simple as “Galileo was a heretic because his theory went against scripture” unless you get your knowledge of history, science, and religion from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert on the Comedy Channel.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:40 amI should probably point out that Cardinal Barberini/Pope Urban VIII and Galileo had been friends (or the Pope thought they were friends) for over 20 years when Galileo published Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems. In which Galileo publicly insulted him and from the Pope’s P.O.V betrayed his trust.
By all accounts Urban VIII didn’t use “undue command influence” to make sure Galileo was convicted. But as far as he was concerned Galileo brought things on himself, and the Pope sure wasn’t going to help him out, either.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:55 amWhat “encyclopedic knowledge”? He didn’t have one. Indeed, as Sammy pointed out, some of his Biblical quotes show that he was not familiar with the original, but only with a Greek translation.
Which is precisely why the fact that he did graft pagan elements onto Christianity shows that he was of pagan origin, perhaps the son of pagan quasi-converts to Judaism.
The whole dying god myth is absolutely typical of the pagan religions that were common at the time in Syria and its vicinity, where he was from. So were claims of virgin birth.
Not at all. Only the priestly and noble families kept such records; most Jews had no idea what tribe they were from. And a genuine Jew of Jewish origins would have known that. A provincial with no Jewish background might not.
I didn’t write that he wasn’t Jewish, but that he wasn’t of Jewish origin.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:08 amAnd you know this how? They say the service they provide is only mixed-sex weddings; who are you to say otherwise?
In any case, there is no such thing as a same-sex wedding. Weddings, by definition, are mixed-sex. If you call a tail a leg a dog still has four legs, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so; nor does calling a same-sex parody of a wedding real make it so. The Giffords were in the business of hosting weddings, not parodies.
No, it’s like a pedicure place offering only pedicures for the feet, and not for the hands or the ears.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:20 amI don’t see how that would have helped. Indeed, it would have made the problem worse. The issue isn’t making money from a sin, it’s becoming an accomplice to the sin. Again, imagine yourself running a car rental business, and someone comes in saying that they want to rent a car for a robbery. Imagine telling them that since you don’t want to make money from robbery, you won’t rent them the car, but instead you’ll lend it to them for free. Do you think that will stop you getting arrested and serving time?! On the contrary, providing the car for free will show that you were a willing participant in the robbery. Please explain why this is different.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 3:04 amNo, they weren’t common until the second century A.D. The only surviving myth of a dying god that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult of Osiris.
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm
And there are so many differences it couldn’t possibly have been the inspiration for any inventions about Jesus. Mithras? That god wasn’t born of a virgin. Mithras was born of a rock with a sword in one hand and a torch in the other because he was a sun god and a war god. It’s precisely because of the latter function that Mithras became popular in Rome because he was a soldier’s god.
What cult do you imagine was so similar to the story of Jesus that you think Paul simply grafted the pagan myth onto Christianity?
Also, keep in mind that when Paul wrote to the Corinthians he cited 500 witnesses who saw Jesus resurrected from the dead, most of whom were still alive. Among them would have been Peter, who was only executed three years before Paul was executed, and as one of the 12 was one of the witnesses.
Peter was unquestionably a genuine Jew of Jewish origins.
Are you going to contend he had great knowledge of pagan myths and simply grafted them onto some Hebrew elements, too? And if these pagan myths were such common knowledge then all they other genuine Jews of Jewish origins living in Israel at the time would have seen right though it, wouldn’t they?
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 3:07 amHe might have, at that. Just because they’re sinners doesn’t mean it’s OK to beat them or steal from them or rape them. They have rights that must be respected. But I’m quite sure he would not have allowed them to use his house to ply their trade.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:01 amNo irony at all. The establishment clause may not apply to the states, but the free exercise clause certainly does. (FWIW I think Thomas is exactly right; there is no language in the 14th amendment that can be twisted into a hint that the establishment clause is extended to the states.)
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:06 amBecause they separate the sin itself from the party to celebrate it. Continuing with my bank robbery analogy, if the robbers, having made a successful getaway, choose to celebrate their heist in my bar, that doesn’t make me an accomplice, and I won’t be arrested for it. Not even if I knew about the robbery in advance, and told them they’d be welcome to celebrate at my bar, once they’d got away clean. It might make me sleazy, but so long as I didn’t attempt to hide them I’ve committed no crime.
The baker and dressmaker clearly did not make that distinction, seeing the whole thing as one event, which is sinful by its nature. Personally I agree with them. I’d probably feel differently, though, about a party held a few days or a week later.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:16 amYes, it is. They’re their own bosses, so they get to write their own job description. And I’ll bet that item #1 is “To be as good a servant of God as EMPLOYEE can”.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:24 amNobody has to make unreasonable accommodations for the religious preferences of their employees. The law requires only reasonable accommodations.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:38 amIn any case, the real issue here is that the Giffords were not discriminating at all, and were not violating this NY law. The judge should have found for them because of that, not because of the first amendment.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:44 amI seem to have some comments lost in moderation too.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:21 amOnce you’ve seen the size of those 2 hippos, wanting to getting married in a barn seems apropos and demonstrates how elements of the subconscious reveal themselves through ritual behavior. Jung was right.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:26 amAs if I have not beaten the horse dead enough, this is just one more sign we are smack dab in the midst of “the Last Days”.
At no time since 70 AD inclusive have the portents, omens and signs been so unfailingly aligned.
Your mileage may vary.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:21 amGood Morning All,
It appears to me that our host has been busy and hasn’t checked in, I hope he and his family has had a good time and not something else.
At this point, I am very frustrated with this thread and how it has turned out.
happyfeet has repeatedly said that if some Christians really wanted to show Jesus’ love to lesbians they would have done all they could to help.
Once was enough to make his point, and saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.
At the risk of saying things myself over and over, lest my voice gets drowned out,
feet, you are using a common and I believe wrong definition of love. You are talking about luv, that gushy feeling that says I’m ok, you’re ok.
Love is a desire for what is best for a person. If one believes that living a homosexual lifestyle is harmful to one’s soul, then encouraging them to do that is not love.
Milhouse, I know you addressed some things to me, I don’t have time and I’m not in the frame of mind at the moment to reply, nothing personal.
To our host and our thread host Dana, I really am fed up with 570+ posts going around in circles, especially when much of it is driven by happyfeets childish and either logically dense or dishonest commentary. Disagreement is fine, refusing to even acknowledge where the disagreements are is something else..
And we have not dealt with what I think is a major issue, how many folks that are pro-SSM, like our host, are content with the turn of events where people are made to violate their conscience or stop doing business.
If that’s what you wanted to happen, have the whatever to tell us so,
if you are surprised and never meant this to happen, why don’t you speak up?
God often has spoken to people repeatedly even when they don’t listen, but he never promises to keep doing it, and the time comes when the only statement is the harsh reality of getting the consequences of disobedience.
If God doesn’t always keep speaking, then there is no reason why I should think I’ll get anywhere either.
My request is that there would be a summary post of what has been said and close comments,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:21 amotherwise,
feets, you have the last word. for now.
There has been a lot of unpleasantness in this thread, to be sure, MD.
There have been many people, as I’m sure you recall, who have discussed issues with courtesy and thoughtfulness.
Thank you for your contributions.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:35 am> The establishment clause may not apply to the states, but the free exercise clause certainly does.
Wait, what?
The text of the first amendment is:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On what basis do you argue that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of reilgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” prohibits state governments from prohibiting the free exercise of religion but does not prohibit them from establishing state churches?
ISTM that if one extends to the states, then the other one does as well – because there’s no textual basis for a difference between the two.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:48 am> the real issue here is that the Giffords were not discriminating at all, and were not violating this NY law
You and I are both citizens of the state of New York and disagree as to whether the law was violated.
I think it’s clear that offering to rent a space for opposite-sex weddings but declining to rent the same space for same-sex weddings is “directly or indirectly to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accomodations … on account of … sexual orientation”.
You think it’s clear that it’s not “”directly or indirectly to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accomodations … on account of … sexual orientation”.
So how do we resolve that dispute?
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:53 amWe don’t use the courts to inflict our perversions on others.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:55 am> And we have not dealt with what I think is a major issue, how many folks that are pro-SSM, like our host, are content with the turn of events where people are made to violate their conscience or stop doing business.
MD in Philly, as I indicated above, i’m pretty certain as a legal matter that New York’s recognition of same sex marriage is completely irrelevant to the case. The opinion I linked at 428 is not based in any way on the same-sex marriage law; it’s based entirely on the human rights law, and the considerations it uses in the analysis don’t depend in any way on NY recognition of the marriage.
This is almost always the case for legal issues involving refusal to participate in same-sex weddings — the state recognition of the marriage is irrelevant. Every case I’ve heard about arises under the state’s nondiscrimination laws.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:56 amWell, I do believe that St. Paul was present when the Sanhedrin sentenced St. Stephen to be stoned and that he also was the one who guarded the clothes of the stoners at the execution. Could just anybody have that much participation at such an event? Is a broad education, including that of the many cultures and philosophies that had marched through Israel over half a millenium, not something a Pharisee would have?
Jesus is closer to Hercules than to any of the Middle Eastern harvest gods. Duality of nature both divine and human; miraculous, beneficial deeds; sloughing off of the mortal part and ascending to godhood.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:57 amThe hero with a 1000 faces.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:01 amRopelight, the legislature of the state of New York passed a law which said:
> The opportunity to obtain education, the use of places of public accommodation and the ownership, use and occupancy of housing accommodations and commercial space without discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex or marital status, as specified in section two hundred ninety-six of this article, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
Under this law, refusing to offer me a service on the same basis that you’d offer the same service to a straight person, because of my sexual orientation, is a violation of my civil rights.
Am I not allowed to use the courts to enforce that?
[Note: I think the people who filed the complaint are assholes, and I would not pursue this matter if it were me, because at the end of the day, forcing someone who doesn’t want to participate in my wedding to do so is way more harmful than it is helpful. But your blanket statement irks me; it seems to me that you’re saying that even though the legislature has said that I have a right to not be treated differently in a commercial setting, it’s wrong for me to seek to enforce that right.]
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:01 amSt. Paul, while in Athens, touched on the Greek myths as dim prophecies about the coming of the true Christ, my priest told us once. He (my priest) was not a seminarian. He was from the mountains of Epirus and had been ordained the old-fashioned way — reader, deacon, priest. He would not have made all this fuss about the First World problems of two unhappy, fat ladies.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:02 amaphrael, it’s not about the law, it’s about common courtesy. Civilized people don’t insist on forcing their presence on others who clearly don’t welcome them. Let the rude lesbians go somewhere else and stop throwing tantrums.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:10 amnk, I always hesitate to say anything about religion, but I appreciated your comments very much. I think (and to each their own) that religions are a Shadow of the Real.
Too much reading of Teilhard de Chardin as a boy, I fear.
But then, my Methodist minister actually said to me I should have been a Jesuit.
I didn’t know why that was funny at the time.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:10 ami am amused by the fact that New York state recognizes a human right in your being able to force people to do something they don’t want to, but, for all intents and purposes, denies you the the right to keep & bear arms for personal defense…
this is what fascism looks like.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:15 am581. Paul accounted himself a murderer. He never married pleading other obligations.
No doubt the charge of bigotry was leveled against him by some in the Corinthian church.
Whatevvver.
Losing your business is just a minor pruning.
gary gulrud (384f70) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:19 amRopelight,
> Civilized people don’t insist on forcing their presence on others who clearly don’t welcome them.
While that’s generally true, there are exceptions. Much of the civil rights movement in the 1950s involved people forcing their presence on others who clearly didn’t welcome them, and they were *right to do so*.
Your blanket categorical seems to me to be suggesting that it would never be right for me to use the law to enforce my right to not be discriminated against. So if, for example, the hospital down the street refused to allow me to visit my husband, then it would be wrong of me to insist on it, even though I have a legal right to do so.
Maybe you’re meaning something more nuanced than that. But you aren’t expressing it, if you are. 🙂
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:28 amwell one year, they taught the ‘fundamental option’ in high school, not knowing it’s origins.
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:34 am==Civilized people don’t insist on forcing their presence on others who clearly don’t welcome them==
Any thoughts on the Greensboro Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins?
elissa (3a9a69) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:42 amSt. Paul agreed with you I think, Simon. Even about his own enlightenment. “For now we see as through a glass darkly ….”
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:45 amAnd that, nk, is why my Methodist minister said I could never been a minister. He said I would be better suited as a theologian (and then he chuckled) or a Jesuit.
He paused and added “But I think you are going to like girls.”
I have spent a lot of time studying different faiths (I don’t consider that odd for a scientist, which brings us back to the Jesuits). But I am well aware of my religious faults.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:58 amaphrael and elissa, I didn’t consider it necessary to express the obvious. And, yes, I’m talking about the comparatively mundane option of selecting a congenial location for a lesbian wedding, a topic governed more by custom and tradition than by black letter law.
Conflating it with past racial discrimination, sit-ins at lunch counters over 50 years ago, civil disobedience in general, or the right to visit hospital patients only muddies the waters and introduces elements well outside the scope of a relatively personal decision.
I’m trying to maintain focus on the lesbian wedding, not to set myself up as a target for cheap shots.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:02 amI respect my parents’ faith but, just as I fault atheists for closing their minds, I am wary of dogma likewise closing one’s mind. Who said this or something like it? Orthodoxy, heterodoxy, my doxy is prettier than your doxy? 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:06 amnk, it was the same guy who said, You go to your church and I’ll go to mine.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:10 amropelight–thank you for your clarification. But I didn’t mean it as a cheap shot. I think your statement and many other statements on this thread (including several of mine) demonstrate the perils of discussing very broad and complex topics such as religion and law on a blog, (not to mention far less weighty but controversial current events) with sound bites and poorly-nuanced pronouncements.
elissa (3a9a69) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:11 amI’m kind of with Augustine on this one, nk.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine_faith.html
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:12 amMD in Philly, as I indicated above, i’m pretty certain as a legal matter that New York’s recognition of same sex marriage is completely irrelevant to the case. The opinion I linked at 428 is not based in any way on the same-sex marriage law; it’s based entirely on the human rights law, and the considerations it uses in the analysis don’t depend in any way on NY recognition of the marriage.
This is almost always the case for legal issues involving refusal to participate in same-sex weddings — the state recognition of the marriage is irrelevant. Every case I’ve heard about arises under the state’s nondiscrimination laws.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:56 am
In which case it is a distinction only of technicalities and when and where the battle was lost.
Although, it really is both, because had SSM not become legal in those states there would have been no discrimination, as the conflict was not concerning serving gay people per se, but participating, and by extension aiding and abetting, a SSM ceremony.
We happened to watch the movie “Amazing Grace” yesterday. I have no idea how much it departed from the actual history, but in it the big blow to the slave trade actually was a law that was passed having to do with the protection of ships of commerce flying the American (a neutral between England and France) flag. As the story went, since most slave ships (“80%”) flew the American flag, if they were no longer protected by the British fleet, they were targets for piracy, and hence would no longer be financially viable. After the impact of this had its way with the slave trade, it was relatively easy to do away with the little that remained.
So, whether the issue is SSM or anti-discrimination laws applied to behavior, does our host and the many people (if there are any left on this thread, actually) who read but rarely comment,
do you like how this is turning out?
Are you surprised?
I’m considering an extended passage from Romans 1. need to do work.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:14 amelissa, I truly do understand and am sympathetic to your point of view.
But shutting a person down and fining them seems like a stunt, not a blow for freedom.
I have never understood equating this with the Civil Rights Movement.
I do not think the Giffords are bigots. I do believe they were targeted for a political statement.
Which is too bad.
I still think my “Oprah/The View/Ellen” solution would have accomplished (to repeat myself) everything the McCarthys wanted.
Except damaging the Giffords, and making an example of them.
To me, that is an odd foundation to one’s marriage.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:15 amAlthough, it really is both, because had SSM not become legal in those states there would have been no discrimination, as the conflict was not concerning serving gay people per se, but participating, and by extension aiding and abetting, a SSM ceremony. MD in Philly [me]
Did you really not realize that, aphrael, or are you being intellectually dishonest? You are pretty smart, I thought you would have seen this.
the state recognition of the marriage is irrelevant
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:21 amI don’t think that is true, counselor, it made the conditions where the anti-discrimination laws then came into play.
a congenial location for a lesbian wedding
They should have asked me. They could have come to United Methodist on Broadway, the first church to be picketed by Westboro Baptists for performing same-sex marriages over fifteen years ago. Six blocks east of Wrigley Field; one block east of Boys Town; one block west of the Lake, The Chicago Yacht Club and Lincoln Park; one block south of a very nice old four-story hotel. They could have oohed and ahhed at the mansions on Hawthorne Place, and at the Chicago Day School, Chicago’s elite public school, which they could see from their hotel window; and walked over to Mt. Carmel Church where one of the first gay priest movies, starring Jack Lemon, was filmed about thirty years ago. Not to mention a gazillion sidewalk cafes and off-the-beaten-path small shops. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:21 amelissa, did you see my post?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/1/2014 @ 6:24 pm
later
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:23 amFunny you should mention St. Augustine, Simon. The Greeks, 1,600 years later, are still debating whether he believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son, or only from the Father. Radicals! 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:29 amThe Shadow knows, nk!
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:33 amMD in Philly, at 601 – the two most famous cases of this sort of thing involve a baker in Colorado, which *does not recognize same sex marriages*, and a photographer in New Mexico, which *did not recognize same sex marriages at the time of the lawsuit*.
In both cases, the courts found the behavior of the business owner to be a violation of the state anti-discrimination law.
So it seems very unlikely that in New York, a state where the law in question expressly demands that it be construed liberally and broadly, the legal recognition of the same sex wedding would make a difference. It hasn’t in these other cases.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:51 am600. With no offense intended Simon and I ask you not to take any, I am not at all certain that you actually know what my point of view is so I doubt you can be either knowingly sympathetic or unsympathetic to it. I think I’ve mentioned several previous times on this site that very beloved Black friends of mine are horrified that gay activists -as a whole-are trying to equate the wink-wink insults and societal prejudice against their sexual practices to the horrors of 300 plus years of slavery, bondage, lynchings, separation of families, deaths on slave ships and plantations, and government sanctioned Jim Crow laws. I totally agree with my “colored” friends on this. The relative cause for “justice” of our black citizens of the civil rights era and the militant gays now, is widely separated in a continuum by degree and mass and tactics that cannot be denied by truly reasoned thinkers. The discriminated-against blacks of the seventeenth eighteenth nineteenth and 20th centuries could only marvel at the improvement in conditions for gays in the mere 40 years since Stonewall. One must of course not overlook that thousands of innocent homosexuals were put into nazi death camps and murdered along with their equally despised Jewish brethren. But, I completely agree with my friends that the black civil rights push in the mid-twentieth century is vastly different from what is going on now in the media and courts.
1Corinthians (Paul: through glass darkly) is one of my favorite texts. That’s because Paul’s words constantly remind that we as individuals are guessing our way through life, trying to interpret what things and events mean, and at best, how we should behave in serving each other and Him. According to a blog called thenface2face, the passage is described as follows:
I think an honest assessment of much of the history of the modern world suggests that Paul was correct, and that in very many cases Christians and even church leaders have clearly been proven to operate with imperfect and incomplete understanding of theology, and God’s commandments, and what the words of the Bible mean. So, as a Christian churchgoer who takes Paul seriously, I’m somewhat cynical about, and actually feel a little sorry for individuals (such as people on blogs) who say, whatever their position is, that are really really really sure they “know” what the words of the Bible meant and how other people should or should not live their lives.
elissa (3a9a69) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:23 amaphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:51 am
That’s a good point that I was unclear of,
though it makes the point that people were held accountable for “discrimination” for refusing to cooperate with something that was not legally sanctioned.
Simon, I have little knowledge of Augustine, so I don’t know if that reference is a ggod rendering or not,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:23 amthen, I’ve always disagreed with Pascal’s Wager as explicitly contrary to the Bible, but I’ve never read Pascal directly either, so I realize I may be doing him a disservice,
kind of like the Galileo thing referred to earlier.
elissa-
I assume you would agree that there are some things the Bible is pretty clear about.
I personally think the mode of baptism most consistent with the NT message is when a person is of age to make an informed personal choice, but the church we attend practices infant baptism, I don’t mind the disagreement, though I do mind when I am told that I am the one clearly wrong, as you say.
Now, it is true that one needs to read anything within context, including the Bible, so sometimes there are arguments made that some passages are more reasoned because of social conditions at the time rather than on principles which are unchanging. So, I can see some rationale to pick on the translation of individual words in the NT as to whether they refer to homosexuality or not (in theory I see the point, I don’t know if it is valid, I defer to nk on the Greek);
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:35 ambut, Romans 1 is pretty clear (unless there has been a wholehearted conspiracy to mistranslate a significant entire passage) that same sex behavior is not only wrong, but for a society to approve of it reflects a profound plunge into moral bankruptcy. (Which is why I am more personally offended by happyfeet’s demeanor than anything aphrael could ever say, actually).
A separate point that I think is central, and this is the idiot’s 101 version of the discussion (because of my knowledge base and giftedness-or not- in writing):
The long standing sound-bite of years past was “You can’t legislate morality”. That was considered the end of discussion for far too many college students in my day, much to the dismay of our secular philosophy professor.
But we do legislate morality all of the time, unless you want to argue that morality is a false concept to rationalize rule making.
Why do we have laws against robbery, assault, embezzlement, etc., etc.? Because we agree as a society that those things are “wrong”. (Now, some people may think that saying those things are “wrong” is just a way of saying that we all agree things would be messy if we allowed those things, but that is an aside.)
It would seem that a society can exist only if there is enough of a shared morality to work, and the question is how much of that morality must be shared, and on what foundation it rests, is the question.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:46 amSo the issues of legislation, morality, and religion which informs morality for most people (one way or another overlap0. And as we often discuss, both the intentions of legislation and the unintended consequences are important.
aphrael @583 – How does the law you cite reconcile with the New York State Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religious conscience for the state’s citizens since I’m not sure anybody would claim the Gifford’s actions threatened the peace or safety of the state?
The reason I ask is you had a statute on the books which the Giffords apparently were happy to live with until a new statute was passed seven years later conferring a new privilege on people of certain sexual orientations, creating potential conflicts between laws, principles, etc. which did not exist at the time the 2004 statute was passed.
Have those conflicts actually been tested in the state or other states beyond the initial court level?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:47 am== I don’t mind the disagreement, though I do mind when I am told that I am the one clearly wrong, as you say.==
I was not aware that I said you were in the wrong, MD. Did I?
elissa (3a9a69) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:48 amelissa, you have presented your point of view as being you think the behavior of the Giffords was “illogical” or “irrational”, I forget which term it was you used.
So, no matter what some of your views are on SSM and homosexuality, which we do not know, as you say,
you were explicit about your view of the Giffords.
At least that is what I remember.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:51 amelissa, no, you did not,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:52 amI was referring to people at our church who don’t give me the leeway on baptism that I give them.
Sorry for the misunderstanding there.
the only people in the wrong I think are the people who actually discriminate against gay people
people who just talk a big talk about how they’ve got a hankering to do some such Giffords-like discrimination on gay people aren’t the same as people who actually do it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:53 amso, elissa, when I said “as you say”, I meant that I too am frustrated at times when people tell me that I am wrong and they know “for sure”.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:55 am… (pondering…)
615.the only people in the wrong I think are the people who actually discriminate against gay people
I am assuming that you actually do understand the point made that these people have experience not “discriminating against gay people”, but rather they have said they would not be an “accomplice” in a gay wedding, if even “minimally”,
but that you refuse to acknowledge the point.
(maybe feets isn’t a lawyer, I thought lawyers had a thing about being precise with language, which is a reasonable thing to have).
people who just talk a big talk about how they’ve got a hankering to do some such Giffords-like discrimination on gay people aren’t the same as people who actually do it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:53 am
Sorry feets, I don’t buy it. We who talk in support are “enablers”, if there were not so many of us, maybe they wouldn’t have made a fuss themselves. In fact, I think gays are gays and at a given moment it is reasonable for them to think SSM is what they want,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:03 amit is people like you who I really have the argument with.
the only people in the wrong I think are the people who actually discriminate against gay people
i did not know that
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:04 amMD in Philly – in your view, renting a space to an opposite sex wedding while refusing to do so to a same sex wedding is not “discriminating against gay people” but is refusing to be an accomplice to a gay wedding, and so is perfectly fine.
By way of analogy – would a doctor refusing to treat a gay person with an STD, while treating straight people with the same STD, be discriminating against gay people, or would it be refusing to be an accomplice to gay sex?
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:06 ameven minimally?
there’s no evidence at ALL we’ve been shown that behaving in the manner of the Giffords does anything anything anything to dissuade gay people in even the minutest way from being gay or from seeking the weddings what brought them to the doorstep of the Giffords and their ilk
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:08 amHappy – they are trying to dissuade nobody. They just do not want to be forced to take part in it. That you cannot see that, or refuse to, is amazing.
JD (2d6674) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:12 amAphrael – I think that analogy is inapt. Said doctor might object to providing the bed used in the transmission of the STD, yet still great the resultant STD.
JD (2d6674) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:14 amMD-You are only partly remembering, I think. What I personally view as illogical, inconsistent and difficult to reconcile is the Giffords’ half and half argument. They were obviously trying to wend their way through not holding a ceremony for gay people on the property but apparently said they were willing to host the celebratory reception immediately after said ceremony. To my way of thinking those 2 events are intrinsically tied, and the gay sexual behaviors (if that is in fact their primary objection to hosting ((not performing)) the nuptials since they host other weddings) will be equally present both before and after the big day. YMMV. And that’s fine.
elissa (3a9a69) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:15 amMr. JD i said a billion times they should NOT be forced to go anything
I’m saying that they’re just wrong on the face of it, these Giffords people are
wrong and ungracious
this is not how we treat people who come to us for help, the way these haughty Giffords treat people
what they are practicing is no less than shunning people just because they are gay, people who haven’t wronged them at all in the slightest
and all I’m bent on doing is simply saying that they’re just wrong on the face of it, these Giffords people are
wrong and ungracious
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:19 amDear elissa:
My apologies for my presumption. I certainly agreed with many things you wrote regarding what I thought to be your own opinions. In particular, the opinions of your African-American friends resonates with me a great deal.
But no, I do not know you. This is ironically part of the problem throughout the thread: the presumption of what another person feels and thinks, when they are in actually forced into playing an preordained role in the mind of the presumer.
Thank you for the correction, and as always for your commentary. I respect you a great deal, and did not mean to give offense.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:24 amelissa,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:25 amThank you for that clarification. I don’t think I remembered only partly as much as I did not clearly understand your point.
So, the issue you see as illogical is not the difference between willing to host a birthday party or a wedding, but the difference between hosting the wedding and the wedding reception. Ok, I agree that is a YMMV. I can see one thinking they were inextricably linked, and I can also see someone making a distinction between the wedding ceremony itself and “a big party” for whatever reason. Never having been in the situation myself to choose, can’t say for sure what I would do myself.
Yes, JD, more or less.
It just happened again, I thought I sent a post, it did not appear, I fopund it in the cache and tried to (re)send it, and wordpress said I had already sent it…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:29 amJD, fair enough.
I’ll change it, then.
How about a condom merchant who refuses to sell to gay people but will sell to straight people?
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:30 amWhat I tried to say, Part I
aphrael, yes to your first point, that is the argument as to why one would rent the space for a gay person’s birthday party or bake a birthday cake, but not rent for a gay wedding or make a gay wedding cake
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:31 ambut no, treating the STD would not be an accomplice in my view
writing a V-i-a-gra prescription would be
and I would have a problem writing a V-I-agra script for an unmarried heterosexual as well,
but I never had to personally face either of those situations
what I tried to say, part 2
Now, treating an STD is actually an interesting issue. I think it is appropriate as part of God’s “common grace” in the human condition to treat illness. However, treating syphilis gave way to gonorrhea, treating GC gave way to chlamydia, treating chlamydia gave way to herpes, treating herpes gave way to treating HIV, treating HIV gave way to….?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:32 amA bit of prevention (which Uganda showed was the only thing that worked) is worth billions and billions of dollars worth of cure, and millions of lives of suffering.
MD – responding to 629/630,
(a) in your view would it be discrimination for a hotelier who rented to ummarried straight couples to refuse to rent to gay couples?
(b) for you, would it matter if the room to be rented was in their house, or was in a large inpersonal hotel?
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:34 amIt happened a third time, it must be the “V” word
Same as V-a, no difference between selling condoms to gays or unmarried heterosexuals.
I am sooo old fashioned.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:37 am@ Steve
The letter you have is nice. But from your same source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html we find the Papal Condemnation signed by 7 judges tells a different story. You see Galileo did run afoul of the church beforehand and was “gently admonished” and told not to pursue his ideas. Of course he did not stop, and published a book. When the church found out about it that was when he was tried, sentenced and imprisoned (house arrest).
Look at the bold text. Even though in his book he did not proclaim the heliocentric view to be absolutely true, it did not matter. His offense was to continue his scientific study in the first place. Because how could something be probably if it had already been declared to be contrary to Scripture? To the audience: read the entire Sentence – it contains such gems as declaring the idea to have an unmoving sun at the center to be absurd – not mind you unproven and needing more evidence, but absurd. Laugh out loud stupidity and arrogance.
But we can agree to disagree on this Steve. After all its 500 years ago. To the original point of our discussion, I claimed there are Christians denying science today. And there are plenty. Ive named several young earth creationists (Ken Hamm, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort), and a Creation Museum actively spreading the idea that humans lived alongside dinosaurs along with a laundry list of other falsehoods. Is it your position that the earth really is <10000 years old? Or is this anti science? Im still waiting to hear back on this.
Gil (febf10) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:40 amto aphrael:
a) yes it would be discrimination, in my mind the activities are equal
b) it would matter only in the sense that I don’t see someone trying to keep out both gays and unmarried heterosexuals from a large impersonal hotel;
if it was a room in a house, I would think I would have a problem renting to either one.
Equal discrimination to sexual activity outside of marriage.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:40 amaphrael,
People reserve the right to refuse service – all they have to do in many municipalities is post it now.
People can discriminate, they may incur the wrath of the public but that’s their decision. Ask the elite country clubs or all Male clubs how that worked out for them, it isn’t, people as a whole, are more intolerant towards those who discriminate.
EPWJ (8b746f) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:41 am“I’m saying that they’re just wrong on the face of it, these Giffords people are”
Mr. Feet – Not only wrong, but mean and hateful to gay people even though there is no evidence of that from their own gay employees, haughty, ungracious, uneducated, bigoted, trailer trash, and that they belong to a class of such religious people.
I’m probably leaving a bunch of stuff out.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:43 amIve named several young earth creationists (Ken Hamm, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort), and a Creation Museum actively spreading the idea that humans lived alongside dinosaurs along with a laundry list of other falsehoods. Is it your position that the earth really is <10000 years old? Or is this anti science? Im still waiting to hear back on this.
Gil (febf10) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:40 am
So what?
And I’ve named a book by an award winning computational chemist about how many people of Christian faith are important scientist to this day, and you’ve had no interest in looking at it.
So
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:43 amMD in Philly – ok, then. in your mind someone who refuses to provide services that might help *any* extramarital sex are not discriminating, but those who will abet straight extramarital sex but not gay extramarital sex *are* discriminating.
Thank you for the clarification. 🙂
I would note that if everyone did that, and if everyone also refused to recognize gay marriages, the end result would be that it would be *impossible* for me to get help preventing STDs, and I would only be able to get posthoc treatment.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:44 am“I claimed there are Christians denying science today. And there are plenty.”
Gil – How many and why do they scare you?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:45 amEPWJ, under the laws of the state where I live, and the state where I used to live, and as far as I know every state in the country, if that refusal of service is based on certain listed characteristics, it is illegal. That has been true in New York since 1945.
In some states, that list of characteristics includes sexual orientation. At the federal level, and in some states, it does not.
But there’s a law *everywhere in the United States* which says that even though a place of business reserves the right to refuse service, there are certain reasons they may not use to justify that refusal.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:45 ambecause you’re a raycis tea party H8r…
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:47 amI would note that if everyone did that, and if everyone also refused to recognize gay marriages, the end result would be that it would be *impossible* for me to get help preventing STDs, and I would only be able to get posthoc treatment.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:44 am
If everyone did that, it would be a different world. Perhaps STD’s would be a very rare and unusual thing because people lived differently, and being monogamous as you claim, it would have never been an issue for you.
You know don’t you that some segments of the gay population became less vigilant in preventing HIV once there was treatment, don’t you? That is not to say I was against treating HIV, as that is what I did, but too many people took the mercy of treatment as an opportunity for irresponsible behavior.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:58 amAphrael
Ever since the “fake” discrimination story of the Black Secret Service agents not getting served at Dennys – lawyers consulting groups have a bullet point list – as LONG AS YOU POST IT and make sure it is seen – you have the right to refuse service – Target is posting them right now –
Believe me, when my youngest was born and she would cry during dinner in Houston – we were promptly escorted out the door of many restaurants and so were many others – some times – IN NEW YORK – we were not allowed with three small children into many establishments including retail and in some cases GOVERNMENT buildings. We were not allowed with a girl scout group into the LBJ Library we had 3 adults 10 children they banned us.
Many soccer teams, with as many parents as kids were blocked by places like Moma Ninfas (considered the hottest chain at one time in America now almost gone) were banned – stupid but restaurants up and down the 1960 area in Houston on Saturdays didn’t want the soccer teams – but fudruckers did and we packed them in, the Fudruckers did a boom business and many of those local decades old eateries and “Shiny” new chain establishments are gone, you see when you dis people they NEVER go to your establishment.
When my daughter’s were at West Point – they discriminate against groups more than 4 cadets – or in towns we as parents if we were not from the area could not eat in many of the towns restaurants if they were full we were not allowed to “take” the tables of the locals – this was upsetting and widely practiced for many miles around not just in Highland Falls. We had our GRADUATION DINNER with people coming from Indiana, California THAT I BOOKED and paid for in advance – cancelled with 3 hrs notice and one of my friends a high level lawyer with the state of Indiana told me they can and could – its legal the size of our party would disrupt their establishment.
Its all legal – they have the right at the door to assess whether your presence is disruptive to their business – its a defense in a lawsuit –
Discrimination happens all the time especially I find it heaviest in New York – we loved it when the cheesecake factory I consulted with in Texas won the New York Cheese cake competition three times in a row and in the forth year we were hauled out of our hotel rooms and dumped over the state line in New Jersey AND our 50K booth for the restaurant show was trashed and shredded. All by city officials – try getting a business permit for a Texas company in New York City – forget it.
My daughter was accepted by several “elite” universities – until they found out we work for energy companies – then not so much.
And she’s okay with it – so am I.
EPWJ (9dacda) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:10 pmAre any of the examples of discrimination you listed on the specified list? The fact that it’s legal to discriminate in ways that aren’t illegal does not, per se, indicate that it’s legal to discriminate in ways that are illegal. 🙂
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:13 pmas far as I can tell any gay people the Giffords may have once employed are to be spoken of in the past tense exclusively
and I’d seriously doubt there are many gay people what are eager to apply to work for that farm woman person going forward
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:40 pmHooray! I finally got a comment stuck in the filter – and I know why! Let it rot. there, JD. It was just a test. Hint: the “V” word.
felipe (b5e0f4) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:56 pmaphrael – Thanks for posting the link to the ALJ order which I have now read through. As expected based on the commentary I had already seen the order did not address any religious conscience issues or their potential conflict with New York’s anti-discrimination statute and was based entirely on the determination that Liberty Ridge Farms is a public accommodation which discriminated against the McCarthy’s based upon their sexual orientation. I don’t think those issues are in dispute.
I think we are going to see continued disputes though until the collision between anti-discrimination statutes and religious conscience gets further resolved, which is why I keep making the analogy to medical conscience clauses which popped up in several areas post Roe v. Wade:
Of course the Ru486 discussion is completely out of date since it has moved over the counter.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:56 pmas far as I can tell any gay people the Giffords may have once employed are to be spoken of in the past tense exclusively
sometime you just have to open your good eye
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:57 pmgood eye to you too sir
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:00 pmI second MD’s motion to close the comments. I’ve had enough. Between Happyfeet and Gil, this is so much “pig wrestling, now”. Although I appreciate seeing the reference to Father George Lemaitre, why does no one remember Gregor Mendel? Because he made “segregation” a law? 😉
felipe (b5e0f4) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:07 pmForgot – Here is the link from where I copy pasta’d that info:
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2266
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:09 pmfelipe – I’m waiting for Fr. Guido Sarducci to make an appearance.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:10 pmI keep coming back to the lesbians themselves, why would any happy healthy couple, gay or straight, poison their wedding reception by holding it in a place they’re clearly not wanted? Nobody in their right mind would bury the beginning of married life under a cloud of rejection and disapproval. To do so is beyond plain stupid, it’s tantamount to setting yourself up to reap the whirlwind.
Nobody voluntarily sets themselves up for a lifetime of painful memories on one of the most important days of their lives. Nobody with survival instincts.
ropelight (771fe9) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:16 pm> but too many people took the mercy of treatment as an opportunity for irresponsible behavior.
That seems inevitable, though – if people are only refraining from certain behavior because of fear of harmful outcomes, a reduction in the harm will bring a corresponding reduction in the fear. Or so ISTM.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:20 pmand I’d seriously doubt there are many gay people what are eager to apply to work for that farm woman person going forward
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 12:40 pm
I think you’re being presumptuous, feets. Not all gays were/are in favor of SSM equality, and not all those who are like taking sides with people acting rudely, i.e. the couple. If a gay employee had always been treated well, why would they leave?
I had a patient who wanted me to refer her for an abortion. I told her I wouldn’t, that I would refer her to a crisis pregnancy counselor, and if she wanted an abortion to ask the insurance carrier directly for an OB/Gyn that would do it for her.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:23 pmA few months later I saw her back as a patient after her abortion. She understood my position, she also felt that I had otherwise been a good doctor to her, so she kept me as her doc.
Daleyrocks, i’m not in principle opposed to legislation which carves out exemptions from generally applicable laws for religious reasons, as long as those exemptions are clearly delineated and defined.
But I note this from your quote:
> During this controversy, several states adopted conscience clause statutes specifically protecting pharmacists, while others passed legislation aimed at ensuring that individual providers did not hamper consumer access to a medically appropriate drug.
It seems to me that it if it’s legitimate for some states to enact conscience clauses protecting pharmacists while others enact legislation to ensure that providers didn’t hamper consumer access, it’s *equally* legitimate for the legislature of a state to say, no exemption to antidiscrimination laws.
That is to say, it may be *wrong*, but it’s not fundamentally *illegitimate*.
Furthermore, when it comes to antidiscrimination laws, providing an exemption for religious beliefs strikes me as setting up a situation where the rule is: it’s illegal for secular people to discriminate, but it’s legal for religious people to do so. As someone who generally believes in non-discrimination, that deeply troubles me.
aphrael (af3e66) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:24 pmAphrael
Yes since most of those examples involved the City of New York, the State of New York, yes they were. The State of Texas disallowed groups onto the capital with children without going through some kind of laborious process in the late 80’s and up till the Republicans finally took over.
I was actually briefly DETAINED for bringing a girl scout troop into the capital – it lasted about 3.2 seconds until someone realized it was a really bad idea.
So equal rights for all give me a break, women in the work place, try going blind in one eye and see where your career is going – its going out the door – legally – even though you think you are protected – you are not.
I mean you live in a city where you are told about table salt, saturated fats, and 2 liters of soda – and think that other levels of discrimination don’t exist. Everything has its loop hole and if you post and use certain phrases – you can sell, serve, or entertain whomever you want.
Even or should I say especially in NEw York
EPWJ (9dacda) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:29 pmGil whining about science deniers, a tiny tiny subset of Christians, while his side of the aisle regularly bastardizes science is just too precious for words.
JD (e36ade) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:49 pm“Furthermore, when it comes to antidiscrimination laws, providing an exemption for religious beliefs strikes me as setting up a situation where the rule is: it’s illegal for secular people to discriminate, but it’s legal for religious people to do so. As someone who generally believes in non-discrimination, that deeply troubles me.”
aphrael – I understand why it’s troubling. That’s why posted the example of the medical conscience clauses post Roe v. Wade. Pharmacies and hospitals are public accommodations (not all hospitals are religious or not for profit) and it took a long time to figure out how to navigate the new environment. What we have now is clear anti-discrimination statutes which clearly conflict with state constitutional protections of religious conscience and federal protections of religious liberty. I don’t think we’ve found our way to the other side yet and bludgeoning people into doing things they don’t want to do or punishing them through fines I think is just going to harden battle lines.
I don’t think the interaction between laws was well thought out in the rush to get something done in some of these states, IMHO.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:55 pm“I think you’re being presumptuous, feets.”
Oh noes!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 1:56 pmGil, sorry you can’t understand what you’re reading. Ironically once again it is you committing the error that Cardinal Bellarmine said the church would not commit. They would not insist on maintaining an understanding of a text, the Holy Scripture, in the face of contrary facts.
What is at this point astounding is that you apparently don’t even know what the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was about. Talk about absurd; you are attempting to continue to speak as if you know what you’re talking about when you don’t even know the most important elements.
The two chief world systems discussed in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems were the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the solar system.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialogue.html
What’s more, because of Bellarmine’s earlier warning to Galileo in 1616, Galileo had to get the Church’s permission to publish his Dialogue. So Galileo went to Rome to present his manuscript to the Inquisition. And they approved it.
http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html
So it’s ridiculous to say that Galileo’s “offense was to continue his scientific study in the first place.” Not only did he continue his scientific study, and not only did the church know he was continuing his study, in 1630 the church gave him permission to publish a work on that continued study.
To say that his “offense was to continue his scientific study in the first place” means you are ignorant of the underlying facts. Galileo was free to conjecture about Copernican astronomy as a mathematical hypothesis. He was not free to “hold or defend” them. He had to walk a fine line. And Galileo crossed over that line, as the head of the tribunal that tried him made clear in this letter.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterfirenzuola.html
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:16 pmAs for those “gems” you mentioned, Gil, clearly you aren’t aware of the fact that (much like global warming is today) the “scientific consensus” of the day. Everybody knew what the chief problem with proving the heliocentric theory was even at that time, since it had been Aristotle who raised it two thousand years earlier. If the Earth moved around the sun, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as it did so. Galileo could not observe any such shifts, or could not account for why such parallax shifts were not observable, he could not prove heliocentrism.
It was not scripture that convinced just about everyone (not just the Church, but the vast majority of the best scientific minds of the day) that the earth was the center of the universe. It was that the positions of the stars appeared fixed in the sky. Therefore the Earth and the stars weren’t moving, just the sun and the moon.
This is precisely what Bellarmine referred to in his letter, which you declared “nice” but as you continue to try and defend yourself you demonstrate you clearly didn’t understand.
Got that? As a mathematical hypothesis heliocentrism made perfectly good sense to the Church’s chief theologian. It got rid of most of the artifices required to make geocentrism work, such as accounting for the retrograde motion of the planets by using epicycles (circles within the orbital circle). Even geocentrists thought the likelihood was too much, although since Copernicus still assumed orbits were circular he had to use a reduced number of epicycles to account for retrograde motion in his heliocentric theory. But as Bellarmine explained in his final paragraph:
I.e. it makes more sense mathematically since it’s a more elegant solution.
I.e. it doesn’t answer the Aristotelian objection to heliocentrism, which would have been the level of proof they would have required before the church would have to rethink its interpretation of scripture. They were perfectly open to interpreting it phenomenologically as opposed to literally (which is another thing Galileo did to P.O. the Church authorities; he a non-theologian told them they’d have to reinterpret scripture based on his theory) but not without more evidence than a mere layman’s opinion.
And in fact others did continue to work on Copernican astronomy in the Catholic world after Galileo. As a mathematical hypothesis. Had Galileo done so, he would have been fine. The Church had no objection to scientific or mathematical work before or after Galileo’s trial. And in fact the Church did drop its resistance to heliocentrism after Isaac Newton provided a stronger theoretical basis.
So, yes, the evidence both before and after Galileo’s trial shows you don’t know what you are talking about. And because you don’t know the facts you completely misinterpret what you are reading.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:32 pm* the fact that (much like global warming is today) the geocentric theory was the “scientific consensus” of the day.
Also, I’m not going to answer your ignorance-based questions. I don’t feel the need, considering the real luddites aren’t the religious people (as you’ve demonstrated, believing that to be true requires ignorance of the facts) but on the left. It’s the progressive left that rejects facts when they conflict with their political dogma.
Then indulge in character assassination.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:40 pmThere was a real problem with the Copernican theory, involving the stars. No parallax detected.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:43 pmYes, Sammy, that’s what I explained at length @663. Which is why the best scientific minds as well as the Church rejected Copernicus’ heliocentric theory of the solar system. Not because of scripture but because of gaping holes in the theory itself. Which Galileo could not explain away.
As Bellarmine said in his letter, had those flaws in Copernicus’s theory been resolved they would have revised their understanding of scripture rather “than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.” And as the Church subsequently proved, that’s exactly what they did once Isaac Newton provided more evidence for the heliocentric theory.
They did not, as Gil continues to insist as he persists in his ignorance, reject evidence because it conflicted with scripture. Galileo’s problem was he didn’t have the evidence.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:55 pmJust look at how old his example is! When I asked who he was referring to, I expected something a little more recent than Galileo. A lot of people believed some crazy $h!t five hundred years ago. Pathetic!
hadoop (f7d5ba) — 9/2/2014 @ 2:59 pmI realise these aren’t Christian scripture, but they’re Jewish scripture that Jesus would have been familiar with, if he was indeed knowledgeable enough to be called rabbi. (And if Paul was telling the truth about being a disciple of Rabban Gamliel, he would have known these as well .)
1. Do not do like the deeds of the land of Egypt and the deeds of the land of Canaan. Does this mean that we must not build buildings, or plant trees, as they did?! No, for the verse continues, And do not follow their laws. What were these laws? A man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, and a woman would be married to two men.
—— Sifra Leviticus 18:3
2. Ulla said: The nations of the world accepted thirty commandments, but they only keep three: even if they have male partners they don’t write marriage contracts, even if they eat human flesh they don’t sell it in the market, and they honour the Torah.
—— Chulin 92b
3. Rav Huna said in Rabbi Yossi’s name: The only reason the generation of the flood was completely wiped out was that they wrote marriage contracts for same-sex partners.
Milhouse (33e4eb) — 9/2/2014 @ 3:48 pm—— Vayikra Rabba 23:9
ok Mr. Milhouse but Judaism in America is way more accepting of gay marriagings than just about any other religion out there so I’m not sure what that means about those things you’re quoting
and the whole eating human flesh thing wtf is that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:06 pmTammuz was worshipped (and his annual death mourned) in Ezekiel’s day.
Milhouse (33e4eb) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:15 pmAnd none of whom the Corinthians could talk to for themselves. It was very easy to claim in Corinth that there were witnesses in Jerusalem, but he didn’t tell that tale to anyone in Jerusalem.
Christianity was a miserable failure among the Jews, whch is why Paul decided to go market it to the gentiles instead. Judaism was very popular at the time, but people balked at keeping all the laws, especially circumcision and the kosher diet. Paul marketed his new religion as having all the benefits of Judaism, but none of the disadvantages.
The original church, run by Jesus’s own brother, did not teach that Jesus was God. That a man could be raised from the dead would not be that surprising; the Bible records several such miracles. Elijah did it once, Elisha did it twice, the second time posthumously! And most Jews believed that all the dead would eventually rise. So the mere claim that Jesus rose didn’t raise too many eyebrows. What made it radical was Paul’s claim that he was God, a god who died and came back. He probably got that from pagan sources.
Milhouse (33e4eb) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:26 pmI’m not sure that Barry Diller and David Geffen can be rightly called “Judaism in America”. 😉 Milhouse can give his opinion of Reformed lesbian rabbis if he wants. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:27 pmThe fourteenth amendment does not say “the first ten amendments are hereby applied to the states”. What it says is that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. So it’s not the bill of rights that is applied to the states, but only those clauses that protect rights. The free exercise clause protects a right. But what right does the establishment clause protect? If Congress were to establish a national church, what right would any identifiable person be deprived of? None. It’s a restriction on Congress, unrelated to any individual right. Therefore there’s nothing in the fourteenth amendment that can be said to extend it to the states.
Milhouse (33e4eb) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:34 pmI hate to tell you this, elissa, but you just described yourself.
Who are you to say that your understanding of your religious obligations are more valid than theirs? And I’m not trying to convince anyone that my religious beliefs are correct.
What I am saying is I have the right to hold them. And I have the right not to be compelled not to act against my own conscience. Because if you don’t have a right to your own conscience, you don’t have a right to yourself.
And I am also saying that is entirely the intent of these laws. The government has declared war on conscience. That has been quite clear for some time. Which is why they are trying to narrow the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion so narrowly as to render it meaningless.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235841480/Stormans-v-Wiesman-Decision-District-Court
In Washington state the governor directed the state pharmaceutical board to eliminate the conscience objection by requiring all pharmacies to carry abortifacients such as Plan B. The state allowed all sorts of business reasons that would allow a pharmacy to exempt itself from the requirement. In which case the pharmacy could “refuse and refer.” But it specifically eliminated a long-standing conscience objection which even the state had to concede had never prevented anyone from accessing abortifacients, since those pharmacies would also refuse and refer.
Planned Parenthood and a feminist legal center set out to eliminate that right to conscience. From the court decision:
They tried a similar thing in Illinois, which was also ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=31185
But the meat of the matter is this.
Blagoyevich was stupid enough to loudly and frequently exclaim (I guess if he could keep his mouth shut he wouldn’t be in prison) to the press that if you were religious you shouldn’t be in certain businesses. And again, their were a host of business reasons why a pharmacy didn’t need to stock Plan B. Such as there was only so much shelf space, and there was demand for different drugs. No market demand? That was OK. Then you could refer the individual elsewhere. There was only one reason you couldn’t refer someone elsewhere; if you had a conscientious objection.
In both cases the only reason these regulations were found to be unconstitutional was because the paper trail and the public statements demonstrated that the point wasn’t to provide access to some sort of needed drug. It was to drive some people out of business or force them to violate their conscience.
These public accommodation laws are simply another aspect of the same campaign. Which makes it different from your question about the Woolworth lunch counter. No one is being turned away from a commercial establishment because they are gay.
The owner is simply refusing to participate in something that goes against the owner’s religiously formed conscience. You many not agree with what they believe, and in some cases I don’t agree. But it’s their conscience and they have a right to it.
Of course it is sort of silly now because with the HHS mandate now religious people are second-class citizens in all types of business. Because the HHS mandate defines a religious employer so narrowly that, for instance, whole denominations of nuns and priests will be regulated out of business. One of the most egregious aspects of the regulation is that a religious employer is one that serves their own members. So denominations that never limited their ministry to their own members, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor or Mother Theresa’s Sisters of Charity, because reaching out to non-Catholics was their ministry must now violate their religious vows if they want to continue.
Never before has an administration decided to step in and overrule the Catholic Church (or any other sect or religion) as to what constitutes a religious ministry. Indeed, the government of India never did when Mother Theresa was ministering to Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta. Now you have more religious freedom in India than in the US.
And that is entirely the point, because the left has whittled away at the First Amendment to where it is now functionally equivalent to the religious freedom clause of the Soviet constitution. You had none. You had exactly what Obama says we have; freedom of worship. You have a right to participate in your primitive rituals if you must. But once you leave that room you don’t have the right to act on those principles; in the Soviet state you must conform to socialist morality in public. Or else.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:35 pmWith the HHS mandate I’d say they got their national legislation.
The difference being that unlike in Illinois or Washington there will be no papertrail, as the IRS case is proving.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:39 pmYes, I think it is clear that the accommodation offered, that of mixed-sex weddings, is not being withheld from anyone, whether on account of sexual orientation or anything else. Gay people are welcome to avail themselves of this service; that they may not want to isn’t the Giffords’ problem. The service this couple wanted, a same-sex “wedding”, isn’t offered to anyone, straight or gay. It is exactly like a store that sells sandwiches, but not pork ones — or one that sells only pork products.
Milhouse (33e4eb) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:47 pmNow I know for sure that Milhouse is channeling Sammy. Even reading the minds of ancient peoples.
I understand that our elder brothers and sisters (Jews are, in fact, the spiritual elders of Christians) are still the chosen people, and are faithfully waiting for the Messiah, but I respectfully suggest that they have, as a people, missed the first bus. The good news is, they will see the son of man return.
Peace be with you, Milhouse.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 4:52 pm“668.ok Mr. Milhouse but Judaism in America is way more accepting of gay marriagings than just about any other religion out there so I’m not sure what that means about those things you’re quoting”
Poor Happyfeet, he either is in deep denial, or he really doesn’t get it.
Why do I keep coming back to this thread? O.K., just one more time and then I’ll swear of the stuff. Promise.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:05 pm@ MD,
I’ve just now had an opportunity to begin catching up on today’s comments, but saw this and wanted to address it. Doing a quick perusal past this comment, perhaps it’s not necessary to address it as I see you have participated throughout the day. I’ll just say this: I’m not inclined to close comments just because there doesn’t appear to be any headway being made or because someone’s comments are not to your liking or are seemingly irrational, illogical or even dishonest. Personally, although I disagree with happyfeet in this matter, I am still able to learn about how he thinks, rationalizes and dances around the gut of the matter (no offense meant, happyfeet). It’s also interesting to see how various people work their way through this sticky wicket. Also, there is the very real possibility that outside readers are getting an earful and considering their own points of view, either solidifying them or even beginning to doubt them. Who’s to say how God uses these discussions in others’ lives and heck, even our own? You as a believer should understand this.
I think a summary would be good, if just to have the various views succinctly laid out. But then, to what end? I see just as many skirmishes and disagreement. But then again, I don’t see that as a bad thing. Not at all. I guess I’m not sure what you hope to have happen.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:07 pmno offense taken in the slightest
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:23 pm“I hate to tell you this, elissa, but you just described yourself.”
Steve57 – Just give it up. You and Hoagie are trying once again to claim elissa is speaking for others. All she is doing is expressing her views, not telling other people how to act. Words mean something.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:26 pmYou are very kind to MD, Dana. I was glad that he said what he said because it voiced my own frustration. But you are correct, and I myself do not know “to what end” closing the comments would lead.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:29 pmThat’s it, Steve57. You’re out of the fan club – unless you got change for a twenty, then we’re good. Either way Daley’s right.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:32 pmLook, if this thread is still active on Ash Wednesday, I will give it up for Lent!
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:35 pmIf Congress were to establish a national church, what right would any identifiable person be deprived of?
Maybe Torquemada’s biography might give us a hint.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 5:36 pmMilhouse – so what’s the proper process for adjudicating our disagreement as to what the plain text of the law of the state means?
aphrael (c3fb9a) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:25 pmI posted further primarily because other folks did have additional things to say.
From time to time people have commented that they don’t visit anymore or don’t bother reading the comments anymore. It would be interesting to know how many people you have lost for those that you indulge.
Milhouse, if you don’t consider the NT valid and look to other sources to tell you what Jesus did or did not say, I’m sure one can be made to believe anything.
To what end a summary?
To the end that some of us who put time and effort into posts, even research for some, would not be ignored in the midst of 685 posts of which a pretty large portion of feets saying he doesn’t like people that don’t like gays.
Which is a mischaracterization of the issue, anyway.
Is anybody interested in (yet another) direct reference from Scripture to show that feets is talking nonsense with his claims about what is or is not in the Bible and what Christianity does or does not teach?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:50 pmIf so, say so.
If you want my opinion on anything else on this or any other post, start out with “Hey, MD” and I’ll pay attention. If you really, really want my attention and don’t see me around, Patterico has my email.
Thanks, daley and felipe. Mr Steve sometimes gets himself all worked up over things. I think he saves them up. You have to admit– who else but him could manage to work in Mother Theresa, Rod Blagojevitch, the Soviet Constitution, Planned Parenthood, and the Woolworth Lunch counter in a comment where he starts out chastising me for my personal opinions on Paul of Tarsus and the Liberty farm’s approach to applying their faith, not their faith itself.
elissa (c92042) — 9/2/2014 @ 6:55 pmwe seem to know less off our own faith, and more about how to challenge it, consequently we don’t take the faith of others seriously, like these passages from the outfit involved with the next threat,
http://tifrib.com/al-muntada-trust/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:17 pmThere is a bit of a thin line, isn’t there, between a person’s faith and their applying it?
For me, the owners saying “we’ll be very happy to allow you sinful homosexual fornicators to hold your celebratory reception at our beautiful facility, but we will not under any circumstances let you hold your 10 minute wedding here even if somebody else is performing the ceremony”, is just bizarre, illogical, and highly inconsistent with any possible “belief”.
elissa (17ed41) — 8/31/2014 @ 9:46 pm
I think that somewhere between “for me” and “bizarre, illogical, and highly inconsistent with any possible ‘belief'”,
the fact that elissa was simply expressing her opinion
and not saying the Giffords were bizarre, illogical, and highly inconsistent in their beliefs
was kind of lost.
And while I now better understand just what it was she thought was illogical, I don’t at all feel as convinced that it was as bizarre and illogical as she thinks it is.
Yes, narciso. The forces that undermine western civilization are rampant, from outside and within, up front and insidious, obvious and hiding behind smiles.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:31 pmAnd we play games.
@ MD,
From time to time people have commented that they don’t visit anymore or don’t bother reading the comments anymore. It would be interesting to know how many people you have lost for those that you indulge.
MD, I’m assuming this is directed me. You didn’t address me by name, which is odd, and frankly, you seem irked with me. I’m not sure why. It’s an awful thing to suggest that I’ve caused readers to not comment, or worse – that they no longer read the blog because you think a commenter is being indulged. This is Patterico’s blog and in following his lead in not closing comments and keeping things fairly loose, I’m a bit at a loss here. (If you weren’t addressing me, just disregard this comment, please.)
Dana (158b50) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:47 pmHey, MD! Please do not leave us to ourselves – the loss of DRJ was enough.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:48 pmOh, and I love scripture! This is no secret.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:49 pmFallopians 2:23
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:52 pmNo, Dana, I don’t think you have anything to do with it, maybe our pikachu and the Dubai traveller,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:53 pmDana, it was directed to the usual policy as directed by Patterico.
I am irked at the situation, though as I just said I realize the tone is set by the Boss.
I don’t mind at all the idea of allowing people to express themselves, but how many times does happyfeet need to distract the discussion by childish sounding comments that ignore the valid points that have been said.
Yes, I have a thing about mischaracterizations being allowed to have the last word, which I guess means that feets wins the day if I give up.
I spent too much time today and forgot important things I was to do while trying to keep up with this, and for all I know, maybe only a hand full of people who agree with me care what I say, so I’m not going to anymore unless it seems my opinion is desired.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:57 pmlol, daley. I once told some stoners that something I had said was from Genesis and they were like, “which song”?
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 7:58 pmLet’s be honest. This is all Dana’s fault because she keeps putting up quirky posts about same sex marriage as click bait. 🙂 And people come like moths to flame.
elissa (c92042) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:02 pmI think we all need to wake up to the fact that civil discourse was mostly a myth propagated by those too old to remember anything clearly.
That the gays no longer to pretend we are free men is hardly their disease alone. Our society is Balkanized, like a prion, a levorotary protein the presence of which converts functioning protein essential to the organisms life into junk.
The fractals of junk enlarge and spread and pretty soon we all know someone who was swatted, who lost their business, who lost a loved one in a senseless carjacking, who themselves blew a miscreants head clean off for fondling a daughter, ..
So you think Law is our permanent possession, eh?
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:03 pmpikachus are on the side of more participation not less
not on the side of cloistering and bubbling oneself whilst ostracizing and shunning others
i must remain spotless and pure of sin is what a pikachu is not often known to mutter to himself anxiously
be careful today lil pikachu I say in the morning
don’t be baking cakes for the wrong sorts!
and then i giggle and search in vain for a wayward nespresso capsule what survived the recent unfortunate nespresso capsule genocide
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:03 pmDoc, I value your opinion very much. Your comments (and certain others) are like so few oasis (pl?) in an otherwise barren desert. If there was a “thumbs up” feature, you would be embarrassed to think such things, much less say them.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:04 pmThank goodness for the social media to remind us of how messy things have always been, eh, Gary? Or as Billy Joel said “The good old days weren’t always good. Tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems”.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:08 pmThat is all for me, folks. Goodnight.
felipe (40f0f0) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:10 pmyou do a great job, Dana, it really is striking the way certain ‘memes’ have totally dominated this topic, to the exclusion of truth, but that’s a new thing is ir?
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:13 pm695. Doc, I got nuthin’ to preach to you about knowing God. You know all that.
But I just want us to consider once again what it must have been like for Jesus, aware probably from adolescence that he was Monogenes, to live for us and be totally, utterly misunderestimated, flogged and crucified.
The sum and Substance of suck.
By trying our best we do nothing more than what is expected of us. That we are rejected and our work comes to naught, His life among us made unsurprising. He so loved the world.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:20 pmgary – I don’t like it when you talk about my junk that way. 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:29 pmAnd yet he did it, in a smaller way, Saul of Tarsus, braved great trials and tribulation, some of which Luke was more willing to relate,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:31 pm705. Bet your junk is more serviceable than mine, Sprout.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:36 pm697. You’ve got the knack of this.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:39 pmSince the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all
I’m struck by the tendentiousness of the language employed by the Gifford’s attorney. Of course, the Giffords were never asked to “do” a ceremony, were they?
They were merely asked to lease space down by the river in which a ceremony might be performed and to host a reception afterwards.
Easy
and also peasy.
Who would do the ceremony?
The ceremony would’ve been performed by someone of the customers’ choosing – someone what would not have been in any particular need to have even made the Gifford’s acquaintance before during or after said ceremony.
Much ado about nothing if you ask me.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:43 pmMD in Philly,
I love you man, but — I challenge you to point me to anything I have ever said that even remotely resembles that view.
Patterico (2975ef) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:46 pmI don’t know, happyfeet. To me, gay marriage seems kind of dorky. Like you’ve got a guy saying “This is my husband”; you’ve got a girl saying “This is my wife”. And then when you talk to the “husband” or the “wife”, you’re not exactly sure what to call the first person. Is the “husband’s” partner a wife; is the “wife’s” partner a husband, you wonder. It just seems so awkward, somehow. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:51 pmi tend to go with “partner” for both
and usually i say it with a d
you’re right though it is awkward
but the size of the gay married population is super duper small
and the size of the population of businesses what have experiences like Liberty Ridge Farm is infinitesimally smaller.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 8:58 pmlike there’s this vast sea of wedding businesses out there what aren’t glad of the opportunity the advent of gay marriage has brought to the market
Sure.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:00 pm711. I’m certain I’m not alone in finding marriage to an alien life-form inadequately simulated by gays playing house.
Honor and respect I do not.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:01 pmIt works out that way though, if they deem something beneficial, everyone must have it, conversely if
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:10 pmit’s something they deem bad, no one can have it (ie: firearms)
When my broke state was getting ready to legalize ss marriage one of the marketing selling points was getting in early on gay marriage tourism. I’ve never seen any actual dollar figures on it, but I bet there are some. I have seen evidence of gay marriage people being photographed at several area landmarks such as the Buckingham Fountain and the Botanic Garden. I don’t know if they were locals or out of towners though.
elissa (c92042) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:11 pmPatterico,
I’m not going to wade through the 700+ posts to find the quote and see if it is exactly as you have it, and in context.
If you have copied it accurately, then it was my mistake, and I apologize, for it was meant to be a question, not a statement. I have repeatedly on several threads asked if you and others who said you were for SSM were happy with how it is turning out, or if it is not as you expected, and I have never seen an answer.
That is a big question which I have never seen addressed. The claim for SSM was “How is it going to hurt your marriage?” As I said above, I said before that for some (what percentage?) the issue was not about being allowed to “do what we want”, but to inject a new moral statement into our culture with the force of law, with the ability to punish those that don’t agree, and I am not at all surprised it has gone this way, and I will not be surprised if the day comes soon that in some places like NY state I will be considered an unfit parent if I teach my children that I think homosexual activity is wrong. Fer crying out loud, it is already illegal in CA, CO, and MA to object if a biological boy wants to use the same shower as my daughter for gym class.
I am not interested in saying “I told you so” for any bragging rights, but I am interested if people can see what is happening, whether they were mislead, and what, if anything, has changed in their opinion.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:13 pmnk #711, I always felt that calling such arrangements a “partner” sounds like they own a silver mine in the mountains together. The gay couples I know say “spouse,” usually.
MD in Philly, I enjoy your posts very much. And I am not the only one.
The people who have politely stated their positions clearly have provided a valuable service to readers, despite the battles. For every post (including some of my own, sadly) that are not productive, there are many that provide insight in a respectful fashion. Steve has taught me a lot, for example. A lot of work has gone into some of those posts, and I want the people who have done that sort of thing to know that it matters to me, and I am sure to many other people.
I tend to think of this place like a party at Patterico’s house. But I don’t think I am right to do so; it’s just my opinion—not my place.
To each their own. Great respect and appreciation to folks who have gone to some trouble to express and reference their positions on this difficult and serious subject.
Simon Jester (35f0dd) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:15 pmThe rabble wanted Barabbas, and they got Barabbas.
And Jesus told the women not to cry for him, but for themselves,
for in choosing Barabbas the rabble was also choosing their destruction at the hands of Rome a few decades later in 70 AD,
where some sources say more than 1 million were killed.
The Moslems hate the Judeo-Christian world. The Marxists (as in Putin) hate the Judeo-Christian world, the progressives and the majority of active democrats (let’s vote God out of our platform) hate the Judeo-Christian world.
Illogically so, as Simon Jester says, the same people can somehow say that female genital mutilation is ok because it is part of “their culture”, but our culture is a “culture of rape”.
Give credit to Alinsky’s patron angel. People by themselves aren’t that stupid.
We are no longer a nation of laws, but of who can win the PR war and succeed in supplanting the law.
To be a nation of laws you need to have people who respect the law, who are virtuous. We no longer have a quorum of those.
Look who we have in charge of our country, Obama, Biden, Kerry, Hagel, Reid…outside of the Dem inner circle who takes any of them seriously?
Is Western Europe going to be able to do anything about the Russian Bear devouring the Ukraine? What will they do when Russia cuts off their gas and oil? US energy independence could also have made Western Europe able to take a stand against Russia, but hey, we’re still thinking about those pipelines.
Obama did do one incredible thing, he turned Egypt into one of Israel’s staunchest allies against radical Islam (at least for the moment). Of course, that is only because from Libya to Iraq and Syria and Iran the region is filled with people who are evil or really evil.
And we’re playing Pikachu.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:21 pmNo sweat, and sorry if I failed to answer this earlier; no disrespect was intended. It’s not gone the way I would have liked, because I have always opposed it happening through the courts. I would prefer to see it happen through a natural change in public attitudes rather than court coercion. And I consider the government coercion that this post discusses as wrongheaded in the extreme, just as I deplore the thuggery of those who target SSM opponents with nasty reprisals of various sorts.
Simon Jester,
PARTY AT PATTERiCO’S PLACE! WOOOO!!! Thanks for always making sure not to break the fine china. In all seriousness, I respect and appreciate your attitude.
Patterico (6ff3a1) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:23 pmMD, the larger problem is that of education and the rot in our school systems, sadly. And an odd reliance of repetition to create groupthink right out of Orwell. I see it with my sons in school, and work hard to have them think critically, to not be (as my older son puts it) “sheeple.”
The canard that a lie repeated enough times becomes a kind of truth is certainly visible all around us. Mostly these lies come from good intentions, and wanting to feel good—narcissistically—about oneself.
Like my colleagues, who absolutely don’t want to be thought racist or anti-Arab or whatever.
Oikophobia is the word, I think.
Simon Jester (35f0dd) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:27 pmPatterico, I just don’t want to be this guy”
http://vimeo.com/46907376
Simon Jester (35f0dd) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:29 pmWait a minute. This is a Dana post. 721 comments. Sex sells, Dana.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:31 pmAnd we’re playing Pikachu.
my dear Mr. Dr. i’m quite dutiful about remindering people that perhaps they should pick their battles with a bit more discernment given the state of play on the field at the moment
but no
For reason that remain opaque, cake baking and venue rentals are of earthshaking consequence in these latter days of failmerica.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:32 pm@ Steve
There is nothing ignorant about my question. There are Christians today who deny the age of the earth, evolution, proclaim the flood created the grand canyon, that dinosaurs lived with humans, that 2 “kinds” of dogs produced the thousands of species of dogs today….the list goes on. It is convenient to claim that I am bringing this up out of ignorance or perhaps even bigotry but facts is facts. I understand why you don’t want to answer and its ok.
Back to Galileo, I must admit I am impressed with how well versed you are in all the details. That’s great. Somehow you’re able to justify to yourself that its ok to imprison a man for defending his beliefs. You justify the church as being reasonable to allow Galileo to walk a fine line between studying the theory and defending it – as if it is pro-science to have a strangle hold on what discussions people have. This is how ideas are fleshed out. Through debate and discussion. Not so with the catholic church. One of the things Galileo was sentenced for was believing that something declared contrary to scripture could possibly be true. Its sitting right there for all to read but you continue to move around it in the other facts.
What am I misunderstanding about this sentence?:
That does not say anywhere “if you had more proof it would be ok”. That does not say “the scientific consensus is…..”
What am I misunderstanding about this:
Specifically the bolded text in which it is stated clearly that once the church as decided, it is over. No more science. Its impossible for an idea to even be “probable” not true mind you but even “probable” once declared contrary to holy scripture.
All of your hand waving cant help you. I don’t need to look in other places. Words mean things – just ask constitutional originalists – and this is pretty damning.
Gil (27c98f) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:32 pmSells what, exactly, nk?
Simon Jester (35f0dd) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:32 pm*reasons* i mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:33 pmAttracts attention.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:34 pm== I have repeatedly on several threads asked if you (Patterico) and others who said you were for SSM were happy with how it is turning out, or if it is not as you expected, and I have never seen an answer.==
Do you think maybe the reason you have not received an answer to your question is because people beyond Aphrael and feets whom you think you remember saying they were “for” ss marriage are not posting here regularly or any more? Over several years I remember some people being “OK with ss marriage, or “meh” about ss marriage, or didn’t see it as a big deal one way or another, Doc. But full throated supporters?- not so much. I recall many commenters expressing big concerns about unintended consequences and the tactics being used. Please be careful that you don’t put words in people’s mouths or attribute thoughts to people’s heads like that guy who used to call people “Zimmerman fans”.
elissa (c92042) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:36 pmWell, I’m wide awake after midnight and I went ahead and looked it up, the entire phrase was this:
And we have not dealt with what I think is a major issue, how many folks that are pro-SSM, like our host, are content with the turn of events where people are made to violate their conscience or stop doing business.
If that’s what you wanted to happen, have the whatever to tell us so,
if you are surprised and never meant this to happen, why don’t you speak up?
So, the sentence you keyed in on was misleading, and I appreciate your response.
I know we people have different opinions, but I have a hope (perhaps wrong, as gary suggests) that we can at least agree to the terms of the debate. This is why it is important to me to have the reasoning for things spelled out, and if something needs to be corrected, then perhaps it can be acknowledged.
My main plea is that for those who are surprised and dislike this turn of events, some of us knew this was the course it was going to take. When domestic partnerships and all of the legal equivalents of marriage were not enough, it should have been clear what they wanted was not the freedom to live the way they wanted, but the legal tools to make others go along or else.
So are you going to live out the Martin Niemöller quote, “First they came for the proponents of traditional marriage…?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:37 pmBad Pope, Urban VIII! Bad, bad, bad Pope! Go to bed without supper.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:38 pmGil (27c98f) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:32 pm
Note to observers, Gil has refused to look at all of the evidence, one might say, about how people of Christian faith have been and currently are among the top scientists in the world.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:42 pmhttp://leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Christianity-Henry-Schaefer-III/dp/097429750X
Maybe that (729) came across as harsh and i didn’t mean it to, MD. If it did, I apologize. I think there have been a whole lotta miscommunications and misunderstandings and misinterpretations about what people are trying to say on this thread.
elissa (c92042) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:45 pmWhen domestic partnerships and all of the legal equivalents of marriage were not enough
The Republican Party was opposed to civil unions – in its platform – as recently as 2008. They dropped that idea in 2012 if I remember right. But by then the gay marriage ship had sailed.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:45 pmelissa (c92042) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:36 pm
As discussed above, I know our host has stated his opinion, I have no idea how many others are supportive or even “meh”.
I know that feets and aphrael think that people who support the traditional view of marriage are “wrong” and while aphrael states he doesn’t want to be rude about it, he seems approving of the idea of people being forced to comply with the law even if it violates their conscience.
So I am interested in any of those who were in favor,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:48 pmand for those who were “meh” about it,
is it turning out like they imagined, or are they surprised,
and does it make them think again about how this was reasoned out?
I leave with this, and good night:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:51 pmhttps://patterico.com/2014/08/30/remaining-true-to-their-convictions/#comment-1678744
for reals actual issues of conscience get just a bit trivialized by people what get their knickers in a twist about cake bakings and venue rentals i think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:52 pmI’m still inclined to believe that gay marriage right now is like the Joseph Smith/Brigham Young Mormons, and that it will evolve past the its “witchcraft” period both in the way its adherents behave and its critics view it.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 9:53 pmThe claim for SSM was “How is it going to hurt your marriage?”
Human nature being what it is, when something is dumbed down, such as grades in schools — where weepy-eyed teachers give former C-level students As and Bs, and D and F students are given Cs, and the A and B grade students end up no longer feeling quite so special and the entire classroom in general starts to see itself as a lazy hug fest — people begin to take things less seriously.
The idea of women marrying wives and men marrying husbands does make the so-called institution of marriage look rather clownish, and that piles on top of the already no-big-deal ethos of quickie marriages and quickie divorces.
Mark (c7cd77) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:11 pmand that it will evolve past the its “witchcraft” period
Given the emotions towards homosexuality by none other than the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who originally sounded like a modern-day liberal towards at least male homosexuality, then ended up strongly repudiating it, my sense is that human nature regarding this matter transcends the centuries, transcends religions, transcends political dynamics.
I think most people are hard-wired to naturally grimace or flinch when thinking of homosexuality. For example, almost no father will naturally, comfortably say “I’ll be thrilled if my young son grows up and decides to marry a guy!” Most fathers, by contrast, will see it as a given for them to feel gratified over the concept of their son growing up and marrying a fine women, having kids, and raising a good so-called traditional family.
Mark (c7cd77) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:22 pmThat should have been “
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2014 @ 10:33 pmtheits “witchcraft” period. Fear, suspicion, turbulence, over-action and over-reaction, violence, radicalism of viewpoints, stuff like that. The Mormons were both the victims and the perpetrators of organized assassinations. Brigham Young took 63 wives? Stuff like that. Now the mainstream Mormons are more whitebread than the Mayflower descendants.Gil @726, “absurd and false philosophically” is how they said “the science is settled” or “97% of scientists agree” in 1633 century. Actually, they said that in Latin, but that’s how it comes out if you faithfully translate it into the vernacular. Again, I wish you could understand what you read.
As far demanding to know if I approve of things such as the Church imprisoning a man for his beliefs, I do not impose 21st century standards upon 12th century or 16th century or even 19th century individuals. By our standards Lincoln would be a racist because he said among other things he would never marry a black woman. But so what? He wasn’t living up to our standards. He was shot about 140 years ago and it would be impossible for anyone to know nearly a century and half ahead of time what those later standards would be. I understand him by the standards of his day because people are products of their times. And in his day he had to convince people that held even more racist views (by our standards) to help free the slaves. It was pretty enlightened back then to have the attitude that just because blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to whites did not give anyone the right to enslave them and consider them mere property.
Racist? But many of them died trying to right what they saw as a wrong. Who are you to judge them?
By the standards of the early 17th century Galileo got off light. I can see it makes you feel morally superior to look back 500 years and condemn them for not being enlightened like you. But for all you know, people living 200 years from now will look at that as one of the worst habits of 20th and 21st century Americans. That they were so small and petty they had to moralize about people who lived centuries earlier in societies they knew nothing about and blame them for not being right-thinking products of the 20th and 21st century United States. That 20th and 21st century Americans blamed people living during the Italian Renaissance for not having the foresight to imagine how things would look to you, Gil, in 2011, when the real problem isn’t that they didn’t get inside your head. That would have been impossible. The real problem is that you can’t look at the historical context and get inside their heads. That is possible, but you’re apparently too intellectually lazy to bother.
It’s a fools game. You’ll have to play it by yourself.
Steve57 (e0f6ab) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:17 pm@MD, Please continue commenting. I learn from them like today about Romans 1. Your comment caused me to read it again and realize what I had missed.
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 9/2/2014 @ 11:35 pm729. “I have repeatedly on several threads asked if you (Patterico) and others who said you were for SSM were happy with how it is turning out, or if it is not as you expected, and I have never seen an answer.”
We all have our strengths, our shortcomings, our vocations and avocations, our pet-peeves and those hills we will die on.
Not that I socialize with Lawyers, or desire so to do, Rico is evidently successful at his vocation, and not less so with this avocational forum, frequented, by many in his field.
Seems to me, a casual observer, that Lawyers are incidental word smiths, using words to precisely detail their intended meaning, or to obfuscate its understanding entirely, and everything in between.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/3/2014 @ 6:49 amI don’t owe anyone an answer to their query ‘Do you think the way I’d like you to?”
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/3/2014 @ 7:02 am“I tend to think of this place like a party at Patterico’s house. But I don’t think I am right to do so; it’s just my opinion—not my place”.
Thank you for saying this! I must remind myself that I am a guest here, and act accordingly.
“My duty as a host is to make you feel at home; your duty as a guest is to remember you are not”.
felipe (b5e0f4) — 9/3/2014 @ 7:24 amThank you Felipe, Simon Jester and narciso for your kind words. I appreciate it.
Dana (158b50) — 9/3/2014 @ 8:44 amDana,
Please let me apologize for making your life difficult, getting in the cross fire of my irritation. You do a great job and everyone appreciates it.
gary, I think you are trying to say that I was being too demanding with my request. I can understand your point, though what I was expecting was no different than what I would expect of myself, if I have taken a stand for some position it is reasonable to ask my opinion again when consequences have come to pass.
Tanny, I’m glad I was able to have a (small) role in your learning something from God’s Word, that makes up for some of the other things I did not get done, of lesser importance.
Yes, I see this as others, as Patterico’s virtual living room and all of us in for a chat. I was upset at one of the other guests and wished something could be done to moderate the effect. I generally address things in what I consider a straightforward and fair-minded, civil if you will, manner, and generally assume every one else should do the same. That is a poor assumption, as some would rather be comical, and I imagine there may be some who are even being purposefully deceitful at times (though many with a known habit of that seem to not be around of late).
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2014 @ 8:21 pmThank you, MD. I appreciate and of course, accept your apology. We walk in Grace.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/3/2014 @ 9:08 pmOn the contrary, Dana, thank you. You have a great deal more patience than you might suppose, internally. I admire that about you, and always have.
In particular, your ability to let nonsense go. I let that kind of stuff get to me, and it’s not a good strategy.
Again, thank you.
Simon Jester (d57fb0) — 9/4/2014 @ 6:25 amSorry, I can’t continue this conversation. I’m sure there are many comments that are expecting replies from me, but after several weeks of having no paid work to do, I’m suddenly swamped; which is a very good thing for me, since I now know how I’m paying September’s bills, but by the time I come up for air this thread will have died down and there will be new and exciting topics to discuss. kthxbai (for now)
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 9/4/2014 @ 8:37 amHe did not at any point label his statement “prophecy”. You keep repeating that, which seems to be the heart of your argument. He said:
One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true
He DID say that it was true. Believe it or not, something can be true without being a prophecy (as understood in the Bible)!
All he did was label Epimenedes “One of Crete’s own prophets”. Meaning he was a prophet to Cretans. Again, this is a sarcastic put down of Cretans. In other words, one of their own prophets has admitted it.
Finally as I said, there’s no reason to assume he meant the hyper-literal interpretation, that every single thing a Cretan says is a lie. No intelligent person would ever mean that. It’s absurd to even suggest such a thing. He was engaging in a bit of hyperbole for crying out loud.
You are not reading the passage in a natural way, I assume because you’re anxious to be against Paul.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 6:30 pmI should add that if Paul did believe the hyper-literal interpretation, it would suggest he was unintelligent – but I have no idea how it would imply he was a Pagan, so this is a secondary question anyway.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 6:39 pmGerald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 6:30 pm
All he did was label Epimenedes “One of Crete’s own prophets”. Meaning he was a prophet to Cretans.
But calling him a prophet, meant to Paul that everything he said was true. And it is not to whom he prophecized that would be important, but how to knew. He was declaring Epimenedes a prophet.
Again, this is a sarcastic put down of Cretans. In other words, one of their own prophets has admitted it.
Finally as I said, there’s no reason to assume he meant the hyper-literal interpretation, that every single thing a Cretan says is a lie. No intelligent person would ever mean that. It’s absurd to even suggest such a thing. He was engaging in a bit of hyperbole for crying out loud.
It’s vitriol, maybe, but he doesn’t qualify it in any way. Paul really is saying that every Cretan is a liar, although, if you look at it, Epimenedes did not actually say that everything that every Cretan said was a lie – but it was that interpretation that caused the statement to be remembered in the first place. It is famous now, it was famous then, as a supposed paradox.
You are not reading the passage in a natural way, I assume because you’re anxious to be against Paul.
It’s a crazy thing to say no matter how you interpret it. And startling. There’s much more against Paul, but this is startling. He really does mean it. The whole statement of Epimenedes is known only because it is interpreted so as to be a paradox.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/27/2014 @ 7:39 pm753. erald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 6:39 pm
I should add that if Paul did believe the hyper-literal interpretation, it would suggest he was unintelligent
No, that he’s willing to say anything, and dtaw on any kind of support from “authorities” to win an argument.
– but I have no idea how it would imply he was a Pagan, so this is a secondary question anyway.
No, Paul is not being a pagan – here for purposes of argument, he’s ignored the fact that Epimenedes was a pagan, or he is saying that was Epimenedes (like Balaam?) was a prophet of God, although Epimenedes was not known as that till Paul decided to say so.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/27/2014 @ 7:44 pmAs I said about the idea Paul was a pagan, you have to analyze the Bible in a vacuum to reach that conclusion. The same is true of the vague – more correctly non-existent – similarities between Jesus and pagan gods. In fact the claim Paul was a pagan and the Jesus new testament
First of all Milhouse, if anyone grafted the claims of Jesus’ divinity, death and resurrection onto Christianity, it was not Paul, since he was not the original source of that claim. The four Gospels are. In fact as he said in 1 Corinthians:
He was told by others, Peter and James likely were among them, about Jesus’ resurrection. And he mentions that most of the eyewitnesses are still alive. A very critical claim, which you ignore.
The claim that this got inserted into the Gospels at a later time would have to be demonstrated by manuscript evidence. You will find no such evidence. I touched on this point before.
Again you are looking at things in a vacuum, as well as displaying a lack of familiarity with the New Testament.
This gives a good overview of the notion Jesus was derived from pagan myths and the logical fallacies and other problems connected to it. He quotes Ron Nash:
During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan religions, or other movements in the Hellenistic world. Largely as a result of a series of scholarly books and articles written in rebuttal, allegations of early Christianity’s dependence on its Hellenistic environment began to appear much less frequently in the publications of Bible scholars and classical scholars. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.”
and:
critics of Christianity allege that Christianity borrowed many of its ideas from the mystery religions. This theory was popular nearly a century ago among the History of Religions School but was rejected by the scholarly community. It has once again surfaced through popular novels and the internet.
In fact the claim has had virtually no scholarly support for many years. It was thoroughly debunked by Princeton professor Bruce Metzger in the Harvard Theological Review almost 60 years ago.
People who claim that critical elements of the Jesus story were reworked pagan myths inserted into the New Testament, while providing no actual evidence to support the claim, are generally repeating something they heard without having any idea what they’re talking about – the Appeal to Authority. Or they are assuming the thing that the pagan myth theory is meant to prove, that the Gospels aren’t actually true, and then the pagan explanation is just assumed with no evidence to support it – circular reasoning. Claiming that Paul was a pagan because Jesus allegedly resembles pagan gods, without actually demonstrating the claim, is the same type of circular reasoning.
The claim Paul absolutely positively could not have known he was of the tribe of Benjamin seems unwarranted. You would have to be claiming to be omniscient.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 8:52 pmHe did not say Epimenedes was a prophet of God. There’s really nothing else to say about it.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 8:56 pmIt all depends on the meaning of the word “prophet”
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/27/2014 @ 9:02 pm#755
Also I haven’t the foggiest idea what “argument” he was trying to win by quoting Epimenedes.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/27/2014 @ 9:38 pmHe was stating that Titus should not listen to anyone on the island of Crete, and when people argue just be more emphatic, rebuke them, and try to shut them up. ALso be careful whom he appoints to preach.
There were a lot of Jews on Crete at the time, and it seems like he was running into arguments from them, or people who had converted to Judaism in some form. They knew too much.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/28/2014 @ 11:17 amPaul also uses the argument that those people who dispute are detestable in ther personal conduct. It’s all a meta-argument.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/28/2014 @ 11:19 am