Colorado Baker Wins

[bad_teammate 13224]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The big difference between sexual orientation and non-belief is that the former can often be determined from behavior.

There are plenty of Muslims and Jews who make it very obvious by their dress that they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the savior.

But you're right about the assumption aspect, but that doesn't actually indicate anything meaningful because all a Christian baker would have to do is ask a series of simple questions of each customer to ascertain their righteousness. Why don't they? (I am not saying they should, but an objective look at actual behavior can tell us a LOT more about a person's beliefs than asking them.)

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And faith leaders in this country had a "sincerely held belief" that interracial marriage violated the laws of God.

"People of faith" in this country make it really fucking hard to defend being a person of faith in this country.  Because in the public square, having a "sincerely held belief" mostly means fighting for your right to be a dick to other people.

When I see "people of faith" fighting half as hard to pick up their cross and follow Christ, to truly care for the poor, to care for the foreigner, as they fight for the right to be dicks, then they'll have some credibility.  It's bullshit.  It's using faith as a shield for cruel social beliefs.  When you're a mean dick, and you use "but Jesus" as an excuse and shield, you're just a fucking mean dick who abuses faith for man's shallow and petty ends.

I appreciate your perspective as someone who seems to have been burned or is just jaded and full of resentment or whatever, and I understand your conviction feels real and good (as righteous anger always feels good to the ego) but that doesn’t mean you are right. Just like my opinions don’t mean they are right simply because I hold them. Which brings us back to the point that the issue is divisive; religious freedom vs freedom of those whose beliefs would infringe on religious ideals.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Disregarding the point that, for now, homosexuality is not a federally protected class, I think it's perfectly reasonable to tell bigots who own public accommodations to deal with their discomfort and serve those whom they do not care for or shut down their business.  This is not a country founded on Christianity and if you are going to serve the public you have to serve ALL the public.  You don't have to like it, but you have to do it.

This is a reasoned position and stops short of answering the question I posed. Would it be unfair if I just completed your journey here and finished for you that yes, you believe LGBT/anyone’s rights should be given more grazing land and the religious freedom camp should have to give some up? The religious freedom people should have some rights impeded for the betterment of society which now includes in significant numbers those whose sexuality are inherently in conflict with the religious people.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There are plenty of Muslims and Jews who make it very obvious by their dress that they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the savior.

But you're right about the assumption aspect, but that doesn't actually indicate anything meaningful because all a Christian baker would have to do is ask a series of simple questions of each customer to ascertain their righteousness. Why don't they? (I am not saying they should, but an objective look at actual behavior can tell us a LOT more about a person's beliefs than asking them.)

Y’all are both missing the point which is that he isn’t wanting to actively or complicity engage in the encouragement of sin. Not that he won’t generally serve the dinner (or gay or non believer). 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

This is a reasoned position and stops short of answering the question I posed. Would it be unfair if I just completed your journey here and finished for you that yes, you believe LGBT/anyone’s rights should be given more grazing land and the religious freedom camp should have to give some up? The religious freedom people should have some rights impeded for the betterment of society which now includes in significant numbers those whose sexuality are inherently in conflict with the religious people.

Yes, I think that's unfair.  I don't believe the "religious freedom camp" is giving up any rights, as I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate against those of other races, gender, etc.  (By the way, I'm a Christian.)

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Should a Christian singer be required to perform at a gay wedding?

[Fozzz 152]

As a normative (not legal) question, Oatmeal, do you think business owners should be able to discriminate on the basis of race (like in the case of miscegenation) on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief?

[jimmyjazz 46130]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Should a Christian singer be required to perform at a gay wedding?

No.

[Guest]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Should a Christian singer be required to perform at a gay wedding?

You do the discussion no favors with this; of course not and what’s the point of bringing up something so obvious?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

16 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

In this case it still doesn’t matter. Sell to both the homosexuals and atheists. The man wouldn’t decorate a cake that said “marriage isn’t a covenant and God is dead” just as he wouldn’t decorate a cake encouraging same sex relations/marriage. It’s about being complicit in your encouragement of sin, not “loving” the sinner.

That's faulty reasoning.  Both the gay couple and the hetero atheist couple are looking for a wedding cake.  One says Congrats Bob and Bob, the other says Congrats Bob and Jill.  Neither are asking that the baker make a political statement on a cake.  Let's say a 3rd couple comes in who are hetero neo-nazis.  All they want on their wedding cake is Congrats Cletus and Jane.  They aren't asking for a swastika which would be a political statement.  If the baker bakes the cake, does he support neo-nazism?  If he bakes one for an interracial hetero couple, does he support interracial marriage?

I also don't know what you mean by "encourage."  The cake doesn't encourage shit.  It comes out after the wedding has already occurred.  "Look somebody made a cake.  That person must really love gay people.  I wonder who rented out these tables and chairs.  They must love gay people too."

[FondrenRoad 4378]

27 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by FondrenRoad
Double Post

[David Dennison 18946]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Should a Christian singer be required to perform at a gay wedding?

What would Jesus do?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's faulty reasoning.  Both the gay couple and the hetero atheist couple are looking for a wedding cake.  One says Congrats Bob and Bob, the other says Congrats Bob and Jill.  Neither are asking that the baker make a political statement on a cake.  Let's say a 3rd couple comes in who are hetero neo-nazis.  All they want on their wedding cake is Congrats Cletus and Jane.  They aren't asking for a swastika which would be a political statement.  If the baker bakes the cake, does he support neo-nazism?  If he bakes one for an interracial hetero couple, does he support interracial marriage?

I also don't know what you mean by "encourage."  The cake doesn't encourage shit.  It comes out after the wedding has already occurred.  "Look somebody made a cake.  That person must really love gay people.  I wonder who rented out these tables and chairs.  They must love gay people too."

In this case, the sin is obvious and there is no plausible deniability for the baker, it can be said whereas in your point you are right, the baker can’t know and should be discouraged from discrimination when just using names. 

What I mean by encourage is to actively participate in some form or fashion of sin. An analogy would be like culpability with respect to crime. 

[HenryJames 66171]

Just now, David Dennison said:

What would Jesus do?

Probably a cumbia.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

What would Jesus do?

I don't know.  You think he would serve at the officiant at one?

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I don't know.  You think he would serve at the officiant at one?

Without question. That was his entire message.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

As a normative (not legal) question, Oatmeal, do you think business owners should be able to discriminate on the basis of race (like in the case of miscegenation) on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief?

I think that if there are sincerely held beliefs that are rooted in legitimate spiritual and religious followings, there should be freedom if we are serious about allowing religious freedom. 

Again, it makes sense why the religious are pilgrims, historically, because tenets don’t always (or usually) play nice with society of non-believers.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Given the fact that Jesus never discussed gay marriage, it's probably a reach to say he'd be against it, given his general good attitude and loving disposition.

[Gil Bang 26019]

21 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Should a Christian singer be required to perform at a gay wedding?

Should a Christian singer in a public performance be required to continue to sing when a bunch of queers come in the venue to enjoy some live music?

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Given the fact that Jesus never discussed gay marriage, it's probably a reach to say he'd be against it, given his general good attitude and loving disposition.

There's also that thing about embracing sinners. Many of his followers seem to have forgotten that.

[Gil Bang 26019]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't know.  You think he would serve at the officiant at one?

Depends.  Does he have the necessary state license?

[Neonmoon 38130]

16 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Harkening back to my last post about a zero-sum game, the question I have is if people in the LGBT community are aware, acknowledge and accept and are okay with the fact that with their gains in certain instances (like forcing a sincerely held belief Christian to decorate a cake) are at the expense and are eroding the religious rights of others? It’s fine if that’s the position and I think it could be reasonably argued, but I think it’s important to be honest about that by eliminating the discrimination of LGBT in many ways it’s Discriminating the ability of sincerely held believers to exercise to the best of their ability their religion.

I guess I’m just stating the obvious which is that the two lifestyles and beliefs and existences are inherently opposed, in a world where both are held up to their ideals (Christian ideals of sanctimony and living as sinless as possible vs LGBT ideal of accepting their sexuality/biology/difference, not to mention the celebration thereof)

I think the issue is that some beliefs are stupid. 

I know using the word “stupid” will offend some people, but that is not my intent. Throughout history humans have believed some things that over time people realized were incredibly stupid. 

There are the non-religious variety such as the earth is flat, blacks are inferior, and we are heading towards an ice age. 

There are also many religious beliefs over the years that are now considered stupid. Some examples would be a woman should be subservient to a man, eating shellfish is a sin, eating pork is a sin, and the entire Scientology religion. 

So while protecting someone’s right to believe any stupid belief of XYZ is fine, protecting it over someone’s else right to exist equally  is not something I can support. 

 

[Brisketexan 105334]

32 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I appreciate your perspective as someone who seems to have been burned or is just jaded and full of resentment or whatever, and I understand your conviction feels real and good (as righteous anger always feels good to the ego) but that doesn’t mean you are right. Just like my opinions don’t mean they are right simply because I hold them. Which brings us back to the point that the issue is divisive; religious freedom vs freedom of those whose beliefs would infringe on religious ideals.

Not an issue of belief, an issue of evidence.

"People of faith" in this country fight in the public square 10X harder for the right to be dicks than they do for the actual, evident, written points of the Gospel.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's also that thing about embracing sinners. Many of his followers seem to have forgotten that.

Sure, embracing with love but then saying now turn your back on sin (go forth sin no more), not continue in sin by accepting and encouraging sin which most seem to not realize or know.

[hayden_horn 11365]

yeah, it's the selective enforcement of morality that @Brisketexan points out is where i struggle. this baker bakes for the public. and WE ARE ALL SINNERS. he's weighing one sin more than another, and that's where i think the baker is full of shit and just thinks the gays are icky and doesn't want to bake for them.

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Sure, embracing with love but then saying now turn your back on sin (go forth sin no more), not continue in sin by accepting and encouraging sin which most seem to not realize or know.

But even if they continued in sin, Jesus would still embrace them. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I think the issue is that some beliefs are stupid. 

I know using the word “stupid” will offend some people, but that is not my intent. Throughout history humans have believed some things that over time people realized were incredibly stupid. 

There are the non-religious variety such as the earth is flat, blacks are inferior, and we are heading towards an ice age. 

There are also many religious beliefs over the years that are now considered stupid. Some examples would be a woman should be subservient to a man, eating shellfish is a sin, eating pork is a sin, and the entire Scientology religion. 

So while protecting someone’s right to believe any stupid belief of XYZ is fine, protecting it over someone’s else right to exist equally  is not something I can support. 

 

I hear you. If nothing else, as my original point noted, it feels like there is an inherent conflict and incompatibility between religious freedom/ability to practice ideals and beliefs unfettered and the freedom of non-religious to do the same. The religious man might necessarily be a pilgrim which might be what Jesus meant when he said the son of man has no home.

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I hear you. If nothing else, as my original point noted, it feels like there is an inherent conflict and incompatibility between religious freedom/ability to practice ideals and beliefs unfettered and the freedom of non-religious to do the same. The religious man might necessarily be a pilgrim which might be what Jesus meant when he said the son of man has no home.

By refusing to serve homosexuals, people who claim to be Christian are not following the teachings of Christ.

[Brisketexan 105334]

7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I think that if there are sincerely held beliefs that are rooted in legitimate spiritual and religious followings, there should be freedom if we are serious about allowing religious freedom. 

Again, it makes sense why the religious are pilgrims, historically, because tenets don’t always (or usually) play nice with society of non-believers.

Excellent.

As we have literally reams of evidence of religious leaders, on a theological basis, arguing against interracial marriage, I presume that you would be okay with any number of vendors denying goods and services to interracial couples?

The "Jesus loves me" hotel won't hold their wedding, reception, or allow them to spend the night as guests?  No baker need sell them a cake.  No caterer need sell them food.  The gas station can refuse to fill up their car with "just married" on it, knowing that they are on their way to live in sin?

Right?  Religious beliefs are religious beliefs, so if we're serious about allowing religious freedom, we must allow that.  It's the only logical conclusion.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

But even if they continued in sin, Jesus would still embrace them. 

Yea, he would embrace them but he wouldn’t engage in their sin. He loves the adulterer and tells her to go and sin no more, not decorates her face with makeup for her paramour.

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Yea, he would embrace them but he wouldn’t engage in their sin. He loves the adulterer and tells her to go and sin no more, not decorates her face with makeup for her paramour.

But he would serve homosexuals. That is what Jesus would do.

[hayden_horn 11365]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But he would serve homosexuals. That is what Jesus would do.

to wit:

Quote

According to the Gospel, Jesus performed a final act of service for his Disciples, following the Passover meal. Arising from the table, He tied a towel about His waist and filled a basin with water. Then, one after another He washed the feet of each disciple, except Judas, who had already departed to betray Him.
When Peter protested that Jesus was about to wash his feet, Christ admonished, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

After washing the Disciples' feet, Jesus explained what He did and why. "You should wash one another's feet," He told them. "I have set an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them." (John 13:1-17)

The point Jesus was trying to make is already spelled out in the Scriptures, and needs little interpretation. We are to serve our neighbors, even if it means we must do things we might not like to do. Even if the work is dirty or hard, or even if we think it beneath us, we must still do our work. After all, Jesus Himself, the Son of God, washed the feet of His disciples. And we are no greater than Jesus, so surely we too should do the same.

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=68009

i added the emphasis. jesus did not tell the disciples to interview each person to discern their state of sin prior to washing their feet. he said "i washed your fucking feet, so you wash others' feet, because i'm your savior, and i'm willing to get my fucking hands dirty so you should be as well."

[Guest]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Excellent.

As we have literally reams of evidence of religious leaders, on a theological basis, arguing against interracial marriage, I presume that you would be okay with any number of vendors denying goods and services to interracial couples?

The "Jesus loves me" hotel won't hold their wedding, reception, or allow them to spend the night as guests?  No baker need sell them a cake.  No caterer need sell them food.  The gas station can refuse to fill up their car with "just married" on it, knowing that they are on their way to live in sin?

Right?  Religious beliefs are religious beliefs, so if we're serious about allowing religious freedom, we must allow that.  It's the only logical conclusion.

Yea if we are serious about religious beliefs. If not, okay, then let’s call it what it is. And when I say religious rights I don’t mean pastafarians who incorporate for illigitmate reasons like only wanting to wear a colander on their head for a DL photo , but those who pass some reasonable standard for religious belief based on whatever standards we use now (e.g how we define Judaism or Scientology as legitimate versus OatmealCookie worship I just incorporated so I can push forward my hate of chocolate chips)

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But he would serve homosexuals. That is what Jesus would do.

I’m not saying don’t sell the cake to homosexuals. I’m saying he should be allowed to not encourage their homosexuality by writing nice or celebratory things about it. They shouldn’t but that burden on him.

[Gil Bang 26019]

Relevant story:

 

An Indiana orchestra teacher claims his former school forced him to resign after he refused to refer to a transgender student by their preferred name.

Interested in LGBT?

Add LGBT as an interest to stay up to date on the latest LGBT news, video, and analysis from ABC News.

LGBT

Add Intere

Brownsburg High School has a policy that mandates teachers call transgender students by their preferred name, in place of their birth name.

John Kluge, who taught at the high school for four years, disagreed with the rule and said he instead wanted to refer to the student by their last name.

"I feel the compelled speech of forcing a teacher to take a side on this very highly controversial topic is a violation of our First Amendment rights," Kluge told ABC affiliate WRTV.

Kluge told WRTV the school told him he must either follow the policy, resign or be fired. He said he submitted a conditional resignation later, but later withdrew the resignation before the deadline.

A school district representative told WRTV that Kluge voluntarily submitted a resignation and the administration accepted it.

Kluge believed he would be suspended pending termination on May 1, according to WRTV. He called his meeting with the administration "very threatening" and "bullying."

"I enjoy being the orchestra teacher at Brownsburg," Kluge wrote in a statement. "It's unfortunate that the administration is not letting me come back and that they are unwilling to continue a reasonable accommodation that most people consider to be very common sense."

He went on to ask that the board reconsider his termination.

The administration told WRTV it's complying with all state and federal laws.

According to the Brownsburg Community School Corporation, a student is allowed to change their preferred name only with a letter from a parent and a health care professional.

"Showing a lack of support for transgender youth is what drives up the suicide rates of transgender youth in Indiana," Chris Paulsen, executive director of the LGBTQ organization Indiana Youth Group, told WRTV.

 

 

tl/dr: teacher was a dick and refused to call Bobby "Roberta" or somesuch

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

to wit:

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=68009

i added the emphasis. jesus did not tell the disciples to interview each person to discern their state of sin prior to washing their feet. he said "i washed your fucking feet, so you wash others' feet, because i'm your savior, and i'm willing to get my fucking hands dirty so you should be as well."

Sure, help your homosexual neighbor when they need help or serve them well and give to them selflessly, etc. this doesn’t mean you should encourage their sin or participate with them in sin.

[David Dennison 18946]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I’m not saying don’t sell the cake to homosexuals. I’m saying he should be allowed to not encourage their homosexuality by writing nice or celebratory things about it. They shouldn’t but that burden on him.

Jesus would tell the owner of that bakery that what he was doing to that couple was sinful and that he should go and sin no more.

[Brisketexan 105334]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Yea if we are serious about religious beliefs. If not, okay, then let’s call it what it is. And when I say religious rights I don’t mean pastafarians who incorporate for illigitmate reasons like only wanting to wear a colander on their head for a DL photo , but those who pass some reasonable standard for religious belief based on whatever standards we use now (e.g how we define Judaism or Scientology as legitimate versus OatmealCookie worship I just incorporated so I can push forward my hate of chocolate chips)

To be clear, you maintain that if one has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriage is a sin (and many did, many still do), one should be entitled to deny goods and services to an interracial couple?

I just want to know where my wife and I can do business or not, after all.

[Gil Bang 26019]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To be clear, you maintain that if one has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriage is a sin (and many did, many still do), one should be entitled to deny goods and services to an interracial couple?

I just want to know where my wife and I can do business or not, after all.

Do you need to include your wife?  Aren't you a one-man interracial couple?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

To be clear, you maintain that if one has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriage is a sin (and many did, many still do), one should be entitled to deny goods and services to an interracial couple?

I just want to know where my wife and I can do business or not, after all.

If people believe this, they should be free to do this or they should leave and go somewhere they can if they have legitimate and true integrity of belief.

i get you are trying to give an example of something we all think is egregious and insane to try and make an equivalency with homosexuality to then in turn illegitimize the belief, but yea, that’s how I understand religious freedom works. And it’s a reason why religious freedom and secular freedom historically has never coexisted for very long.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Jesus would tell the owner of that bakery that what he was doing to that couple was sinful and that he should go and sin no more.

I don’t think we agree, is all. And that’s fair.

[Brisketexan 105334]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

Do you need to include your wife?  Aren't you a one-man interracial couple?

Well, multi-generational, if we're gonna be telling family secrets.

 

[David Dennison 18946]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

If people believe this, they should be free to do this or they should leave and go somewhere they can if they have legitimate and true integrity of belief.

i get you are trying to give an example of something we all think is egregious and insane to try and make an equivalency with homosexuality to then in turn illegitimize the belief, but yea, that’s how I understand religious freedom works. And it’s a reason why religious freedom and secular freedom historically has never coexisted for very long.

This is why secular freedom is winning.

[troph 24905]

Fuck this sin shit. Keep that garbage to yourself. I wasn’t present in my own life, wasting it daily. My kids suffered from a lack of my presence. Now I’m here living life and loving them and raising them to be fine young men. Take that sin bullshit and shove it. Believe it if you want but I’m not engaging in a conversation of which sin etc if you think I’m some special class of sinner bc I’m trans or because I’m a woman that loves women then so be it but it’s like only your belief man.

[Brisketexan 105334]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

If people believe this, they should be free to do this or they should leave and go somewhere they can if they have legitimate and true integrity of belief.

i get you are trying to give an example of something we all think is egregious and insane to try and make an equivalency with homosexuality to then in turn illegitimize the belief, but yea, that’s how I understand religious freedom works. And it’s a reason why religious freedom and secular freedom historically has never coexisted for very long.

Well, let's keep going down that road.

My faith demands that I kill the infidel.  In fact, knowing that someone is an infidel and NOT striking him down is a sin.  

If we are to place religious freedom as the paramount, inviolable principle in society, then we must protect one's right to kill the infidel.  Or someone who has spoiled one's daughter's purity.  Etc. etc.

That is the only place this can go -- religious belief excuses any and all behaviors and actions.  After all, interfering with an action or behavior that is mandated by my faith is to deny me my religious freedom.

[hayden_horn 11365]

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Sure, help your homosexual neighbor when they need help or serve them well and give to them selflessly, etc. this doesn’t mean you should encourage their sin or participate with them in sin.

my son's class read this book called wonder. in it, there is a magnificent quote that i try to apply at least once daily. "if you have a choice between being right or being kind, choose kind."

that's about as close to christ's message as i can imagine. choose kind. refusing business on account of "encouraging or celebrating sin" is not choosing kind. bake the fucking cake. it's the kind thing to do. 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

my son's class read this book called wonder. in it, there is a magnificent quote that i try to apply at least once daily. "if you have a choice between being right or being kind, choose kind."

That's a great line.  I'm gonna steal it.  I was at dinner with my 14 YO son the other night and I was trying to drop some wisdom on him about the dumb shit some of his friends do, and I brought out the "the test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching" line.  That lesson on right or kind is a good adjunct.

[Brisketexan 105334]

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

my son's class read this book called wonder. in it, there is a magnificent quote that i try to apply at least once daily. "if you have a choice between being right or being kind, choose kind."

that's about as close to christ's message as i can imagine. choose kind. refusing business on account of "encouraging or celebrating sin" is not choosing kind. bake the fucking cake. it's the kind thing to do. 

Kindness has little to do with American "public square" "christianity."  Which is my sub-point.  Regardless of religious freedom issues, "faith" is just being used as a trojan horse for meanness, cruelty, derision, and judgmentalism.  These folks aren't fighting nearly so hard for the ability and means to act in kindness, to care for the foreigner and stranger, to care for the poor, etc.  Which tells me it ain't about the faith at all.  It's about what faith gives them cover to do that serves their OWN desires, prejudices, and cruelties.

Treating "the other" differently, and poorly, is one of our more consistent and base tactics.  It's as human as it gets.  Funny how "religion" gives us cover to exercise our worst nature.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This is why secular freedom is winning.

I agree. My original point was, yet again, religious freedom and secular freedom are in necessary conflict and both can’t win, by design and definition.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, troph said:

Fuck this sin shit. Keep that garbage to yourself. I wasn’t present in my own life, wasting it daily. My kids suffered from a lack of my presence. Now I’m here living life and loving them and raising them to be fine young men. Take that sin bullshit and shove it. Believe it if you want but I’m not engaging in a conversation of which sin etc if you think I’m some special class of sinner bc I’m trans or because I’m a woman that loves women then so be it but it’s like only your belief man.

Nobody is a special class of sinner, I’m the worst of us all. I sin and fail daily, probably much worse than you.