Prosperity gospel
- Thread starter TheDude1
- Start date
You do see how the two posts I quoted come off completely different though, yes?
I don't think the anger is misconstrued at all. A good example, Moses and his visit to the mt. The ot god was pissed. Wanted to smite the idolaters. Moses tried to calm him down. Then moses comes down from the mt, with the commandments, moses gets pissed and then a good ole smiting takes place. So much for Thou shalt not kill......
@hailtoyourvictor must feel pretty conflicted ITT because he tries to portray himself as a fact and no nonsense guy but then has the defend all this religious nonsense.
Absolutely.... But haven't you been a dick in some of your posts, or just drunk. I'm not talking just about this thread
Sometimes we feel like being a dick, sometimes we don't....
Torn.
On the one hand, it is VERY hard to force someone to do something that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Like... that's tough to stomach.
At the same time... while I am generally not a "slippery slope" sort of person, I do worry that allowing exemptions could pretty easily lead to some nasty stuff... someone saying something like "Well, this person isn't of my religious group, and I am offended by that, so I won't help them." I've seen enough of that sort of thing that I am pretty sure it would happen.
It's a really tough argument. Not sure what side I come down on... but glad I am not the one making that decision.
Absolutely.... But haven't you been a dick in some of your posts, or just drunk. I'm not talking just about this thread
Sometimes we feel like being a dick, sometimes we don't....
It was just weird that in a span of 3 posts you went from mocking those who believe to emphatically stating that you respect if others believe.
I respect the right of others to hold the opinion that Tom Brady is a good quarterback and I don't usually seek out or begin arguments to say he's poop at football. Heck, I could even be nice to a Pats fan for probably a half hour. But once I'm presented with the argument in favor of Tom being a decent football player, I don't usually hesitate to point out how trash he is.
I don't speak for BasketBallJunkie, but I'd assume that's kind of what you saw go down in those posts.
I see it mostly the same way. I don't agree with forcing private businesses to provide services that go against their religious beliefs. And I think the slippery slope you speak of is that some businesses will refuse other services and claim it is because of their religious beliefs? I do think that could be an issue and possibly lead to discriminations. I don't think this should have ever stepped foot in the Supreme Court though.
I don't worry so much about the 'slippery slope' implications of this case and cases like it. I think refusing customers based on criteria other than their abilities to pay in full, on-time, and not be an undo nuisance is generally just a bad business model that would be unsustainable. In the long run, you're more likely to lose business by refusing service to those who are in opposition to your religious beliefs than grow your business. A business might get short-term support from those with similar views, but the reputation and bad press from refusals of service like this will outlast the show of support, imo.
My prerogative.... I'm allowed to be passive aggressive on message boards...
I agree. But this is kind of why it should have never gone to the SCOTUS. You can't force a private business to serve anyone, let alone force them to provide a custom service that goes against their beliefs. But the public can hold them accountable for decisions. Post on the internet that said business refused you fair service, go somewhere that will serve you and endorse that business. Had the courts ruled the other way, would you, as a gay man, give him your money anyways?
The Civil Rights act protects against discrimination by race, color, religion or national origin. I think the SCOTUS was appropriate in this case because the ruling could have effectively added sexual orientation to that list. Instead, the ruling has, for now, kept sexual orientation separate.
The way I hope it gets separated is between participating in the actual ceremony and providing a good or service to a gay couple any other day. So if the gay couple wanted a random cake for a birthday or something, I think they should have to sell to them. If the cake was for the wedding ceremony, then they can claim religious beliefs because they would be directly involved in the act they claim violates their religious beliefs. Who knows where it’s gonna go, but I thought that may be somewhat of a compromise for both sides.
Yup and that’s the risk the businesses take by making known their stances on these types of issues. If it’s an unpopular stance, they’re likely to lose business. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Since I own my own small business, I think its a poor business decision to get involved in something like this. You make them a cake b/c thats wtf you do for a living. Pretty sure God isn't holding it against you or it means you cant still have your own beliefs......if anything, it leaves the judging up to your god---something I'm pretty sure he says to do. Not sure how sexual orientation comes about in these circumstances--even if its congrats larry and ron. Just like in sports---to me its not heroic to come out as a gay athlete. So you like same sex...sex. Who cares? Are we talking about how many chicks tom brady is banging at pressers? Just let people be imo. Also, if someone has a an opinion that your gayness isn't right in their beliefs. Let them have their view. Its not your job to convince them of their beliefs. Use another cake shop for the love of god. Maybe this makes me simple minded, but its a pretty calm way to live in my experience.
And on the flip side, the businesss that continues selling to everyone should thrive if they provide an equal service / product.
Agreed; this is perfect for SCOTUS, because it has some pretty big implications, and directly ties into similar existing legal situations.
But see, YOU think God isn't holding it against them, but that is YOUR view; they might feel differently.
And it comes down to bigger issues than the single business or experience; SCOTUS is all about establishing national, legal precedent that will govern how lower courts rule.
I have to come back to this post
I didn't mock anyone. I mocked the religion with facts. If I mocked an individual, show me and I'll certainly apologize. Tell me where I'm mistated a fact and I'll do one of 2 things, acknowledge I'm incorrect, or show you where you're wrong...
I have to come back to this post
Nope. If you don’t see your post as condescending towards people who believe in God then we won’t see eye to eye and further conversing is a waste of your time and mine. Have a good day!
People get very caught up in their religion when they somehow feel attacked, but show very little shame for the areas of their life that break every rule in the book.
These weren't innocent people who just made a simple, careless mistake. They had witnessed Moses perform many miracles, including the parting of the Red Sea, freeing them from Egyptian bondage, and guiding them to water and food in the desert. These Israelites willfully defied God - they openly and willfully rebelled against Him.
Furthermore, the Canaanite God, Moloch, is a god who is associated with child sacrifice. The golden calf illustrations look very, very similar to some of the depictions of Moloch, and of course the Isarelites were already heavily influenced by Canaanite culture (Moloch is first mentioned in Leviticus, so we're not too far off in the timeline). I don't know the full context, but I'd say it's very likely that the golden calf worshipers were likely to have followed some of the same Canaanite practices, namely sacrificing live, human sacrifices of small children. When you consider the fact that only 1 out of 200 people were slain (600,000+ left Egypt), it was actually a very small percentage. The Israelities were asked to affirm their beliefs and their willingness to stand on the Lord's side (Ex 32:26), so I can only surmise that the small percentage that were killed openly denied God, the teachings, and the miracles.
I pretty much agree. I don't think that businesses should be able to refuse basic service to anyone based on being gay. I think that should be in the protected class. I do think that businesses should be able to darw a line based on their beliefs. Such as making a custom cake for a gay couple. That said, I think it is incredibly stupid for them to refuse to do it. As pointed out, it's a bad business decision. As toonces said, you are not going to be condemned to hell for doing so. I just feel like at the end of the day, take your money to someone who will gladly serve you.
Every cake for a bachelorette party I've ever heard of had something bawdy on it, like penises or something. I could totally see (and defend) a bakery's refusal to decorate that cake. Selling the undecorated cake seems reasonable, though.
It shouldn't be heroic to state that like practically every other mammal on Earth, you have a sex drive. In a society where LGBTQ people have been persecuted, oppressed, and threatened for their orientation, though, it does demonstrate a bit more courage than for you or me to "let it slip" that we're straight.
Provided people's beliefs aren't leveraged into oppressive legislation, it's easier to let disagreeable beliefs slide. Historically, conservative religious beliefs have been pretty central to oppressing the LGBTQ through law.
Then again, if the belief itself disrespects someone else, there are limits to how much anyone can agree to disagree. The very expression of the belief that non-heterosexuality is bad breaches the agree-to-disagree peace, and hearing back that they're bigots should be expected and understood.
Its a circle of people being offended lol. My favorite line is " at what age do you decide to be straight"?
It most def has a different set of consequences stating your affinity for same sex or hetero---but it shouldn't matter. I cant believe sports stations and sports reporters get so hungry over a story like that. Dude sleeps with dudes......nobody cares, can you tackle and be assignment sound?
It shouldn't matter, but it has, and that's the reality we're living in. At some point it won't merit a mention in much the same way black MLB players today don't get lauded for breaking the color line like Jackie Robinson did.
The dude is goofy for not making the cake and the gay dudes should've found another baker. If I was dictator I'd execute the baker for being a douche and imprison the gay dudes for at least a year for filing a lawsuit in the first place.
I guess I can assume there are no gay bakers, florists in their circle? Or were they just trying to create headlines?
Gay florists? No way.
Seriously though, I think it is less about getting the cake made, and more about taking a stand against something you think is discriminatory, and possibly ensuring that it won't happen to other people or in other ways. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't just to ignore something and try to make it work for you, personally... sometimes you do have to aim higher, with more people in mind. Not saying that is or isn't the case here, but my guess is that that's why the gay couple did this.
That's probably right. And they probably got caught up in advancing the cause... but you gotta pick your battles
There was a 9 year-old last year who couldn't find anyone to bake a cake with Trump's image on it. Nobody on the left was pressing for legal action against those bakeries. If you're going to tell shops what they can and cannot bake, you might as well say goodbye to the 1st Amendment.
Okay, you're intentionally overlooking the distinct difference between this and the case that went in front of the Supreme Court, yes? Or do you not see the difference between a refusal to bake a cake depicting a certain person vs. a refusal to bake a cake because of somebody's sexual orientation?
Where is the distinction? Bakeries should have freedom of speech. You can't dictate what they can and cannot sell. It's the same way for the judge that upheld the decision by a NY Bar to not serve a Trump supporter (http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html). I'm personally not against it. If you want to steal money from your own pockets, fine. If you believe a request for a specific product compromises your moral values, fine. Kindly ask them to frequent another bakery/store.
FWIW, the case of the baker who refused to bake a gay wedding cake, also offered the gay couple any other product in the store... and he also refused to bake Halloween Cakes, Divorce Cakes, and lewd Bachelorette Cakes. Censoring freedom of expression violates the first amendment and more closely resembles fascism.
Similar threads
