# Faith groups increasingly lose gay rights fights



## Cloudchaser (Apr 11, 2009)

Just to avoid any confusion, I intend for this to be about people being forced to do things that go against their personal beliefs.  Do you think it's OK to force  Jew or Muslum to eat pork because to you, it's not a sin?  Do you think it's OK to force a Catholic to desecrate the Eucharist because to you, it's not the literal flesh & blood of Christ?

First, a quote from the article, then a link to the article followed by my own comment.

FROM THE ARTICLE
A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony. 

A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship. 

Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment. 

A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

THE WHOLE ARTICLE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30146878

MY COMMENT
I don't mean to seem homophobic, I understand that not all homosexuals are like that and I'M NOT TRYING TO START A DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN, but homosexuals who are like that piss me off.  Theyr'e hypocrites.  They don't want Christianity forced on them, but they're perfectly allright with forcing their belief that homosexuality isn't a sin on people who think it is a sin.

They just want to cause trouble for people ho believe it's a sin any way that can.  Why didn't that gay couple find a photog who's willing to photograph a gay couple's wedding?  Why didn't that lesbian find a psychologist who was willing to council her?  Why didn't that lesbian in California find a doctor willing to artificially inseminate her?  What right does U. of C. have to expect a Christian group to accept people whose actions go against their beliefs?

What's next?  Are preachers going be succesfully sued if they refuse to marry gay couples?

Are businesses who offer church services in their facilities going to be forced to stop doing so on the claim that it violates the rights of homosexual customers even if attending services is entirely optional and isn't a requirement of all customers?

The hotel I work at offers a church service in its conference room every Sunday morning.  There are a few signs here and there advertising it, but guests aren't told of it by staff or otherwise encouraged to attend.  Despite that, one lesbian couple that stayed here a few months ago actually complained about it, saying it violated their rights!


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 11, 2009)

You just figured this out now.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

I like that though, you shouldn't be allowed to do your job if you're going to pick and choose for fake reasons; everybody is equal, it's about time they got a slap of reality for once.

Priest isn't a real job, it should be made into a real job where they pay taxes and etc, I know priests that make more money than doctors, just because the "are the word of god."


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 11, 2009)

Gay's are significantly more chastised and held down then the religious type of people, from what I read in the article, these people weren't forcing the people to do anything; they just wanted X services done, and it certainly didn't sound like they were intending to sue or get legal action against the people until their rights were violated.

It's all well and good to go over the top with the slippery slope argument (What's next? More over the top commentary?), but they aren't forcing their beliefs on anybody, in fact, I don't think belief was even brought up on the gay side - Only the religious side. They wanted something done, and were refused service because of religious beliefs, so they went right around a sued them, or what have you, because their rights are being infringed as human beings. 

Which...You're kind-of missing that point, they are suing or action is being taken, because basic human rights are being violated in the name of religion, including discrimination. 

Freedom of religion can't violate human rights...Is what the moral of the story is.


----------



## Alabaster_Drazziken (Apr 11, 2009)

It's her business and if she wants to refuse to do something and not get paid for it, that's her loss. She shouldn't have been sued, the couple should have just found another photographer.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I know priests that make more money than doctors, just because the "are the word of god."



Did you ever think, that he's probably making drug deals.



Alabaster_Drazziken said:


> It's her business and if she wants to refuse to do something and not get paid for it, that's her loss. She shouldn't have been sued, the couple should have just found another photographer.



With the sue happy ppl, you really know how they're personality is... GREADY BITCHES >:[


----------



## Chacemc (Apr 11, 2009)

Depends, did she go out of her way to make it a point she was refusing service due to sexual preferences? If so, then it would be a violation of whatever New Mexico's civil rights laws are concerning sexual preference. 

The whole right to refuse service is more or less based on infringing upon a persons well-being. I can refuse to seat you in my restaurant because you are smelly and said smell will affect my other patrons, not because you are homosexual.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Alabaster_Drazziken said:


> It's her business and if she wants to refuse to do something and not get paid for it, that's her loss. She shouldn't have been sued, the couple should have just found another photographer.



It's not her business, it's her JOB; you can't refuse work just because you don't like it, or it "infringes on your belief", heavy lifting is against my belief, repetitive tasks, gays/blacks/religious/dumb people, oh look I don't have to work at anything now. GO GO SUPER POWERS OF MODERN SOCIETY, I get sued and either can't work at that job anymore, or have to do what I don't want to do.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 11, 2009)

I'd imagine the Christians claiming their "right" to illegally discriminate against gay people would be screaming to the heavens if it was the other way around, say:



> A gay photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a Christian couple's commitment ceremony.
> 
> A lesbian psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a Christian about her relationship.
> 
> Lesbian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a Christian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.



All I can say to Christians taking offence at being forced to deal with gay customers / clients AS PART OF THEIR REGULAR EMPLOYMENT is... the payback of a level playing field is a bitch, ain't it?


----------



## Lobar (Apr 11, 2009)

Counterargument: Sixty years ago, businesses refused service to black people.  Today, we all, except for a tiny minority, recognize this as unacceptable.  How is refusing to serve everyone in a different demographic any different?


----------



## Cloudchaser (Apr 11, 2009)

Put that way, I don't know about anyone else, I wouldn't sue, but I would go find someone who enjoys doing the job.  People do a better job when they enjoy what they'er doing rathar than when they're forced to do it.  Like Alabaster said, "It's her business and if she wants to refuse to do something and not get paid for it, that's her loss. She shouldn't have been sued, the couple should have just found another photographer"


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> Put that way, I don't know about anyone else, I wouldn't sue, but I would go find someone who enjoys doing the job.  People do a better job when they enjoy what they'er doing rathar than when they're forced to do it.  Like Alabaster said, "It's her business and if she wants to refuse to do something and not get paid for it, that's her loss. She shouldn't have been sued, the couple should have just found another photographer"



That's why they're no longer allowed to do their job, because the government/law knows she/he won't do it right if they're forced. Proper thing, in my opinion, until they can show they're not biased in the workplace, they shouldn't be allowed to deal with the public.


----------



## BigPuppy_Stuart (Apr 11, 2009)

The problem is that if this form of discrimination is was just accepted to and the " just use some one else " attitude was put into practice, then that would set a precedent for discrimination being an acceptable practice and others would try to use it for other prejudices. Such as a deli not selling to Christians or to Goths and just saying " just go to another deli"
 same with a gas station or any other business. Also it would be a Legal double standard.

I don't like people being forced to do something they do not want to, but i kinda understand why it is the way it is.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 11, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> Put that way, I don't know about anyone else, I wouldn't sue, but I would go find someone who enjoys doing the job.  People do a better job when they enjoy what they'er doing rathar than when they're forced to do it.  Like Alabaster said, "It's her business and if she wants to refuse to do something and not get paid for it, that's her loss. She shouldn't have been sued, the couple should have just found another photographer"



In the case of the photographer, not enough information is given to say if a lawsuit was warranted or not.  If the situation was such that they had an agreement with a photography business, and then the individual photographer the business sent to the ceremony backed out the day of, I can see a lawsuit being justifable, as finding another professional photographer on such short notice or rescheduling would have been cost-prohibitive at best and impossible at worst.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Apr 11, 2009)

IMO, when it comes to the workplace, religion should be taking a backseat.


----------



## Werevixen (Apr 11, 2009)

Being gay isn't a preference, it's a genetical trait. So why are you accepting Christian need to deny rights to someone that can't help who they are?


----------



## eternal_flare (Apr 11, 2009)

Eh, politics, religions, and sexuality stuff should not be discussed in work place, I think, many riots originate this way. :3


----------



## Cloudchaser (Apr 11, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Being gay isn't a preference, it's a genetical trait. So why are you accepting Christian need to deny rights to someone that can't help who they are?



Put that way, thinking of how kleptomaniacs feel a stronger need to steal things than the rest of us, it could also be said that "Being a thief isn't a preference, it's a genetical trait"

The problem here is a miscommunication and different ideas of what is and isn't homosexual.  You and many others define being homosexual as being attracted to others of the same gender.  When in reality, that in itself isn't a problem, it's giving in to desire is when it becomes a problem.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 11, 2009)

Discrimination is not an simple issue. People are not generally free to limit the freedom of others, but it's unavoidable in these cases. I don't think discrimination on any basis should just be accepted and passively endorsed.

By the way, I'm confused by that last argument. When giving into desire is wrong for homosexuals, and you don't want to discriminate between preferences, then giving into this desire is wrong for heterosexuals as well. Are you suggesting everyone should reject their sexuality?


----------



## ADF (Apr 11, 2009)

I honestly have zero sympathy for religious people being forced to go against their ridicules beliefs.

Every day some aspect of religion impacts my life, despite me not being religious. Every day I take the trip to uni I see the religious propaganda signs, dodge the preachers in the streets and get to see the Christian union make an arse of itself yet again.

Religion as a whole shows respect for no one by poking its nose where it doesn't belong and constantly trying to shape the world in 'their' image. Every time the Pope opens his big stupid mouth and proves what a arrogant prick he is I care about the plights of religion even less.

I don't care what your religion is, if you are not fit for purpose in your job because of your belief system then you should be replaced.

-edit

I've heard of pharmacists refusing to sell the morning after pill, shop assistants that refuse to handle alcohol, even a women that got in trouble at work because she had a ham sandwich for lunch and many staff members were Muslim!

Religious people are happy to cram their views down other peoples throats when it suits them, now it is happening to them they feel discriminated against the victimized, excuse me if I find amusement in that.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> Put that way, thinking of how kleptomaniacs feel a stronger need to steal things than the rest of us, it could also be said that "Being a thief isn't a preference, it's a genetical trait"
> 
> The problem here is a miscommunication and different ideas of what is and isn't homosexual.  You and many others define being homosexual as being attracted to others of the same gender.  When in reality, that in itself isn't a problem, it's giving in to desire is when it becomes a problem.



wat.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 11, 2009)

Could you imagine if I refused to serve a heterosexual due to my beliefs? I'd never work again.


----------



## ADF (Apr 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> wat.



It's the religious mentality that homosexual sex is a sin, not being a homosexual.

The whole hate the sin not the sinner thing, which of course like many religious beliefs is preached but rarely applied.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 11, 2009)

Whether this (the photographer) is sue-worthy or not depends on whether they were already paid or not, and whether the agreement was already set.  The way I'm reading this, they hired her... and then on the wedding day, she refused to take any pictures when she learned they were homosexual.  If this is the case - or she had already been paid - then they're perfectly justified in suing.  Furthermore, $6,637 is not that much money (compared to other suings done in the US).  This looks more like them trying to get their money back & 'damages' covered than trying to leech her dry.

The psychologist one depends on the situation (which MSNBC leaves out), could have been justified.  If it were a private practice and they felt they would not be capable of providing sufficient counseling.  It looks instead like she's in a public practice, which unless in some very stretched circumstances you are expected to do your job whether you like it or not.

As for the fertility thing, again, public or private makes a difference.  Furthermore, why they refused.  If "because you're a lesbian," then I can understand their barring.  If "you cannot support a child safely, and it just so happens you're a lesbian," then they're justified in their actions.


----------



## HoneyPup (Apr 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I like that though, you shouldn't be allowed to do your job if you're going to pick and choose for fake reasons; everybody is equal, it's about time they got a slap of reality for once.



agreed.



> The hotel I work at offers a church service in its conference room every Sunday morning. There are a few signs here and there advertising it, but guests aren't told of it by staff or otherwise encouraged to attend. Despite that, one lesbian couple that stayed here a few months ago actually complained about it, saying it violated their rights!


This is the only situation described in the first post that I agree that the homosexuals were out of line. This is a service that is offered. If its not a service you are interested in, ignore it.
The rest of the situations described, the people should have been  served correctly regardless of sexual orientation. If it makes the employee uncomfortable, too bad. Customers come first, regardless of beliefs.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Apr 11, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Being gay isn't a preference, it's a genetical trait. So why are you accepting Christian need to deny rights to someone that can't help who they are?



It's a mixture of various factors, not just genetic. Hell, even researchers don't really know what's the exact cause, so please read up before you post.

Organized religion has long outstayed its welcome in modern society. How is a 2000 year old morality handbook relevant nowadays?


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 11, 2009)

The article is pure emotionally-driven sensationalism.  It doesn't give enough information about any of the incidents it cites to reach a sensible right-or-wrong conclusion.  MSNBC left _all_ the details out.  All the article does is imply that religious groups lack tolerance for homosexuality's existence, imply that homosexuals lack any religious beliefs at all, and pit these straw men against each other with the religious straw men the underdog.


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 11, 2009)

Ark said:


> Did you ever think, that he's probably making drug deals.
> 
> 
> 
> With the sue happy ppl, you really know how they're personality is... GREADY BITCHES >:[



http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2007/12/03/sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support/

That alone is enough to detail how gold-digging and parasidic the lawsuit-happy scum can be. The judge should have been shot.



> Being gay isn't a preference, it's a genetical trait. So why are you accepting Christian need to deny rights to someone that can't help who they are?



1. It couldn't be a genetic trait. The subject has no way of passing it down to the next generation.

2. It may be a way you think, but it's not who you are as a person. The same way being autistic does not define who you are as an individual.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's not her business, it's her JOB; you can't refuse work just because you don't like it, or it "infringes on your belief", heavy lifting is against my belief, repetitive tasks, gays/blacks/religious/dumb people, oh look I don't have to work at anything now.



You also don't have to get paid....  One person's rights shouldn't trump another's.  That's the way our Charter was supposed to be written, and other than status Indians and women, mostly gets it right.

Churches, doctors and other snivel servants are protected here; they can't be prosecuted for violating their beliefs, nor fired.  But they don't have to be paid either.  And civil institution (federal, provincial and municipal) are bound to perform the ceremony; so a "sick out" (where no one wants to do it) can't interfere either. Private industry is a little different, its more of a tort thing, and there isnt enough precedent setting case law to call it one way or another.  I think on balance, Canada got the balance of rights correct.

If the photo turned down the couples business, its her right.  Odious and wrongheaded for sure, but still her right. If the photog contracted for money and then breached the contract, its a simple business tort, no more no less.  As ArielMT pointed out, the article really doesn't give enough context.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 11, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2007/12/03/sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support/
> 
> That alone is enough to detail how gold-digging and parasidic the lawsuit-happy scum can be. The judge should have been shot.



WHAT FUCKING PRICKS  This country needs to fix our judical system, I can't believe were rewarding this behavior.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 11, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2007/12/03/sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support/
> 
> That alone is enough to detail how gold-digging and parasidic the lawsuit-happy scum can be. The judge should have been shot.



Hey, welcome to the party, and thanks for injecting a linkspam to a tangentially related article into this discussion.  Why not link to the source article instead?

There's also a two year old discussion on Snopes Forums and an article about a sperm donor winning against a child support claim in a similar incident.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> You also don't have to get paid....  One person's rights shouldn't trump another's.  That's the way our Charter was supposed to be written, and other than status Indians and women, mostly gets it right.
> 
> Churches, doctors and other snivel servants are protected here; they can't be prosecuted for violating their beliefs, nor fired.  But they don't have to be paid either.  And civil institution (federal, provincial and municipal) are bound to perform the ceremony; so a "sick out" (where no one wants to do it) can't interfere either. Private industry is a little different, its more of a tort thing, and there isnt enough precedent setting case law to call it one way or another.  I think on balance, Canada got the balance of rights correct.
> 
> If the photo turned down the couples business, its her right.  Odious and wrongheaded for sure, but still her right. If the photog contracted for money and then breached the contract, its a simple business tort, no more no less.  As ArielMT pointed out, the article really doesn't give enough context.


Yes, yes they do have to do their job or else society collapses. If you can pick and choose, and simply not get paid then that's bullshit. Most people get paid by the hour and if they refuse one person they instantly have another, no loss to them at all, no penalties; minority gets stepped on, again. If I ever have somebody say they refuse to serve me because of my religion or sexual preference, then I will give them a good smack in the face to smarten them up, leaving without a trace.


----------



## Yojimaru (Apr 11, 2009)

In some instances, I can see where objecting to do something for personal or religious reasons is acceptable (even if it is retarded) but a Psychologist refusing to help someone because they just so happen to be gay!?  That is all kinds of fucked up.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes, yes they do have to do their job or else society collapses. If you can pick and choose, and simply not get paid then that's bullshit.



It may be bullshit, but its what seems to work.  Consumers still get their marriages, (or abortions, or whatever insert here) and people peforming the task don't have to violate their personal beliefs.  If person A is willing to perform a ceremony, and person B isn't, does it matter that you get married by person A?



> If I ever have somebody say they refuse to serve me because of my religion or sexual preference, then I will give them a good smack in the face to smarten them up, leaving without a trace.



I appreciate the sentiment, but that's just going to breed resentment and cause a backlash.  And despite making you feel better, that person is going to discriminate against the next person to come along too.  The trick is to train/educate people so that they don't mind in the first place.  Gonna take a generation or two, but we'll get there.


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 11, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> FROM THE ARTICLE
> A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.


I know the couple and the photographer! The photographer raised 7 kind of hell. She's a bitch... anyway it didn't intervene with any beliefs. She's a homo-phobe, all she had to do was take pictures, it's not like they made her film gay porn!


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> It may be bullshit, but its what seems to work.  Consumers still get their marriages, (or abortions, or whatever insert here) and people peforming the task don't have to violate their personal beliefs.  If person A is willing to perform a ceremony, and person B isn't, does it matter that you get married by person A?


I'd still make sure that person lost their license, because it's part of my belief.


Irreverent said:


> I appreciate the sentiment, but that's just going to breed resentment and cause a backlash.  And despite making you feel better, that person is going to discriminate against the next person to come along too.  The trick is to train/educate people so that they don't mind in the first place.  Gonna take a generation or two, but we'll get there.


"Without a trace"


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'd still make sure that person lost their license, because it's part of my belief.



But that's the double edged sword.  Forcing people to perform gay marriages is no different than straights denying gays the right to get married in the first place.  Sure, payback is a bitch, but the world shouldn't run on schadenfreude.



> "Without a trace"



Huh?  How does that effect the beat-down bigot from discriminating again?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm still curious as to how someone's personal religious beliefs would even lead them to not do their job; plus, it sounds like these people who got sued/fired/etc. equate gays on the same level as lepers or something. 

The bible said somewhere to deny services to gays or something? Or is that their own personal idea because of their religion >.>


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 11, 2009)

This reminds me of when in my area these pharmacists wanted to be able to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth-control and not allow condom sale in the store. Their argument is that "It goes against my religion."

It's a stupid argument because this is something you should have thought about before you took on that role of peddling medication and stuff.

It's like this, you don't work at Burger King if you are hindu and then sue because you have to serve the meat of an animal that is holy and sacred in your religion.

This women or man who is upset that her or she has to pay money for refusing to photograph a gay couple due to being against homosexuality based on religion is bull-shitting. If you are going to have an issue with this sort of thing you would not be photographing people's commitments anyway because more often then not the heterosexual couples are the ones who are desecrating the values of the Bible or some other holy text.

To me I see no issue. The person was an idiot. Look at what heterosexual couples do to the concept of marriage today....and somehow the person is okay with photographing those kind of people who are probably going to be divorced within the next 5 years, but having to photograph a homosexual couple (which statistics show that homosexual couples last longer and tend to have less adultery) is suddenly not okay.

I see hypocrisy here, am I the only one? If you were really concerned with not violating your beliefs religious that is, you would not be photographing couples period because while maybe homosexuality goes against your religion, so does half the shit common couples today do anyway.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Huh?  How does that effect the beat-down bigot from discriminating again?


It's not suppose to?


----------



## Grimfang (Apr 11, 2009)

It goes both ways.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.briefs101apr10,0,2856143.story

In short, the University of Maryland's Senate voted to get rid of a traditional prayer before commencing the graduation. The President of the University vetoed the vote in order to keep the prayer service in the graduation ceremony. It's a public institution, and a lot of people in the Senate were raising or responding to questions along the lines of "What about the Jewish, Muslim, or students of other religious beliefs? Is it fair for their graduation to be commenced with a Christian prayer service?"

Again, it's a public institution. Some people demand so-called open-mindedness while they totally shut out the possibility that someone may have a right to a different opinion. You also have a voice from some religious denouncing, condemning, and pushing to outlaw anything irreligious.

It probably would've been better to find a photographer that was open to photographing a same-sex couple, but I know in my own personal experience, people have set aside their own personal beliefs with me. At an older job I had, it got out that I'm gay. That was when I first was coming out to people (close friends or family mainly), so it was scary as hell in my area, but I was surprised to find that people actually approached me and expressed that they don't care, and that it changes nothing. I'd be a very different person today if it had affected my employment, or how people generally treated me.

I know it gets all hairy and tricky when it comes to something more of a religious service, but if you're practicing in psychology or medicine, you should be ready to forfeit whatever personal "moral obligations" you may feel, _imo_.


----------



## Bunneh45 (Apr 11, 2009)

This argument and thread is retarded. Fuck your beliefs and religions. Nothing can excuse discrimination of any kind. If your job has something that goes against your belief, quit. If you don't want to, lose your beliefs. Choose one. No one is making you do any of these. This is your _choice_ unlike being gay or black.

Now, for the one about the christian student group, that one is totally different.


----------



## SnickersTheCat (Apr 11, 2009)

Ya, I agree. 
I mean do whatever floats your boat... 
but force other people to accomodate your beliefs? XP
Y'know if that photographer doesn't want to take thier picture well it sucks for her because she's losing out on business and it's her problem if anything.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 11, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm still curious as to how someone's personal religious beliefs would even lead them to not do their job.



Its about one group of rights trumping an others.



> ; plus, it sounds like these people who got sued/fired/etc. equate gays on the same level as lepers or something.



They probably do, but that's not the issue here.



> Or is that their own personal idea because of their religion >.>



This, for sure.  You wouldn't expect a devout Catholic priest to marry a gay couple, it goes against his beliefs.  Or a Catholic doctor to perform abortions etc.

Gays have as much right to get married as others have to their (albeit antiquated, bigoted and bizarre) religious beliefs.  Its the "your right to swing your fist ends 1" from in front of my nose" debate.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 11, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> This argument and thread is retarded. Fuck your beliefs and religions. Nothing can excuse discrimination of any kind. If your job has something that goes against your belief, quit. If you don't want to, lose your beliefs. Choose one. No one is making you do any of these. This is your _choice_ unlike being gay or black.
> 
> Now, for the one about the christian student group, that one is totally different.



Plus one internet, good sir.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Its about one group of rights trumping an others.
> 
> They probably do, but that's not the issue here.
> 
> ...



I can understand rights, but the things in this article aren't against their religion at all, and wouldn't be comparable to a priest marrying a gay couple, because that would be significantly against their religion to do so.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 11, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I can understand rights, but the things in this article aren't against their religion at all, and wouldn't be comparable to a priest marrying a gay couple, because that would be significantly against their religion to do so.



I absolutely agree.  But if you can confer special status on a Priest based on his conviction, then why not on the photog or a pro-life doctor too?  I have trouble with the "some people are more equal than others" Animal Farm defense. Righting one wrong should not wrong one right.

In reality, its working well here, so it can work well there too.  People (regardless of gender) still get married, and no one is forced to marry them against his/her beliefs.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 11, 2009)

There is a difference, though. The (religious) act of performing (the) marriage (ritual) by a priest is a matter of religious doctrine. Who he can and can't marry is as much a state affair as the matter of who can and can't be _legally _married is a matter of church; that is to say, none at all.

However, a photographer or psychiatrist is assuming a working role within society, rather than a ritual role within a religious community.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 11, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> 2. It may be a way you think, but it's not who you are as a person. The same way being autistic does not define who you are as an individual.


Try to stop being autistic. You can't.

There you go.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 11, 2009)

Wait wait wait if being autistic doesn't define you as an individual why are there autistic people who take pride in being autistic?


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 11, 2009)

Because they're _terrible people_


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 11, 2009)

Why should people get yelled at because of their personal beliefs?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 11, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Why should people get yelled at because of their personal beliefs?



This is the funniest thing I've read all century


----------



## Lobar (Apr 11, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Now, for the one about the christian student group, that one is totally different.



They wanted to exclude sexually active students.  Most colleges won't allow student groups to refuse anyone.  Simply being christian was almost certainly not the issue.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 11, 2009)

Doubler said:


> However, a photographer or psychiatrist is assuming a working role within society, rather than a ritual role within a religious community.



No argument with that, but they still have rights.  The state can't deny some one a marriage, but neither should they compel someone to do something against their beliefs.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 11, 2009)

Only by standing discrimination laws. A bus driver can firmly believe black people are inferior human beings, but that doesn't allow him to send them to the back of the bus. A Christian can truly believe gay people are spawn of satan, but that doesn't give them special rights to discriminate within society.

The same standards apply to religious people as to everyone else. No special rights should be given simply because of their beliefs.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 11, 2009)

Here's my two cents:

Both sides suck pretty much equally. Those who refuse service to someone due to orientation (without proper warning) is just as bad as someone who sues someone else for denying them.

I personally believe that someone should keep their religion out of their job (unless your a preacher or something). Religion has no right to be in the work place. Hell, personal beliefs have no right in the work place.


----------



## Mustangspark (Apr 12, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> but homosexuals who are like that piss me off.  Theyr'e hypocrites.  They don't want Christianity forced on them, but they're perfectly allright with forcing their belief that homosexuality isn't a sin on people who think it is a sin.



That homosexuality is not a sin is not a (religious) belief. Homosexuality is normal part of nature. Homosexuals deserve equal treatment. Sin, however, is a concept invented by certain religious groups. Sin - its is a belief.

I am not religious (more specifically, Christian) then the concept of sin doesn't exist for me. I do not "believe" that homosexuality is "not a sin", there simply is no such thing as "sin" for me. So if I go to get some available service and get sent back because the one whose job is to provide that service follows his beliefs that there exists such thing as "sin" he is discriminating me. He doesn't qualify to his job because he lets his personal religious beliefs interfere his work.


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 12, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Try to stop being autistic. You can't.
> 
> There you go.



I overcame autism (for most of the part) and so have a fair handful of people I know, the key to it is just try and be more sociably palatable.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 12, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> I overcame autism (for most of the part)


----------



## Lobar (Apr 12, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> I overcame autism (for most of the part) and so have a fair handful of people I know, the key to it is just try and be more sociably palatable.



This.

Explains.

EVERYTHING.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 12, 2009)

Lobar said:


> This.
> 
> Explains.
> 
> EVERYTHING.


^

I don't even _need _to debate now.


----------



## Nargle (Apr 12, 2009)

"A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony."

What if 50 photographers turn them down because they're gay? They have a right to have their wedding photographed.  

"A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship."

Her job is to counsel people... if I worked as a Wal-mart cashier and refused to check-out people's groceries, I think I'd get fired, too.

"Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment."

Why should she be denied the right to have a child? Any crazy loon can go to a fertility doctor to get pregnant (Like that insane chick with 14 newborns), but lesbian can't just because of who she's in love with?

"A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage."

This is a little different because it's a private club, but I've never really understood religious clubs at schools. Isn't that what church is for? Why do you have to bring it to school? That's just my personal views, though. A private club is a private club, and it's sometimes private for a reason.

Anyways, my whole idea on the above first three is, why should gays and lesbians be discriminated against? Why should they be denied services for such a thing? This is blatant segregation, no different from racial segregation. If a black person is turned down at a doctors office or some other professional service, it's wrong, but it's alright if they're gay? Everyone should have equal rights. Where's the line between this, and straight/gay schools and hospitals? Obviously homosexuals are SOOO toxic to christians that they don't even want to be close enough to photograph a couple of them.

Also, also, having to serve someone because it's your JOB is different then making them do something sinful. You have to do your job regardless of how prejudice you are, and if you refuse to do your job, you deserve to get fired. When I worked at Braum's, I bet you I served dozens of people that were pricks to animals (Something I'm VERY strongly opposed to) but just because I'm handing them a banana split doesn't mean they're infecting me with their animal-cruelty or something dumb. A job is a job, and it doesn't even come close to touching your personal beliefs, so your personal beliefs should never come into play.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 12, 2009)

Nargle said:


> "A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship."



I'm Bi, and I still would never want to participate in the amount of drama that gay lover's spats produce. It is very lulz-worthy, though.


----------



## Surgat (Apr 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> No argument with that, but they still have rights.  The state can't deny some one a marriage, but neither should they compel someone to do something against their beliefs.



As long as someone does not have to work at a job, it's not _really_ forcing them to do anything to make them do things while in a certain role. In one of the cases the OP references, for example, that one guy didn't have to be a photographer.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 13, 2009)

Hey, I'm not going to let you stable your horses at my ranch because you have a Mohawk.

Now you see how ridiculous that sounds. x3


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 13, 2009)

Or I'm going to ruin your wedding by not taking pictures, like you hired me to do, because the groom's tux is white and/or the bride's gown isn't.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 13, 2009)

One thing I do believe, though, is that if someone is disrupting your business (such as punk kids messing with the displays) kick em out. If they're polite and whatnot, keep em. Doesn't matter what they look like or who they sleep with. That's really none of your business as someone who's running the show. If it doesn't hurt you, get over it.


----------



## Werevixen (Apr 13, 2009)

I wish there was a handheld radar for ignorant people so we could educate the savvy ones and terminate the hicks.


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 13, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Hey, I'm not going to let you stable your horses at my ranch because you have a Mohawk.
> 
> Now you see how ridiculous that sounds. x3



...No it's not 'ridiculous'.

Although it's never yet happened to me, I've heard of other people I know who got kicked out of places or got letters home over having 'extreme hairstyles', including Mohawks. Not only that, many work places advise strongly against scarrings, piercings, tattoos, unusual or excessive make-up, extreme hairstyles or colourings, unusual dress etc. In alot of supermarkets and resteraunts where I live. You'll get kicked out for wearing burberry, tracksuit bottoms, baseball caps and hoodies.

It's because of the culture associated with that often has links into radicalism, being over-provoking or delinquent behaiviour. Fashions such as chavs often wear such items as burberry, tracksuit bottoms, baseball caps and hoodies are often held to criminal activiety and anti-social behaviour. This can make other customers and staff feel uncomfertible affecting the progression and stability of the business, customers will leave, staff will not work to their best ability. Anti-mohawk rules are tied into the fact that it was popularised by punk, noted for having radical politcal views, such as neo-nazism and anarchism.

Anyway, not relevant. Mohawk is a hairstyle, homosexuality is a behaviour.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 13, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> I wish there was a handheld radar for ignorant people so we could educate the savvy ones and terminate the hicks.



While were at it, why don't we educate elementary kids with homosexual propaganda.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

Ark said:


> While were at it, why don't we educate elementary kids with homosexuality propaganda.


Homosexuality propaganda? I'm not sure if that's funny or just sad. If a kid likes his or her own gender, they can't help it. Homosexuality in schools basically means a bunch of people saying "Hey, it's okay to experiment". Which it is. You can't expect everyone in the world to live under a rock their whole lives.

That being said, get home schooled. Go to private school if you don't like it. There are _gang wars _in high schools, and you're worried about a few pink triangles?


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Homosexuality propaganda? I'm not sure if that's funny or just sad. If a kid likes his or her own gender, they can't help it. Homosexuality in schools basically means a bunch of people saying "Hey, it's okay to experiment". Which it is. You can't expect everyone in the world to live under a rock their whole lives.
> 
> That being said, get home schooled. Go to private school if you don't like it. There are _gang wars _in high schools, and you're worried about a few pink triangles?



It's when society forces a sexuality on a group, where it becomes wrong.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

Ark said:


> It's when society forces a sexuality on a group, where it becomes wrong.


You mean like how Christians force heterosexuality? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty bad.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronic said:


> You mean like how Christians force heterosexuality? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty bad.



"Separation of Church and State". So sorry, christians can't teach anything in public schools.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

Ark said:


> "Separation of Church and State". So sorry, christians can't teach anything in public schools.


So homosexuality is a religion now?

Edit: Because it certainly isn't something that's "taught". It "is".


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 13, 2009)

Ark said:


> While were at it, why don't we educate elementary kids with homosexual propaganda.



But....we already DO! D:


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 13, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> But....we already DO! D:



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Whoops ^^' stretched the page.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 13, 2009)

I seriously give up on you people

Out of all the fucking things to bitch about, _GAYS. _How the fuck is that threatening. How the fuck does that destroy society. Get a real topic to debate.


----------



## lobosabio (Apr 13, 2009)

Placebo said:


> I seriously give up on you people
> 
> Out of all the fucking things to bitch about, _GAYS. _How the fuck is that threatening. How the fuck does that destroy society. Get a real topic to debate.



They're probably afraid they're going to get ass raped.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 13, 2009)

lobosabio said:


> They're probably afraid they're going to get ass raped.


As soon as a gay guy steps in the room everyone should hide their ass, this is a fact


----------



## lobosabio (Apr 13, 2009)

Placebo said:


> As soon as a gay guy steps in the room everyone should hide their ass, this is a fact



Yeah, sit down right away.  And if you can't, for God's sake, don't bend over!


----------



## Bambi (Apr 13, 2009)

Placebo said:


> I seriously give up on you people
> 
> Out of all the fucking things to bitch about, _GAYS. _How the fuck is that threatening. How the fuck does that destroy society. Get a real topic to debate.


But Placebo, they're all straight and insecure!

They have to debate homosexuality, otherwise they can't provoke that much, "Oh, so needed" bit of attention that's missing in their lives.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

Bambi said:


> But Placebo, they're all straight and insecure!
> 
> They have to debate homosexuality, otherwise they can't provoke that much, "Oh, so needed" bit of attention that's missing in their lives.


But you could do the same thing by bullying people in real life! 

Oh wait, that might be dangerous. :[


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Placebo said:


> I seriously give up on you people
> 
> Out of all the fucking things to bitch about, _GAYS. _How the fuck is that threatening. How the fuck does that destroy society. Get a real topic to debate.



I'm loving Placebo more and more everyday. <3~


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

Especially now that I smoke weed~

I mean


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Especially now that I smoke weed~
> 
> I mean



That explains everything. <3


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm suddenly cool now :3


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 14, 2009)

Who says gays can't be threatening?

If I showed up with a bucket of lime green house paint, you'd be shittin' yourself in fear.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 14, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> Who says gays can't be threatening?
> 
> If I showed up with a bucket of lime green house paint, you'd be shittin' yourself in fear.


 ... but you're a fruit!


----------



## Chronic (Apr 14, 2009)

I AM THREATENING YOU WITH HOT LESBIAN SEX.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> I AM THREATENING YOU WITH HOT LESBIAN SEX.



OH NO, NOT THAT ;3


----------



## Chronic (Apr 14, 2009)

Anyways, yes. Marriage. I'd like to get married some day. Fuck civil unions.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 14, 2009)

Bambi said:


> ... but you're a fruit!



FRUITS CAN BE THREATENING


----------



## Toaster (Apr 14, 2009)

We should take both groups, hold them down, and pour liquid metal down their throats. That will fix all the bullshit. 

Geek > Everything


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 14, 2009)

I need to start coming to the off-topic board more often...I'm late to the party ._.



Cloudchaser said:


> People do a better job when they enjoy what they'er doing rathar than when they're forced to do it.


By that logic, we should all be paid to sit on our asses and typefuck each other.



Get-dancing said:


> 1. It couldn't be a genetic trait. The subject has no way of passing it down to the next generation.


Gay does not equal sterile.
Plenty of gays wind up with kids before they realize they're gay--particularly in the olden days when homosexuality was punishable by death, ostracization, and/or involuntary commitment to a mental hospital.
Also, genetic mutations can happen due to outside factors. There are plenty of chemicals in everyday products that can affect DNA.



> 2. It may be a way you think, but it's not who you are as a person. The same way being autistic does not define who you are as an individual.


Gays and autistic people are very different.
I've met plenty of gays that I didn't want to kill with a belt sander five minutes later.



Ornias said:


> We should take both groups, hold them down, and pour liquid metal down their throats. That will fix all the bullshit.


But if you use mercury, you'll just be creating another 3 billion or so autistic kids. They're a much greater threat to society than gays, because most of 'em wind up finding Jesus and clinging to him like fungus to a rotting log.


Load_Blown said:


> Wait wait wait if being autistic doesn't define you as an individual why are there autistic people who take pride in being autistic?


Because many of them will never *achieve* anything of note in their lives, and as such have nothing _left_ to take pride in but one of their basic attributes.



Trpdwarf said:


> It's like this, you don't work at Burger King if you are hindu and then sue because you have to serve the meat of an animal that is holy and sacred in your religion.


This.



> If you were really concerned with not violating your beliefs religious that is, you would not be photographing couples period because while maybe homosexuality goes against your religion, so does half the shit common couples today do anyway.


Ahh, if only.
"'EY!! 'EY YEW NEWLEYWEYDS!!! How DAYRE yew tew engayge in conseynshewal seykz owtsyde da Misshunairy Pozishun!? AWW, GAWD GON' GITCHOO F'DAIT!!"



Ornias said:


> We should take both groups, hold them down, and pour liquid metal down their throats. That will fix all the bullshit.


That depends. If you use mercury, you'll just be creating another 3 billion or so autistic kids. They're a much greater threat to society than gays, because most of 'em wind up finding Jesus and clinging to him like fungus to a rotting log; and since they will then love Jesus like a six-year-old loves Mommy, you've just created a new generation of zealots.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 14, 2009)

AdriNoMa said:


> Because many of them will never *achieve* anything of note in their lives, and as such have nothing _left_ to take pride in but one of their basic attributes.



What about high-functioning autistics like Napoleon Dynamite?


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 14, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> What about high-functioning autistics like Napoleon Dynamite?


-=Pats your hand=- He's not real, sweetie.

Bad special-ed-teacher impressions aside, that's kind of a special case. HFA and Asperger's are the same thing, for all intents and purposes--the shrinks can't agree on a distinction, you see--and there ARE people with Asperger's who actually do things that have applications beyond decorating their mothers' refrigerators. I've met one who's working on becoming a police officer (a very good choice, since he's also an asshole XD), one who's working on a degree in illustration, and one who's actually famous as a speaker on the subject of Asperger's. *But* they're also actually capable of communicating more-or-less normally with people. Lower-functioning autistics are pretty much only good for performing cheap manual labor, because they'll never learn all the basic fundamentals of communication--hence "lower-functioning".

Society's all about who you know, after all.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 14, 2009)

Ornias said:


> We should take both groups, hold them down, and pour liquid metal down their throats. That will fix all the bullshit.



This isn't South Park, and the middle-of-the-road, both-sides-are-always-retarded approach to everything doesn't work in the real world.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

Oh yeah...because of a little thing in the bible...
>.>
It could be interpeted as "No buttsecks"...


----------



## Toaster (Apr 14, 2009)

Lobar said:


> This isn't South Park, and the middle-of-the-road, both-sides-are-always-retarded approach to everything doesn't work in the real world.



Your right.... Lets hold YOU down and pour liquid metal down your throat. At lest that would be fun :/


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Oh yeah...because of a little thing in the bible...
> >.>
> It could be interpeted as "No buttsecks"...



The actual quote doesn't mention sex with gays, or anything related to it at all; it actually makes mention of "arsenokoites", and that doesn't mean homosexual, it means prostitution. One (wrong) translation had it saying "if man lay with man-kind...(some sort of punishment)", they got it wrong and instantly a slur of people that were religious and homophobic took that to mean homosexuals, man with man; it actually means prostitution. In fact, there WAS no noun in Greek for Homosexual so any modern interpretation to that effect is inaccurate.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The actual quote doesn't mention sex with gays, or anything related to it at all; it actually makes mention of "arsenokoites", and that doesn't mean homosexual, it means prostitution. One (wrong) translation had it saying "if man lay with man-kind...(some sort of punishment)", they got it wrong and instantly a slur of people that were religious and homophobic took that to mean homosexuals, man with man; it actually means prostitution. In fact, there WAS no noun in Greek for Homosexual so any modern interpretation to that effect is inaccurate.



*sigh* Do I gotta do this...

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Yes, it states that homosexuality is a sin.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 14, 2009)

Lobar said:


> This isn't South Park, and the middle-of-the-road, both-sides-are-always-retarded approach to everything doesn't work in the real world.



W-w-w-wha!!! ;____;  You mean libertarianism ISN'T the guiding light???


Oh man....*takes down Penn & Teller and Cato Institute posters*


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> *sigh* Do I gotta do this...
> 
> Leviticus 20:13
> 
> ...



That's impossible, I took that directly from a Bible that dates before any English rewrite, and that sounds like a English re-write. The very first English re-write had man lay with man-kind, only in 1900's was it changed to male laying with another male. Sorry, but you're wrong. :\

Source: http://therubicon.org/2008/07/arsenokoites/ (though honestly I just looked that up on google just then, I never used this in my original post)

Further reading:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=MUA...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA79,M1
and
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Arsenokoites.php


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's impossible, I took that directly from a Bible that dates before any English rewrite, and that sounds like a English re-write. The very first English re-write had man lay with man-kind, only in 1900's was it changed to male laying with another male. Sorry, but you're wrong. :\



It's a New International Version, there just translations (not rewritten). Try this site, it give every translation. You can figure it out for yourself.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 14, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Or I'm going to ruin your wedding by not taking pictures, like you hired me to do, because the groom's tux is white and/or the bride's gown isn't.



Yes but once hired, its a common business torte, for failure to provide a pre-negotiated and contracted service.  Its not a gay rights thing per se.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> It's a New International Version, there just translations (not rewritten). Try this site, it give every translation. You can figure it out for yourself.


I'm not seeing the texts translated from, though...and in translation (because there was no word for homosexual) it won't be accurate, it was twisted from the actual writings to be against homosexuality; originally it wasn't.

Also that has only one translation in it, I don't see "all of them."
Also, translations have re-writes, it's impossible on text so large with languages so different.


----------



## Kryn (Apr 14, 2009)

That is exactly why I can't take the bible seriously. It's been rewritten and translated and rewritten over and over and now the original meaning of most of it has been completely destroyed.


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'm not seeing the texts translated from, though...and in translation (because there was no word for homosexual) it won't be accurate, it was twisted from the actual writings to be against homosexuality; originally it wasn't.


O.O
Zounds, that's the first time I've ever seen somebody actually point out in a forum discussion that "homosexual" and its derivatives are creations of the 20th century.
Gore Vidal would be proud, if you've ever read any of his stuff =P



> translations have re-writes, it's impossible on text so large with languages so different.


This. And there are many words in other languages that simply cannot be translated into English. A good example is the Spanish "vaccilando". It's not like "vaccilating" in English, but there's no corresponding word.



Kryn said:


> That is exactly why I can't take the bible seriously. It's been rewritten and translated and rewritten over and over and now the original meaning of most of it has been completely destroyed.


This, and also that the main character's clearly gay. Come on. Aside from the fact that he lived with twelve other guys, wore a dress, had long hair, wore sandals, and never had sex with a woman...people, he was commonly depicted as lactating in paintings during the Middle Ages.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'm not seeing the texts translated from, though...and in translation (because there was no word for homosexual) it won't be accurate, it was twisted from the actual writings to be against homosexuality; originally it wasn't.
> 
> Also that has only one translation in it, I don't see "all of them."
> Also, translations have re-writes, it's impossible on text so large with languages so different.



It's pretty much common sense if you can't see it, and by the way the word "Homosexual" didn't exist then. Do you not understand sexual orientation when you see it (male, female). Doesn't your schools teach you this these days, I don't understand.


----------



## Lukar (Apr 14, 2009)

This makes me happy. Especially after hearing my grandma making fun of a gay couple on Judge Judy today.

*Random*


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> It's pretty much common sense if you can't see it, and by the way the word "Homosexual" didn't exist then. Do you not understand sexual orientation when you see it (male, female). Doesn't your schools teach you this these days, I don't understand.


Did they ever teach you what a question mark is?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> It's pretty much common sense if you can't see it, and by the way the word "Homosexual" didn't exist then. Do you not understand sexual orientation when you see it (male, female). Doesn't your schools teach you this these days, I don't understand.



But...it didn't...


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

AdriNoMa said:


> Did they ever teach you what a question mark is?



It's a rhetorical question.



NewfDraggie said:


> But...it didn't...



Elaborate man, your making no sense.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

There was no word for homosexual...I don't know how else to put it; they didn't have a verb for homosexual.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> There was no word for homosexual...I don't know how else to put it; they didn't have a verb for homosexual.



There was no verb, but they knew that if the same sex had laid with each other, that its a abomination.


----------



## Corto (Apr 14, 2009)

This thread is like a late Christmas present. I can't go to sleep now.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> There was no verb, but they knew that if the same sex had laid with each other, that its a abomination.


The people who originally wrote it actively performed same-sex sexual activities, even having it mandatory that a scholar and his teacher did these types of acts. I highly doubt that.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The people who originally wrote it actively performed same-sex sexual activities, even having it mandatory that a scholar and his teacher did these types of acts. I highly doubt that.



Did Placebo lend you some weed.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 14, 2009)

Ornias said:


> Your right.... Lets hold YOU down and pour liquid metal down your throat. At lest that would be fun :/



Personal insults, nothing more?  How boring. :\


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

He smoked it before me, Ark.

But if you want to follow that law, out of every other law in the old testament, and ignore Jesus' teaching repelling these laws...be my guest.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 14, 2009)

Placebo said:


> He smoked it before me, Ark.
> 
> But if you want to follow that law, out of every other law in the old testament, and ignore Jesus' teaching repelling these laws...be my guest.



Are you aware that Jesus WAS the word of God, before he took flesh. So your saying fuck God, because Jesus didn't preach about it.


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 14, 2009)

I've heard people on the interwebs translate Leviticus as "You will not have sex with male couches."


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> Are you aware that Jesus WAS the word of God, before he took flesh. So your saying fuck God, because Jesus didn't preach about it.


...Are you aware that Jesus said "Hey guys, we don't have to follow all those old laws anymore"? Because that's what he said. Either way if you're only following a few laws and not all of them, that's directly disobeying God. Is your shirt made out of two different materials? That's a sin. Do you plant two different plants in the same field? Sin. Disobedient to your parents? You should be stoned.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 14, 2009)

Ark said:


> Did Placebo lend you some weed.



WHO'S LENDING WEED AND HOW MUCH!?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 14, 2009)

Don't forget all their laws about sex, food, and behavior that aren't followed...
I have a little bit of weed left from the last time I smoked (a week ago, before that it was xmas; there's about two inhales left), but I'm saving it for when my back gets really bad (has very slight back pain, just hurts and doesn't limit movement, but weed helps)


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

I have no weed right now. I smoked it all.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 14, 2009)

Placebo said:


> I have no weed right now. I smoked it all.



Damn, way to be selfish.  >=O


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 14, 2009)

...you know, Ark...

Maybe God'll forgive your utter disregard for intelligibility when it comes to discussing His word. _Maybe._ But God's not exactly known for being a merciful Father--after all, He's been known to send His children to Hell for eternity if they displease Him enough.

You should at least have enough respect for your God to post like somebody with an IQ greater than 12--because honestly, have you _ever_ seen a passage in the Bible that was as gramatically abysmal as the crap you post in support of it?

...wait, that's it!!
Ladies and gentlemen of the FurAffinity Forums, I have found the solution to our problems!

*We must translate the Bible into retardese!!*
That way, no reasonably intelligent person can ever again be corrupted into believing its lies--and those who would believe anyway will have an easier time understanding it.

Admit it. I'm amazing.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 15, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Yes but once hired, its a common business torte, for failure to provide a pre-negotiated and contracted service.  Its not a gay rights thing per se.



Exactly.


----------



## Kryn (Apr 15, 2009)

Placebo said:


> I have no weed right now. I smoked it all.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Damn, way to be selfish.  >=O



I'm glad I got a few ounces left, gotta stay stocked up for 4/20 :mrgreen:


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 15, 2009)

Kryn said:


> I'm glad I got a few ounces left, gotta stay stocked up for 4/20 :mrgreen:



DID SOMEONE SAY 420?!?!?! 


:bongrip:


----------



## Shindo (Apr 15, 2009)

< this guy is going camping on 420  hellllllllllz to the yeas


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 15, 2009)

Ark said:


> "Separation of Church and State".



Which is NOWHERE in the constitution, it's a common misconception.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2009)

Well if you would actually read the constitution you know.

Or if you're too lazy.



> ``No religion shall be established by law, norshall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.''


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Apr 15, 2009)

No, it's not in there _expressis verbis_, but it's a basic principle of a modern democratic state. It's so obvious, it needn't be stated.

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot about the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2009)

He has assburgers so sometimes you have to point out the obvious.


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 15, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_misconception#Religion


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Someone was born retarded. Or doesn't notice "phrase". So what if that particular phrase does not exist? The idea does.

Dammit I promised myself I wouldn't bicker with fundies and retards.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 15, 2009)

Nowhere in the Bible is the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden referred to as an apple. The fruit is called the "fruit of the tree" (that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), and neither the fruit nor the tree is identified by species. In Middle English, as late as the 17th century "apple" was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts.[136] However, in continental European art from that period representing the Fall of Man the fruit is often depicted as an apple.


I learned something today.

Thanks Wikipedia!!!!!


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Okay, that made laugh. Good one.


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 15, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Someone was born retarded. Or doesn't notice "phrase". So what if that particular phrase does not exist? The idea does.
> 
> Dammit I promised myself I wouldn't bicker with fundies and retards.



Well why should we allow the opinionatedness of individuals to tint the constitution? Especially when it never reads it anywhere. I think it's a goverment's responcibility to deal with less civilised nations, but that dosen't change what a piece of paper reads.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Well why should we allow the opinionatedness of individuals to tint the constitution? Especially when it never reads it anywhere. I think it's a goverment's responcibility to deal with less civilised nations, but that dosen't change what a piece of paper reads.


Did you not read that quote Placebo posted?


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 15, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Did you not read that quote Placebo posted?



Not one to take potheads as authority.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Not one to take potheads as authority.


Then take me as authority. I'm a police officer, I have to study this shit religiously. 

Religion is not supposed to be involved with any government decisions. At all. Unless it's infringing upon your right to have freedom of religion. 

I love how you completely disregard the fact that she quoted directly from the constitution itself. With links.

Ah, burgers.


----------



## Werevixen (Apr 15, 2009)

Belgium had gay marriage since 2002. :v


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Which is NOWHERE in the constitution, it's a common misconception.


Aside from the fact that you're completely wrong...how would you even know _what's_ in the Constitution, Britfag?
You don't see me pretending to know what's in the Magna Carta. STFU.



Placebo said:


> He has assburgers so sometimes you have to point out the obvious.


I must object to this remark. I've met plenty of people with Asperger's who weren't total and irredeemable fuckwits. He's somewhere between Down's syndrome and standard religious zealotry.



Werevixen said:


> Belgium had gay marriage since 2002. :v


Iowa--fucking _Iowa_--just legalized it recently, thus beating California.

Anybody else find that hysterical? XD


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 15, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Then take me as authority. I'm a police officer, I have to study this shit religiously.
> 
> Religion is not supposed to be involved with any government decisions. At all. Unless it's infringing upon your right to have freedom of religion.
> 
> ...



Well either way I don't really care very much because it's not liked I've used religious arguements at all in this discussion.


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Well either way I don't really care very much because it's not liked I've used religious arguements at all in this discussion.


See what I mean?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Which is NOWHERE in the constitution, it's a common misconception.


No, but it was said by the people who created it.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 15, 2009)

Placebo said:


> ...Are you aware that Jesus said "Hey guys, we don't have to follow all those old laws anymore"? Because that's what he said. Either way if you're only following a few laws and not all of them, that's directly disobeying God. Is your shirt made out of two different materials? That's a sin. Do you plant two different plants in the same field? Sin. Disobedient to your parents? You should be stoned.



Jesus created a new covenant in Hebrew 8:7-13 of the New Testament. Jesus quoted, *"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."* ( Matthew 5:17-18 )

So Christians don't follow the old law said in the Old Testament BUT we still follow the 10 commandments which states in the 7th Commandment: "You shall not commit adultery". All sexual sins (heterosexual and homosexual) all fall under adultery. Sex outside the Sacrament of marriage is a sin.



AdriNoMa said:


> *We must translate the Bible into retardese!!*



GTFO!!! >:[



Load_Blown said:


> Nowhere in the Bible is the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden referred to as an apple. The fruit is called the "fruit of the tree" (that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), and neither the fruit nor the tree is identified by species. In Middle English, as late as the 17th century "apple" was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts.[136] However, in continental European art from that period representing the Fall of Man the fruit is often depicted as an apple.
> 
> 
> I learned something today.
> ...



I find it funny how people have perceived the fruit on the the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" as an apple, but thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 15, 2009)

Sex outside marriage... HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's fucking hilarious. As if all religious people follow that, I know more sluts that are religious than non.
Also, if most religious people are against gay marriage, that means they can't have sex; not ever going to happen. The sooner religion is abolished from society publicly, the better.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

The only way to rectify sex outside of marriage is through marriage, _so_


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Sex outside marriage... HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's fucking hilarious. As if all religious people follow that, I know more sluts that are religious than non.
> *Also, if most religious people are against gay marriage, that means they can't have sex; not ever going to happen.* The sooner religion is abolished from society publicly, the better.



Your a bigger fool than I apprehended you to be. Choose your fate, your soul lies in your hands now. Marriage is the way to go, anything outside marriage is nothing but perversion to please yourself.

Jesus says everything about this matter in Matthew 5-7, if your interested to LEARN.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Jesus also mentioned that calling others fools was a ticket to hell.

But then again Jesus called people fools but it's alright because he's Jesus.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 15, 2009)

Ark said:


> Your a bigger fool than I apprehended you to be. Choose your fate, your soul lies in your hands now. Marriage is the way to go, anything outside marriage is nothing but perversion to please yourself.
> 
> Jesus says everything about this matter in Matthew 5-7, if your interested to LEARN.



I'm never going to get married. I have sex all the time.
There is no hell, even if God existed and there was a heaven, there would be no hell; a god can't be that big of a prick, even if he is I'd rather be in hell than be with him, I don't like people that are full of themselves and need prayer and gratification every fucking day.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 15, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Jesus also mentioned that calling others fools was a ticket to hell.
> 
> But then again Jesus called people fools but it's alright because he's Jesus.





NewfDraggie said:


> I'm never going to get married. I have sex all the time.
> There is no hell, even if God existed and there was a heaven, there would be no hell; a god can't be that big of a prick, even if he is I'd rather be in hell than be with him, I don't like people that are full of themselves and need prayer and gratification every fucking day.



@Chronic: Your right about the fool thing, but Jesus never said "Fool". Jesus quote, "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22) 

So I'm sorry for calling you a fool Newf, but I'll pray for ya' ^^


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 15, 2009)

No thank you, I'll feel really dirty.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Annnnd I prove you wrong.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 15, 2009)

Ark said:


> Jesus created a new covenant in Hebrew 8:7-13 of the New Testament. Jesus quoted, *"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."* ( Matthew 5:17-18 )
> 
> So *Christians don't follow the old law said in the Old Testament* BUT we still follow the 10 commandments[...]...



Hilarious - how big a fail is this? Jesus says the old law still applies, but in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you say Christians don't follow the OT Law...

Talk about a cafeteria religion - pick and choose the bits you like, and discard the bits you don't while claiming with a straight face you're a Bible-believer.

Fuckin' hilarious!


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No thank you, I'll feel really dirty.



WELL TO BAD >:3


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Fuckin' hilarious!


This whole thread.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 15, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Annnnd I prove you wrong.



Nope, that was Paul.



Mayfurr said:


> Hilarious - how big a fail is this? Jesus says the old law still applies, but in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you say Christians don't follow the OT Law...
> 
> Talk about a cafeteria religion - pick and choose the bits you like, and discard the bits you don't while claiming with a straight face you're a Bible-believer.
> 
> Fuckin' hilarious!



I mean only Christians follow Jesus's new law, but some that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament still apply.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 15, 2009)

Who the fuck cares, seriously. Point is, I'm a consenting adult so I can have sex whenever I want with whoever I want, and Christian bullshit is trying to prevent that, which is not any of their business in the first place.


----------



## Ratte (Apr 15, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Who the fuck cares, seriously. Point is, I'm a consenting adult so I can have sex whenever I want with whoever I want, and Christian bullshit is trying to prevent that, which is not any of their business in the first place.



God sez ur rong dood :V


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 15, 2009)

God can tell me to my face instead of hiding over two thousand years in the past through pages MAN wrote.


----------



## Corto (Apr 15, 2009)

OOOk, this is getting quite out of hand, what with the thread derailment and the flaming. I'll just cauterize the wound, any objections are welcomed as PMs.


----------

