Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The argument is identical. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the same.
Didn't you just say that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks?
You’re absolutely right. And people have a right to not participate in a same sex wedding. Business or otherwise.
It’s not identical at all. Comparing race to gay marriage is not the same. You can’t choose your race.
Dude you are talking 1967. And the quote you gave is exactly what I've been telling you. He didn't provide anything from any verses in the bible saying blacks shouldn't marry whites. He gave his opinion on the matter in 1967.Hey look, ignoring what I wrote and making empty accusations instead. It's just a transparent attempt to try and make the conversation about me personally instead of addressing the content of my posts. No one's going to fall for it.
I understand why there's a need to do this given how strong the comparisons are between racial discrimination and the current fad of discriminating against gay people. But that doesn't make it any less obvious of a concession that there's nothing of substance that can be said to dispute what I wrote.
It's right where I said it was when it was ignored in my previous post
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Loving v. Virginia: A unanimous Court struck down state laws banning marriage between individuals of different races, holding that these anti-miscegenation statutes violated both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.supreme.justia.com
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."Or more generally, this sort of thing that the church found a need to renounce : On Renouncing The Doctrine Of The “curse Of Ham” As A Justification For Racism - SBC.net
No it's not. One is sin and the other is not. It like the difference between sex with your wife and sex with a mistress then making the claim that both are equal and both should be supported by Christians and a Christian baker should create a celebration cake for a person's wedding anniversary and also has to create a celebration cake for his years of adultery with his mistress.
I’d feel better about supporting a baker’s right to “choose” their customers based on whether those customers are planning a “sinful event”, if the baker (who apparently has no problem with taking homosexuals’ money when the items sought aren’t for a “sinful event”) would spell out exactly which events are verboten for their conscious’, up front, so that customers can steer clear of bringing these “sinful events” to the baker, in the first place.
And even if the cheater was black he couldn't sue for discrimination because the refusal OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with his race. It had to do with what he was celebrating, the event. In this case, it's so clear that it's the event.
I agree, however, I think your sign would be hurtful, or at least negative towards the customer by naming them specifically. (gay).
So the baker gets to choose his customers (events), but the customers cannot accurately choose bakers, because bakers don’t wish to offend, (except when they don’t care if they offend)?
The argument is about what one believes is a sin and if some Christians believe interracial marriages are sinful, then, by your argument, shouldn’t they also get a pass to deny wedding services the same as those who believe gay marriages are sinful?
In your opinion, but for those who believe it is a sin, it goes against their religious beliefs. That is the comparison made.
The last two sentences contradict the assertion in the first sentence.
Just like many Christians today say that churches are using false doctrine to justify discrimination based on gender. Thanks for another example of the parallels between the two situations.
