This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
And if it's not acceptable to the general public (that's who is important, right?), then those businesses won't get enough patronage to stay in business. Otherwise, they'll stay in business.
not what i asked.

Try again.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
nope....not an answer
try again

What is it that you want me to try? Is it to try to give you the answer you want to hear? Sorry, but I'm not going to keep changing my answer to suit whatever it is you desire. The facts are the facts, and they don't change based on who's question is being answered.
 
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
And if it's not acceptable to the general public (that's who is important, right?), then those businesses won't get enough patronage to stay in business. Otherwise, they'll stay in business. That's allowing the marketplace to decide. Chick Fil a was bombarded by negative news coverage, and yet there were plenty of people who thought they made correct decisions. They're thriving as a result.



Things like the court case (the subject of this thread) which is what I thought we were discussing.
the criticism leveled at Chick-Fil-A had to do with the company donating millions to ministries whose sole purpose was the lobbying of the governments of 3rd world countries to pass laws making homosexuality punishable by imprisonment, torture, mutilation and death.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
What is it that you want me to try? Is it to try to give you the answer you want to hear? Sorry, but I'm not going to keep changing my answer to suit whatever it is you desire. The facts are the facts, and they don't change based on who's question is being answered.
do you you know what i even asked?

you denied that the ruling leads to discrimination of any minority and then announced that you wouldn't care if it did.

I asked you to explain how the ruling does not open the door to legalized racism
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
do you you know what i even asked?

you denied that the ruling leads to discrimination of any minority and then announced that you wouldn't care if it did.

I asked you to explain how the ruling does not open the door to legalized racism

Since any answer I give you will be met with "try again", I see no reason to try in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Since any answer I give you will be met with "try again", I see no reason to try in the first place.
so your answer is that this ruling does lead to discrimination for any minority.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
so your answer is that this ruling does lead to discrimination for any minority.

Since any answer I give you will be met with "try again", I see no reason to try in the first place.

If you want to read something in my response other than what I actually said, that's up to you. But your conclusion only underscores what I said.
 
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Pay attention. I'm not comparing skin color to orientation or to anything. I'm pointing out that the justification and the legal president for discrimination are all the same.


You might also want to go do some reading on the history of discrimination. Within living memory Biblical condemnation of things like interracial marriage and racial equality were commonplace.

Actually the owner's refusal was perfectly legal. In the rush to push through laws making it legal to discriminate against members of the LGBT community they made it legal to discriminate based on race and religion and pretty much any other reason.


There is no biblical grounds for the kind of racial discrimination you have in mind. So there is no biblical justification for negative discrimination. There is for positive discrimination. And yes, regardless of the language manipulation that has largely occurred, there is such a thing as positive discrimination, such as we all engage in every day when we must discriminate between right and wrong.

There is no body of law that I know of that justifies racial discrimination. Can you post a link to one or more laws that could provide for such justification?

So no, the justification for discrimination in terms of biblical sanction and legal authority are not "all the same."

Keep in mind that to mandate compelled speech is to effectively advocate for many evils. Society must be hesitant about formulating and passing laws that create greater evils than are potentially solved.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There is no biblical grounds for the kind of racial discrimination you have in mind.
I agree with this. However in the 19th Cent, and earlier in the 20th Cent, many Christians believed there was. This was quite common in the southern branches of US churches. It's worth looking at the type of interpretation that led to this, lest we inadvertently do the same thing today in other areas.

There are stories in the OT that are troubling in this respect. In Ezra and Nehemiah, the Israelites are told to remove everyone of foreign descent from the people, because of how their ancestors had treated Israel, and to put away all foreign wives and their children. Ezra doesn't say what happened to these people, but it's not hard to imagine just what life would be like for woman or child in that time period that was rejected from their people.

There was certainly danger of false religion. However the fact that someone's ancestor was from an enemy of Israel doesn't make them a threat, and there is no sign of examining these people or the wives to see if they were now worshippers of God. Furthermore the justification given in Ezra was that they had mixed the holy seed of Israel with other nations, which is a troubling justification. (Ezra 9:2)

Nationality isn't exactly race, but blacks in the US originally did come from a different nations than whites centuries ago. So it wasn't hard to cite these passages against mixed marriage.

No, I am not opposed to mixed marriage. But I think we need to face the fact that there are portions of the Bible that should not be used as precedent today, even though the Biblical authors thought they were just fine.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
To my knowledge there are no laws that force anyone to acknowledge or endorse gay marriage. There are laws that require people to serve all people equally. Even Masterpiece Cake was of that kind.

While I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, even if they had ruled the other way, it was analogous to a printer who prints a variety of things, not all of which he agrees with. No reasonable person would consider people involved in these services actually agrees with all the messages they distribute.

Your reasoning is not good. Your conflating issues, and have misrepresented the facts with your printer comparison. Willfully producing a product where it is known that such product will be exclusively used to glorify sin or to commit evil is in fact an endorsement by accommodation regardless of the factors involved in such accommodation. On the extreme end, should a rental agency rent a van to someone where it is known that the renter will use said van to run down a crowd of people? No, of course not. You know very well that product usage is in fact, and should be, a determining factor in the morality of providing a product.

In addition, it does not follow that because many printers will print almost anything, that such printings are not a form of endorsement/accommodation or are morally justified. A business printing recruiting cards for the kkk can claim such printing is not an endorsement/accommodation, but that does not make it so.

Do you believe that a local printer would actually get away with printing out a bunch of fliers advertising for a local KKK gathering or perhaps for some other gathering promoting some practice/belief that is generally considered morally reprehensible? Would not society consider such accommodation an act of endorsement/agreement, at least to some degree?

A society that forces private business owners to produce products or services that exclusively glorify sin or will be used exclusively for evil is a society that does in fact accommodate and endorse such sin or evil.

We can further test your argument, such that it is, with the following comparison.

A racist walks into a bakery shop and asks for a cake to be made that will be used to celebrate white supremacy (or substitute some other practice/belief that is not specifically legally prohibited but is biblically reprehensible) at a gathering of white supremacists that will have and event celebrating white supremacy. According to your logic, the baker making such a cake can actually make that cake without endorsing white supremacy and the white supremacy event. What if the cake conveyed the specific message that white supremacy is morally justified? Do you think the baker should provide such cake? If no, then why not? Do you believe that homosexual practice and racial hatred are both condemned biblically?

Is comparing white supremacy and gay marriage valid for the purpose here? Yes. Why? Because such comparison possesses the necessary points in common in terms of biblical morality and legality. There is no federal law offering legal protection for either the practice of white supremacy or the practice of homosexuality pertaining to providing products or services--the erroneous 2nd circuit ruling not-withstanding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Your conflating issues and you have made a false claim. Producing a product where it is known that such product will be exclusively used to glorify sin or to commit evil is in fact an endorsement by accommodation. On the extreme end, should a rental agency rent a van to someone where it is known that the renter will use said van to run down a crowd of people? No, of course not. You know very well that product usage is in fact, and should be, a determining factor in the morality of providing a product or service.

In addition, it does not follow that because many printers will print almost anything, that such printings are not a form of endorsement/accommodation or are morally justified.

Do you believe that a local printer would actually get away with printing out a bunch of fliers advertising for a local KKK gathering or perhaps for some other gathering promoting some practice/belief that is generally considered morally reprehensible?

A society that forces private business owners to produce products or services that exclusively glorify sin or will be used exclusively for evil is a society that does in fact accommodate and endorse such sin or evil.

We can further test your argument, such that it is, with the following comparison.

A racist walks into a bakery shop and asks for a cake to be made that will be used to celebrate white supremacy (or substitute some other practice/belief that is not specifically legally prohibited but is biblical reprehensible) at a gathering of white supremacists that will have and event celebrating white supremacy. According to your logic, the baker making such a cake can actually make that cake without endorsing white supremacy and the white supremacy event. What if the cake conveyed the specific message that white supremacy is morally justified? Do you think the baker should provide such cake? If no, then why not? Do you believe that homosexual practice and racial hatred are both condemned biblically?

Is comparing white supremacy and gay marriage valid for the purpose here? Yes. Why? Because such comparison possesses the necessary points in common in terms of biblical morality and legality. There is no federal law offering legal protection for either the practice of white supremacy or the practice of homosexuality pertaining to providing products or services--the erroneous 2nd circuit ruling not-withstanding.
I believe that legally and morally we should sell a cake no matter how it's going to be used. There's no direct Biblical answer to this question, but 1 Cor 10:25 is close. It looks at the consumer side, saying that a product isn't contaminated by its origin. He was dealing there was meat from a animal that had been dedicated to a pagan god. If that's not a problem, I would say, similarly, that for a producer, it isn't contaminated by its use.

Racists get to eat cake too.

Putting a specific message on the cake, or making it in a specific shape that has symbolic implications, is expression, and in my view should not be compelled. Masterpiece Cake didn't try to argue for refusing to sell an existing cake for a gay wedding. It was trying to argue that making a "custom" cake was expression, even if there's nothing specific about the cake associated with the type of wedding. That seems like an odd argument, because I don't think the baker articulated any real concept of customization, as long as it's a standard cake design. However if they had, for example, asked for a statue on top of the cake with two men on it, that would become expression, and I would say that baker would be within his rights to refuse it. Similarly with any message or design on the cake that specified gay marriage.

My guess, by the way, is that if the baker had been willing to start the discussion, he would have found that they wanted some customization that would constitute expression, and thus could legally be rejected. If a cake is truly custom in any meaningful sense, it presumably should reflect something of the people being married.

If I can believe a long analysis I read recently, the printer issue hasn't been settled. I'm fairly surprised at that. I had previously assumed that it had been. It will probably be settled in the tee shirt case. I think printed messages are expression, and thus should be protected under the concept of compelled speech.

There is some history of the Court asking whether a communication can reasonably be regarded as reflecting the views of the person making it. That could be used to require someone to print anything. (Incidentally, that's not the outcome I'd prefer.) When it involves actual design work, I think the argument becomes weaker. But we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say in a couple of currently pending cases.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I believe that legally and morally we should sell a cake no matter how it's going to be used. There's no direct Biblical answer to this question, but 1 Cor 10:25 is close. It looks at the consumer side, saying that a product isn't contaminated by its origin. He was dealing there was meat from a animal that had been dedicated to a pagan god. If that's not a problem, I would say, similarly, that for a producer, it isn't contaminated by its use.

Racists get to eat cake too.

Putting a specific message on the cake, or making it in a specific shape that has symbolic implications, is expression, and in my view should not be compelled. Masterpiece Cake didn't try to argue for refusing to sell an existing cake for a gay wedding. It was trying to argue that making a "custom" cake was expression, even if there's nothing specific about the cake associated with the type of wedding. That seems like an odd argument, because I don't think the baker articulated any real concept of customization, as long as it's a standard cake design. However if they had, for example, asked for a statue on top of the cake with two men on it, that would become expression, and I would say that baker would be within his rights to refuse it. Similarly with any message or design on the cake that specified gay marriage.

If I can believe a long analysis I read recently, the printer issue hasn't been settled. I'm fairly surprised at that. I had previously assumed that it had been. It will probably be settled in the tee shirt case. I think printed messages are expression, and thus should be protected under the concept of compelled speech.
First, please quote references by first looking to see if a post has been edited before you place it in your quote.

I believe that you are not being consistent. I used a clear and irrefutable example (the rental van example) that intended product usage is a factor that determines the morality of providing a service/product and further demonstrates the reality of the moral component of providing a product or service. A created cake (even without an explicit message) is in fact a product and so falls under that principle of product intended usage. If you have a solid refutation of that, then lets see it.

I believe you are also wrong concerning the clarity of the Bible on these matters. The bible condemns the practice and glorification of sin/evil including homosexual practice. Are you reading from a modern Bible perversion that seeks to accommodate/justify homosexual practice?

There are plenty of biblical examples that demonstrate that intended usage of an object (living or otherwise) is in fact a determining factor in the biblical lawfulness of creating such object. For example, there is the general prohibition against creating/using images (Exodus 20:4; Deut. 4:15-19), but then God allows images in the Temple (Ex. 36:8; 1 Kings 6:29; Ezekiel 41:25; Exodus 25:20). Why the allowance in one instance but not in the other? Because motivation/intended usage is a factor in determining the morality of creating and/or using objects. A cake is in fact a created object.

You have also misapplied 1 Cor 10:25. A bad comparison for your apparent intent. The food in the Scriptural reference offered to idols is not products or services created by Christians. It literally does not follow that because I can lawfully (biblically) eat a cake after it has been used in a gay wedding that such cake can be lawfully (biblically) created by a genuine christian in the first place. They are two issues that you are apparently conflating.

You are conflated issues. I agree with you that Scripture and sound logic makes it clear that an object is not made inherently or intrinsically evil by its original or continued usage. Physical matter knows nothing of morality. That is not what I have argued for. I have argued that there is inherently evil/sinful usage and creation, not inherently evil or sinful objects. Acts/practices can certainly be inherently evil or sinful. The supposed evilness of an object based on its original usage should not be confused with the morality of creating such object in the first place.

Who is responsible for bringing into being an object to be used to glorify sin? The buyer of the cake? No, the baker. One of the key issues in these matters is the responsibility of the person bringing into being the object known to be used to glorify sin. That was one major issue of the Masterpiece Cake shop case. The baker refused to shoulder such responsibility; and no human has the moral justification to force him or anyone else to shoulder such responsibility
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I agree with this. However in the 19th Cent, and earlier in the 20th Cent, many Christians believed there was. This was quite common in the southern branches of US churches. It's worth looking at the type of interpretation that led to this, lest we inadvertently do the same thing today in other areas.

There are stories in the OT that are troubling in this respect. In Ezra and Nehemiah, the Israelites are told to remove everyone of foreign descent from the people, because of how their ancestors had treated Israel, and to put away all foreign wives and their children. Ezra doesn't say what happened to these people, but it's not hard to imagine just what life would be like for woman or child in that time period that was rejected from their people.

There was certainly danger of false religion. However the fact that someone's ancestor was from an enemy of Israel doesn't make them a threat, and there is no sign of examining these people or the wives to see if they were now worshippers of God. Furthermore the justification given in Ezra was that they had mixed the holy seed of Israel with other nations, which is a troubling justification. (Ezra 9:2)

Nationality isn't exactly race, but blacks in the US originally did come from a different nations than whites centuries ago. So it wasn't hard to cite these passages against mixed marriage.

No, I am not opposed to mixed marriage. But I think we need to face the fact that there are portions of the Bible that should not be used as precedent today, even though the Biblical authors thought they were just fine.
Inadvertently? Seriously? Like how I might inadvertently stumble over a rock tomorrow? There is zero chance of any of the current mainstream legal cases leading to what you have suggested. Did the current civil rights laws that we have now exist then? It does your arguments no good to resort to such grotesque exaggeration.

You seem to be suggesting that in these matters pertaining to biblical prohibitions, we should not use OT Scripture. I will point out to you that the OT examples did not represent the racial discrimination that is currently under consideration. The OT examples had nothing to do with the idea of skin color representing inherent inferiority nor the idea of rejecting or discriminating against persons based on such idea. In addition the universal principles in the OT ares still applicable today.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
There is no biblical grounds for the kind of racial discrimination you have in mind. So there is no biblical justification for negative discrimination.
Many woudl beg to differ. There are centuries of biblical scholars saying that yes such grounds do exist. it may be uncomfortable to acknowledge this but those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.


There is for positive discrimination. And yes, regardless of the language manipulation that has largely occurred, there is such a thing as positive discrimination, such as we all engage in every day when we must discriminate between right and wrong.
this sounds like language manipulation

There is no body of law that I know of that justifies racial discrimination. Can you post a link to one or more laws that could provide for such justification?

So no, the justification for discrimination in terms of biblical sanction and legal authority are not "all the same."
go read some history.

Keep in mind that to mandate compelled speech is to effectively advocate for many evils. Society must be hesitant about formulating and passing laws that create greater evils than are potentially solved.
like saying discrimination is OK as long as it the faithful practicing it?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Your reasoning is not good. Your conflating issues, and have misrepresented the facts with your printer comparison. Willfully producing a product where it is known that such product will be exclusively used to glorify sin or to commit evil is in fact an endorsement by accommodation regardless of the factors involved in such accommodation. On the extreme end, should a rental agency rent a van to someone where it is known that the renter will use said van to run down a crowd of people? No, of course not. You know very well that product usage is in fact, and should be, a determining factor in the morality of providing a product.
and if the maker of that product views interracial marriage an act of evil does that grant them the right to discriminate?

In addition, it does not follow that because many printers will print almost anything, that such printings are not a form of endorsement/accommodation or are morally justified. A business printing recruiting cards for the kkk can claim such printing is not an endorsement/accommodation, but that does not make it so.
in the same way a business refusing to provide good/services to members of minorities can claim all they like that such a refusal isn't discrimination but their claim doesn't make it so

Do you believe that a local printer would actually get away with printing out a bunch of fliers advertising for a local KKK gathering or perhaps for some other gathering promoting some practice/belief that is generally considered morally reprehensible? Would not society consider such accommodation an act of endorsement/agreement, at least to some degree?

A society that forces private business owners to produce products or services that exclusively glorify sin or will be used exclusively for evil is a society that does in fact accommodate and endorse such sin or evil.
and the business owner who views Jews as evil does the society that says all people are to be treated equally end up end up accommodating and endorsing such evil?

We can further test your argument, such that it is, with the following comparison.

A racist walks into a bakery shop and asks for a cake to be made that will be used to celebrate white supremacy (or substitute some other practice/belief that is not specifically legally prohibited but is biblically reprehensible) at a gathering of white supremacists that will have and event celebrating white supremacy. According to your logic, the baker making such a cake can actually make that cake without endorsing white supremacy and the white supremacy event. What if the cake conveyed the specific message that white supremacy is morally justified? Do you think the baker should provide such cake? If no, then why not?
does the baker provide hate speech cakes to everyone? or is the refusal the message?
chances are the baker does not

This same situation occurred a couple years ago when a Christian approached a baker wanting several cakes depicting discrimination and violence against LGBTs. the baker refused and he sued her for discrimination. He lost his case because the baker's refusal had nothing to do with him or his religion and that the baker woudl refuse such an order no matter who wanted it. Note the difference between that baker and the one refusing to bake a wedding cake for a minority couple. He bakes wedding cakes for everyone else but not them. That is discrimination


Do you believe that homosexual practice and racial hatred are both condemned biblical?
and what of those that try to use the bible to justify discrimination


Is comparing white supremacy and gay marriage valid for the purpose here? Yes. Why? Because such comparison possesses the necessary points in common in terms of biblical morality and legality. There is no federal law offering legal protection for either the practice of white supremacy or the practice of homosexuality pertaining to providing products or services--the erroneous 2nd circuit ruling not-withstanding.
i've heard this "reasoning" before. it usually involves Christians trying to link homosexuals to pedophiles in order to justify hate. What does homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children have in common? nothing. Just like white supremacy and gay marriage have nothing in common except as a means to dehumanize gay couples and make discrimination palatable.[/quote][/QUOTE]
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Keep in mind that to mandate compelled speech is to effectively advocate for many evils. Society must be hesitant about formulating and passing laws that create greater evils than are potentially solved.
In this case I agree. There are definitely potential conflicts among rights. Public accommodation law says that everyone has a right to be treated the same way in the marketplace. The first amendment prohibits compelled speech. In the set of cases involving gay rights and speech those rights conflict. My personal opinion is that free speech should win out. I'm reasonably sure that the Supreme Court will agree.

But this is a fairly narrow set of situations, and does not involve recognizing some kind of general right not to do anything that might contribute to a gay marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Many woudl beg to differ.


this sounds like language manipulation
Language manipulation? As far as I know, dictionaries are considered fairly reliable.

Reality-corresponding truth. We should all be interested in that? Right?

On what grounds or authority do you apparently attempt to alter English vocabulary? Are you doing so to suit your worldview?

Definition of "discrimination"

New Websters


1a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
b psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

Old Websters:

1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.

2. The state of being distinguished.

3. Mark of distinction.

There is negative and positive discrimination. Discriminating against sin and evil is positive discrimination. Discriminating against race is negative discrimination. Discriminating against a person's beliefs/practice is not the same as discriminating agaisnt the person themselves. A belief or practice is no more a person that a person is a belief or practice. Therefore, to discriminate against a belief or practice is not the equivalent of discriminating against a person.
Now what problem with that do you have, if any?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
... Just like white supremacy and gay marriage have nothing in common except as a means to dehumanize gay couples and make discrimination palatable.
It is best to argue from reality.

I was not drawing a strict equivalence between white supremacy and gay marriage/homosexual practice. I was comparing specific commonalities that are sufficient for the arguments I have posted. Such include:

1) They both are not protected categorizes pertaining to the legal cases pertaining to Christian businesses being persecuted.
2) They are both sin (biblically condemned).
3) They are both mutable and non-inherent to people.
4) They are both choice-based.

Yes, definite points in common.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0