• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Acting on the The Equality Act

Discussion in 'Current News & Events (Articles Required)' started by AACJ, May 19, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AACJ

    AACJ Please Pray

    +1,483
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Republican
    still praying
     
  2. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +5,226
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    Same. I'm praying it passes.
     
  3. AACJ

    AACJ Please Pray

    +1,483
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Republican
  4. Quartermaine

    Quartermaine Well-Known Member

    +1,593
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    still waiting for you to back up your claims
     
  5. Quartermaine

    Quartermaine Well-Known Member

    +1,593
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    the article raises two points but tries very hard to keep them separate. Lets put them together...

    point 1: "the Equality Act has said that RFRA “shall not provide … a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of” any Equality Act provision. This does not simply change RFRA’s legal standard so that government can more freely do what it wants in the areas covered by the Equality Act. This slams the courthouse door to anyone who would even make an argument that government actions under the Equality Act burden their religious freedom."

    point 2: "the Equality Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity across multiple sectors of American life, including employment and housing, public education and financing — even the credit markets and jury service."

    So AACJ - can you explain why laws against employment discrimination are a burden to your religious freedom?

    can you explain why laws against housing discrimination are a burden to your religious freedom?

    can you explain why laws against the discrimination in education of minority children in public schools are a burden to your religious freedom?

    can you explain why laws against discrimination by banks are a burden to your religious freedom?

    can you explain why having an LGBT individual on a jury is a burden to your religious freedom?
     
  6. Thomas White

    Thomas White Well-Known Member

    +590
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    Perhaps God is answering your prayers by showing you a different perspective than your own.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  7. AACJ

    AACJ Please Pray

    +1,483
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Republican
    Your perspective about perspectives is strange. Understanding perspectives does not resolve the issues and facts under dispute.
     
  8. Brihaha

    Brihaha Active Member

    421
    +494
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    It seems your own perspectives have become beliefs. And belief often comes at the expense of reasoning ability. Beliefs are not facts. Denial and bias are factors in one's ability to reason. A closed mind works as well as a closed parachute friend. Peace
     
  9. Thomas White

    Thomas White Well-Known Member

    +590
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    Don't they? Something you believe to be a problem may not be a problem to God.
     
  10. AACJ

    AACJ Please Pray

    +1,483
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Republican
    One can to some degree understand two sets of opposing positions/arguments and yet still support the wrong position.

    What is truth is what is primarily at issue.
     
  11. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +8,670
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
  12. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +8,670
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    If there have been transgendered people in public restrooms while I was there, I'm completely unaware of it. How would I know? I've never seen anyone else's genitals in a public restroom. Why should it bother me?
     
  13. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,499
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I think it's fair to say that young men probably shouldn't be subjected to the site of other naked men in locker rooms either.

    I remember a homosexual male commenting on another males private parts in my highschool locker room.

    Maybe this is an issue with the design of locker rooms and their inherent lack of privacy, rather than an issue of multiple men using a locker room.

    The same goes for bathrooms. One male using a urinal may be uncomfortable when a homosexual male uses a urinal next to them. But what are you going to do, ban gay men from public restrooms? Of course not. The solution would be either to increase the privacy of public restrooms and locker rooms, or to create gender/sex neutral facilities.

    Of course some people are also born with a combination of sexual traits. I remember a man from highschool who had the breasts of a woman. He was built bigger than most men aside from some of our football team, and yet he had breasts. So what restroom would be best for him? The answer is presumably one that either has private stalls (male or female), or a gender neutral one.

    The solution certainly isn't to ban this man from a public restroom however. Which is what this legislation prohibits.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2021
  14. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +2,235
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    I know that my wife and my daughter do not want to go into a ladies room knowing
    there is a male in there. Doesn't matter if he's wearing a dress and makeup

    I also know my grandsons don't want to date transgender females who are biologically males. They're not attracted to male genitalia. Does that make
    them bigots ?
     
  15. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,499
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    People have freedom to have biases against races, ethnicities, sexes and genders.

    But the question is, should public services that only serve certain groups, be acceptable as a product of our biases.

    Lets be honest. My grandmother would never date a black male. But does that mean that if my grandmother owned a Walmart, that this Walmart also should have freedom to treat blacks differently than whites? No of course not.

    In a public sphere, the government is obligated to defend equality.
     
  16. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +2,235
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Restrooms are suppose to provide safe space for women. They should have the right
    not to have males intruding upon those safe spaces and we as males should be providing
    those safe spaces.

    That's a far cry from a business refusing to sell a product to a transgendered person.

    Equality doesn't mean that we do not discriminate for rational reasons. Equality is
    having respect for others and not harassing them because they're different. It means
    giving equal opportunity in education and career development.

    However, we discriminate against kids by not allowing them to drive cars or vote.

    We discriminate against non citizens by not allowing them to vote in our elections.

    We discriminate against people with physical disabilities by not allowing them to serve
    in the US military.

    The same should hold true for the use of restrooms and locker rooms. There is a
    difference in biology between males and females. Also, transgendered women, should
    not be competing in women's sports.
     
  17. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,499
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    So in the case of a man who has breasts, I could easily say that same that I should be able to use a restroom without DD sizes bras around my urinal. But alas, I'm not going to tell a man that he cannot use a public restroom just because I feel uncomfortable with his bra size. Hence why we have stalls so that I can privately use a toilet without seeing other men's genitalia, be it typically of a male or female in its shape and size.

    Banning people from restrooms is not the solution. But rather the solution is simply using a private bathroom stall or at least having a private bathroom itself so that men with breasts wouldn't have to choose one way or the other.
     
  18. Quartermaine

    Quartermaine Well-Known Member

    +1,593
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    straight guys did it too
     
  19. Quartermaine

    Quartermaine Well-Known Member

    +1,593
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    and a generation ago .... The Anti-Trans Bathroom Nightmare Has Its Roots in Racial Segregation
     
  20. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,499
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Indeed.

    I won't lie and say that I didn't feel uncomfortable around the bare hairyness of other men in the locker room before swim class. Genetalia beyond my innocent eyes.

    I agree that men and women facilities are great, but banning trans people from these facilities cannot be "good". I keep thinking of that man with breasts in highschool. He was built like a man, but he had breasts larger than most women.

    I was not in the same gym class, but I dare to wonder what locker room should he have used? Telling him that he couldn't use the locker room would be morally questionable given that all other kids could. I believe he ascribed to a female gender (though I cannot say for sure).
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2021
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...