California Christian Baker Wins Discrimination Lawsuit

[Landon Caeli]

I just told you my view. You can't escape discrimination. You can't have a perfectly egalitarian society where everyone is equal and everyone is treated the same way. If you have a society which tolerates blasphemy (and considers it a positive good thing to do in order to demonstrate freedom) you will have a less religious society, because the divine is treated as a joke, something not worthy of protecting in law or custom. if you have a society which does not tolerate blasphemy then you will have a society which is more religious, because the divine is sacred and inviolable.



No one discriminates arbitrarily, they do so on the basis of principles and beliefs. Wintersdust is an ardent secularist. He seems to believe in the total supremacy of the secular state over religious attitudes. Certain religious attitudes have no place in his society (such as not affirming LGBT).

Then you do indeed hold the opinion that Christian's should discriminate against others as often as possible.

Thank you for admitting it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Then you do indeed hold the opinion that Christian's should discriminate against others as often as possible.

Thank you for admitting it.

I hold that we should discriminate when necessary in accordance with Christian values. Such as not going to a homosexual wedding but going to a heterosexual wedding.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, I don't have it backwards. The civil rights battles in this country have always been waged against a Christian idea that discrimination against a class of persons is righteous.

Civil rights are different than moral laws given by God.

Civil rights according to current laws are immoral in many cases.

We all discriminate, even homosexuals and transgenders. Their
political action groups bring lawsuits against Christian institutions
all the time.

Also, before same sex marriage became law, Vermont passed a "civil union,"
law, which gave homosexual couples all the rights that heterosexual couples have.
It wasn't good enough for them. They wanted same-sex marriage to be treated as
the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriages.

So, it's not about so-called rights, but morality invented my men.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes

Then discrimination against children by not allowing them to drive cars is wrong?

Is the military wrong when it discriminates against people who have health issues like asthma or high-blood pressure, by not allowing them in?

Sometimes, we need rational discrimination.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That's not discrimination. By definition, discrimination has to be "unjustified", or "unfair" treatment of someone based on prejudice.

So now you moved the goalposts.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So now you moved the goalposts. 

There needs to be a distinction, which the English language doesn't allow for, that separates fair discrimination from the unfair kind... The just kind from the unjust...

For example, it is *just* that a murderer be jailed, and that is fair discrimination. But it is *unjust* that a homosexual be denied employment as an accountant, for example, on account of his/her sexuality.

The English language simply doesn't allow for such nuanced thinking in this area, where it clearly should, and the result is flawed, unholy thinking that spreads unfairness and contempt of humanity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There needs to be a distinction, which the English language doesn't allow for, that separates fair discrimination from the unfair kind... The just kind from the unjust...

For example, it is *just* that a murderer be jailed, and that is fair discrimination. But it is *unjust* that a homosexual be denied employment as an accountant, for example.

The English language simply doesn't allow for such nuanced thinking in this area, where it clearly should, and the result is flawed, unholy thinking that spreads unfairness and contempt of humanity.

It has to do with providing the deeper meaning of the word.

The question was asked, if discrimination is always wrong.

You answered "Yes."

I provided reasons why there are cases of discrimination which are
justified.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It has to do with providing the deeper meaning of the word.

The question was asked, if discrimination is always wrong.

You answered "Yes."

I provided reasons why there are cases of discrimination which are justified.

I took the bait and lost. I admit it.

...But I'm not being a sore loser by stating that there are obvious flaws in a lack of nuance in terms regarding the concept of discrimination as a whole within the English language.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I took the bait and lost. I admit it.

...But I'm not being a sore loser by stating that there are obvious flaws in a lack of nuance in terms regarding the concept of discrimination as a whole within the English language.

The same has to do with the word, "love." The English language uses one word
to represent the four different meanings of the word "love."

So, when the word is used, it has to be given in context.

 

[Hank77]

You apparently didn't understand the law you copied and pasted when you claimed there's no law that protects the rights of LGBTQ in public accommodation.

I said the federal accommodation law does not protect LGBTQ. You posted the same law I did where does it say LGBTQ? If fed. law did then all the states would have to as well but as you saw many states don't.

 

[Tuur]

Never said they wouldn't be Christians.

Now all these years later we have Christians who think Civil Rights should not apply to one class of persons.

Including ministers who marched in the Civil Rights protests? Because I know of some who took exception with a lawmaker in a state legislature made a similar comment, and visited his office to explain his error.

 

[Tuur]

The same has to do with the word, "love." The English language uses one word
to represent the four different meanings of the word "love."

So, when the word is used, it has to be given in context.

Perfect example is the passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him. Twice Jesus used the term "agapes," and Peter responded with the term "philo." The third time Jesus used the term "phileis," and Peter answered again with "philo." Then John21:17 goes on to say that Peter was grieved because the third time Jesus used the term "phileis." Twice Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him with the highest from of love, and Peter essentially said "You know I love you like a brother." Then the third time Jesus used the term for brotherly love, and Peter was grieved. I think something we miss in English is this change in term, and I think that was why Peter was grieved, not because he was asked three times.

BTW, I don't know Greek. This is courtesy of an online interlinear bible.

 

[WintersDust]

I said the federal accommodation law does not protect LGBTQ. You posted the same law I did where does it say LGBTQ? If fed. law did then all the states would have to as well but as you saw many states don't.

You're wrong.
Federal law does protect LGBTQ. And if a state entity discriminates against them being Federal law supercedes state law, they have a remedy under federal law.
Christians don't sponsor bigotry and discrimination by law.

We don't have a right to say a people are unequal to us because we don't approve who they are.
God knows we've done that in the past. We were wrong then. We are wrong now.

We were wrong when we pushed bigoted legislation that still enslaved black people after the Imancipation Proclamation. Jim Crow,etc...
We were wrong forbidding indigenous tribal people teaching and speaking their own language. We were wrong numerous times in trying to use secular law to make America into the image and likeness of what is contrary to Jesus teachings and example.

We don't bring people to Christ exampling we as a people disrespect and enslave anyone not like us already.

And the history of repeal of laws that implied that intent is evidence God agrees.

God calls whom he will to his son.
Everyone else are like unto the forest and the trees. That landscape we navigate bearing God's armor and with his guidance.

God is Sovereign. In control. We can't only believe that when it suits us.
And he shows us we can't legislate our will to overcome his.

Because all people are made in his image and likeness. Even those we don't approve.

It's all a lesson.
''I hate you but I love Jesus.''
Is a lie.

 

[WintersDust]

Civil rights are different than moral laws given by God.

Civil rights according to current laws are immoral in many cases.

We all discriminate, even homosexuals and transgenders. Their
political action groups bring lawsuits against Christian institutions
all the time.

Also, before same sex marriage became law, Vermont passed a "civil union,"
law, which gave homosexual couples all the rights that heterosexual couples have.
It wasn't good enough for them. They wanted same-sex marriage to be treated as
the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriages.

So, it's not about so-called rights, but morality invented my men.

Morality....invented by men.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Perfect example is the passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him. Twice Jesus used the term "agapes," and Peter responded with the term "philo." The third time Jesus used the term "phileis," and Peter answered again with "philo." Then John21:17 goes on to say that Peter was grieved because the third time Jesus used the term "phileis." Twice Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him with the highest from of love, and Peter essentially said "You know I love you like a brother." Then the third time Jesus used the term for brotherly love, and Peter was grieved. I think something we miss in English is this change in term, and I think that was why Peter was grieved, not because he was asked three times.

BTW, I don't know Greek. This is courtesy of an online interlinear bible.

Eros, Phileo, Storge and Agape are the four different forms of love in Greek. Storge translates to family loyalty, while Agape is an unconditional love and
often associated with Divine Love. Eros as romantic love. Phileo means things
like friendship.

I never heard that Jesus was asking Peter if he loved him, agape. This would
make some sense being Jesus is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, God. Peter kept responding with phileo, but I question this. When Jesus asked it, He was revealing Himself to Peter after the resurrection and as a result, I would think Peter would've understood that Jesus love was agape. However, I have no
idea what Peter was thinking at the time.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Morality....invented by men.

But God gave us His morality in the Ten Commandments.

Today, people are trying to make up their own commandments, which never
works. Cultures which become immoral, usually collapse.

 

[Tuur]

I never heard that Jesus was asking Peter if he loved him, agape. This would
make some sense being Jesus is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, God. Peter kept responding with phileo, but I question this. When Jesus asked it, He was revealing Himself to Peter after the resurrection and as a result, I would think Peter would've understood that Jesus love was agape. However, I have no
idea what Peter was thinking at the time.

Look for the passage in an interlinear bible, or a bible with Strong numbers.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Because all people are made in his image and likeness. Even those we don't approve.

It's all a lesson.
''I hate you but I love Jesus.''
Is a lie.

Why is secular law which mandates acceptance of homosexuality superior to Christian law which rejects the legitimacy of homosexuality?

 

[WintersDust]

Why is secular law which mandates acceptance of homosexuality superior to Christian law which rejects the legitimacy of homosexuality?

Is there a conflict?
We live by God's teachings. In a secular state.

Secular law is inclusive.Not exclusive.
We make the mistake thinking a secular civil union marriage license, marriage has always been considered a civil union state contract, makes gays seeking that same licensure equal to us.
Therein is the conflict. Because it isn't true.

We obtain permission to marry under state law when we obtain a secular law,state issued, marriage license.
That makes us subject to the limits,rights,privileges the license affords.

Then we have a religious marriage ceremony. It is that which makes us married in the eyes of God. But prior we obtained the license that the state law identifies as marriage by secular law.

We can get married without that license from the state. But we do not have the rights and privileges that later comes with it.
I.E a drop in vehicle insurance rates, a change in income tax filing, etc...

Because the marriage,civil union, license is secular religious injunctions cannot apply.
Secular law forbids discrimination.

And besides,we all should know homosexuals are not married in the eyes of God.
What we should realize is with that secular license, we're married first in the eyes of the state.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Is there a conflict?
We live by God's teachings. In a secular state.

Secular law is inclusive.Not exclusive.
We make the mistake thinking a secular civil union marriage license, marriage has always been considered a civil union state contract, makes gays seeking that same licensure equal to us.
Therein is the conflict. Because it isn't true.

We obtain permission to marry under state law when we obtain a secular law,state issued, marriage license.
That makes us subject to the limits,rights,privileges the license affords.

Then we have a religious marriage ceremony. It is that which makes us married in the eyes of God. But prior we obtained the license that the state law identifies as marriage by secular law.

We can get married without that license from the state. But we do not have the rights and privileges that later comes with it.
I.E a drop in vehicle insurance rates, a change in income tax filing, etc...

Because the marriage,civil union, license is secular religious injunctions cannot apply.
Secular law forbids discrimination.

And besides,we all should know homosexuals are not married in the eyes of God.
What we should realize is with that secular license, we're married first in the eyes of the state.

Should polygamy be made legal then? Since the goal of secular law is to include all, I presume you support polygamy being accepted.

BTW, I will also note that you as a ardent total secularist wish to discriminate against people with my own views from entering and living in your country. You are being exclusivist and not inclusive.