Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Old 10-10-17, 08:09 AM
  #26  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 31,425
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Discriminating between sin and righteousness?

Since that's required in order to know how to glorify God...which, after all, is the primary purpode of all human existence...that ability to distinguish between the two is pretty much essential, wouldn't you say?

(That wouldn't apply to any religion that doesn't differentiate and considers all actions and attitudes equivalent.)
That's not an answer. Remember that some religions don't recognize the same "god" you do and applying your own standards to judge the worthiness of a religion has nothing to do with my question.

Let's try again - and I'll make it even clearer: Do you support the right for a business to refuse to serve Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, etc.?
Draven is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:20 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,850
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

The United States is not a theocracy. Creek derails these threads because he yearns for it to be, but it's not. Civil rights are granted under civil law, not divine authority. As long as creek can keep you guys arguing about how the poor persecuted Christians aren't allowed to snub them thar reprobate homos, this conversation will never advance beyond 'because I said so.'
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:26 AM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Vibiana View Post
The United States is not a theocracy. Creek derails these threads because he yearns for it to be, but it's not. Civil rights are granted under civil law, not divine authority. As long as creek can keep you guys arguing about how the poor persecuted Christians aren't allowed to snub them thar reprobate homos, this conversation will never advance beyond 'because I said so.'
Point is made. I guess I have a tough time reconciling that. I was raised a strict Catholic. And there is zero doubt in my mind that had I "refused to make that cake" or treated anyone in a disrespectful way those nuns would have take a ruler to my knuckles even more than they did. We were kids. So there was "kids stuff" of making fun of others. And to this day I remember some of the beating I took. And deservedly so.

I think religion is just to easy an out.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:34 AM
  #29  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Point is made. I guess I have a tough time reconciling that. I was raised a strict Catholic. And there is zero doubt in my mind that had I "refused to make that cake" or treated anyone in a disrespectful way those nuns would have take a ruler to my knuckles even more than they did. We were kids. So there was "kids stuff" of making fun of others. And to this day I remember some of the beating I took. And deservedly so.

I think religion is just to easy an out.
I doubt the nuns would have rapped your knuckles for refusing to make a cake celebrating a divorce nor consider it disrespectful for you to do so.

So you think living according to biblical standards is an "easy out?" The baker gave up an extremely lucrative, major part of his business rather than compromising his principles.

What's your definition of "easy?"
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:42 AM
  #30  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,524
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Here's the what some monsters (at least what's what creeky thinks of them) think of using region as the basis of discrimination.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/religiou...n-discriminate

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.
It's incredibly sad that some believe that the country should be taken backwards in time before the Civil Rights act forced them to act like humans. Or turn the US into a county like those in the Middle East. But hopefully we will never let them get their way.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:47 AM
  #31  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 20,108
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Sdallnct, I know you created this thread with the best of intentions, but this turned out exactly as I expected.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:50 AM
  #32  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
That's not an answer. Remember that some religions don't recognize the same "god" you do and applying your own standards to judge the worthiness of a religion has nothing to do with my question.

Let's try again - and I'll make it even clearer: Do you support the right for a business to refuse to serve Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, etc.?
Thanks for clarifying. I'll be very specific.

I personally don't agree with a business having a blanket rule saying they won't provide any type of service to a member of any group, religious or not. I have consistently applied that principle in both public and private life.

I do agree that businesses should be able to be exempt from providing very specific services to anyone from any group if providing that service violates the owner's religious beliefs.

And, although it goes against my personal principles, I think that private business owners should be able to refuse service for any reason...even if I find that reason repugnant and offensive. That's the distinction between public and private and part of being a free society.

I think the Seattle coffee shop owner should have the right to throw the Christian pro-life activists out of his establishment simply because he hates them and their views.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:57 AM
  #33  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Creek wishes he could be Jesus. Alas, not taking care of that god temple till the diabetes struck, fail.
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 08:59 AM
  #34  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
Creek, if that is true, I'm pretty sure you're going to hell. Last I checked, vainglory was one of those important sins and you exhibit it in spades.

Translation of Creek for those keeping up: I deserve things those dirty sinners don't, like being treated with respect.
So, in other words, JasonX prefers an echo chamber that reinforces and reaffirms his beliefs to debating those beliefs with others?

Okay.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:01 AM
  #35  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

A bigotry echo chamber of more than 17,000 posts.
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:09 AM
  #36  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Then forgive me for not understanding. Is it not possible to just say your ok or not ok with religous discrimination.
????

Of course. If a person who openly lives in an adulterous relationship or who mistreats his wife or refuses to work or gossips about others repeatedly or makes racist comments or any number of other things asks to become a member of the church, I'm definitely in favor of God's demands to discriminate against that person by denying him/her membership until sincere repentance is shown.

Likewise, I'm in favor of the NAACP discriminating against White Supremacists in a similar manner.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:09 AM
  #37  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Creek “I’m not a white supremacist *wink*” dipper cannot help himself when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community. If someone is discussing how sexual minorities deserve rights, like a moth to a flame he has to smash in like a Nazi Kool-Aid Man and spew his intolerance all over everyone and then use religion as his excuse. Absolutely pathetic.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:13 AM
  #38  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I doubt the nuns would have rapped your knuckles for refusing to make a cake celebrating a divorce nor consider it disrespectful for you to do so.

So you think living according to biblical standards is an "easy out?" The baker gave up an extremely lucrative, major part of his business rather than compromising his principles.

What's your definition of "easy?"
I actually don't think I agree with you on that. I was told many a times, it was NOT EVER, EVER my place to judge. That only God gets to do that.

I want to be clear here, I personally do not think SSM is a sin. That is strictly my personal belief. However, I was consistently taught I was never to judge the sinner. That God will deal with the sinner as appropriate and I was to treat every single HUMAN being with respect.

But now we are venturing into Vibs area of strictly being religion.

Now, my issue has always been government sponsored discrimination. By allowing the baker to discriminate with no recourse (like they do in many states) means a couple things, 1) those states are sponsoring a religion. Which I strongly oppose. 2) when a government sponsors discrimination, it has been shown that people will take that as a license to hurt and damage those people.

Its horrendous that a company would fire someone for being gay. Its more horrendous that a state AGREES, based on a religious reason that it is ok as this will lead to further discrimination.

So to bring back to more on topic, is there a group of divorced people sponsoring equal rights and equal treatment from employment, accommodation, and housing? Is this group actually discriminated against (beside your baker friend)? And more to the point, the law allows your baker friend to "discriminate" against the divorced person. Your baker friend can discriminate against them legally and can reconcile his belief system how he sees fit.

I don't want to leave off the most obvious. Being divorced is not who someone is. It is something they did. Being gay is who they are.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:14 AM
  #39  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

He is so picked on. Precious hypocritical thing he is.
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:16 AM
  #40  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Hummm...this an LBGTQ thread. And the map I posted that started this conversation was about protection against discrimination based specifically on sexual orientation and in most cases identity. And specifically ONLY in the areas of housing, employment and accomodation.

I don't believe there are in protections for "relationships". Who is asking for that? What is being asked for?
If "LGBTQ" people aren't defined by relationships, then what exactly distinguishes them from "non-LGBT" people.

I'm assuming that you are heterosexual. On what basis do you make that determination, and why can you not make a credible claim to being an "LGBTQ" person?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:19 AM
  #41  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
I actually don't think I agree with you on that. I was told many a times, it was NOT EVER, EVER my place to judge. That only God gets to do that.

I want to be clear here, I personally do not think SSM is a sin. That is strictly my personal belief. However, I was consistently taught I was never to judge the sinner. That God will deal with the sinner as appropriate and I was to treat every single HUMAN being with respect.

But now we are venturing into Vibs area of strictly being religion.

Now, my issue has always been government sponsored discrimination. By allowing the baker to discriminate with no recourse (like they do in many states) means a couple things, 1) those states are sponsoring a religion. Which I strongly oppose. 2) when a government sponsors discrimination, it has been shown that people will take that as a license to hurt and damage those people.

Its horrendous that a company would fire someone for being gay. Its more horrendous that a state AGREES, based on a religious reason that it is ok as this will lead to further discrimination.

So to bring back to more on topic, is there a group of divorced people sponsoring equal rights and equal treatment from employment, accommodation, and housing? Is this group actually discriminated against (beside your baker friend)? And more to the point, the law allows your baker friend to "discriminate" against the divorced person. Your baker friend can discriminate against them legally and can reconcile his belief system how he sees fit.

I don't want to leave off the most obvious. Being divorced is not who someone is. It is something they did. Being gay is who they are.
Have you not already judged "the sinner" by identifying him/her ad a sinner?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:20 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
????

Of course. If a person who openly lives in an adulterous relationship or who mistreats his wife or refuses to work or gossips about others repeatedly or makes racist comments or any number of other things asks to become a member of the church, I'm definitely in favor of God's demands to discriminate against that person by denying him/her membership until sincere repentance is shown.

Likewise, I'm in favor of the NAACP discriminating against White Supremacists in a similar manner.
Dude, that is not remotely on topic or what I asked for. Everyone here agrees a church can discriminate for any damn reason. Besides being faith based, it is church affiliation is disciminatory (the US will never force the Catholic Church to have women priests).

I'm asking if in public, if you are in 100% agreement that your baker friend can refuse to serve the Catholic person because they are Catholic? Which was the question. Are you in agreement that a for public business (not a church, not a club) should have the right to discriminate against someone based solely on their religion? That is a protection you now enjoy.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:21 AM
  #43  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I'm assuming that you are heterosexual. On what basis do you make that determination, and why can you not make a credible claim to being an "LGBTQ" person?

How about....

Hmmmm, this is a tough one.

Because he isn't?
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:22 AM
  #44  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Have you not already judged "the sinner" by identifying him/her ad a sinner?
No.

And that is enough strictly religious stuff.

Lets get it back to the topic at hand. At least tie it into what is happening with discrimination.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:26 AM
  #45  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 12,298
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

This could've been an interesting thread, but creekdipper's offering his thoughts.

I'm out.
Coral is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:26 AM
  #46  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

"Hey look! That guy is doing what my favorite book says is a sin. Guess that book's god will judge him." "Now what can I get you today sir?"


"Hey look! That guy is doing what my favorite book says is a sin." "Get out of here you dirty faggot! Burn in hell! Get the fuck out of my store!"
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:26 AM
  #47  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

How does a state "sponsor" a religion by allowing a private businesses to decide what services will be provided to which individual? ????

I taught in public "government" schools. All individuals were accepted. Private schools are allowed to be selective in whom they will serve.

That's the distinction. Public vs. Private.

DVDTalk allows for a variety of opinions to be expressed. Does that mean that the owners are endorsing every view?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:27 AM
  #48  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Coral View Post
This could've been an interesting thread, but creekdipper's offering his thoughts.

I'm out.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:27 AM
  #49  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,807
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
If "LGBTQ" people aren't defined by relationships, then what exactly distinguishes them from "non-LGBT" people.

I'm assuming that you are heterosexual. On what basis do you make that determination, and why can you not make a credible claim to being an "LGBTQ" person?
Wait...is this a trick question? Are you really "what basis" that I'm not gay? Umm because I'm not? (not that there is anything wrong with that )

I'll admit maybe I misunderstood your "relationship" question. But damn...that is weird.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:29 AM
  #50  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
The Godly one showing his pride.

SIN.
Lt Ripley is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.