I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice.

---

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

---

While I personally think the hardline biblical prohibitions on homosexuality are questionable, they are there, right after the purification rituals (so be sure to stone your neighbor for serving meat AND cheese on the same pizza). I can't quite remember the citation at the moment, but the passage "You shall not lay down with another man as though one of you were a woman, for that would be an abomination." I missed the line where Jehovah told the Levites to enforce a strict policy of "not being black".

I'm not saying were I to design my own church, I wouldn't allow for the open practice of homosexuality. I might, I might not. Jury is still out. But that's just it, I haven't. And I don't know where I or anyone else gets off ordering religious groups to adopt the newest and latest fad. What's next, not mentioning God's name during services, because it might offend atheists that want to attend, for the social aspects, but really take offense to mention of the Almighty? Damn, now I'm give HoreTore & Little Grizzly ideas. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I can't quite remember the citation at the moment, but the passage "You shall not lay down with another man as though one of you were a woman, for that would be an abomination."

---

It's Leviticus. It's always Leviticus.

Thank you Don. It is actually quiet refreshing when I have to look at my beliefs on a certain subject and decide whether they still are valid or if I should rethink my position. :bow:

I was going to change the comparison to a Nazi refusing to give service to a Jew but that would be discrimination based on religion which would only be valid if there is a gay religion(Admit it, the irony of a homosexual using the "freedom of religion" defense would be hilarious).

So right now I'm not sure whether I am correct or whether DC is. ~:yin-yang:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm not saying were I to design my own church, I wouldn't allow for the open practice of homosexuality. I might, I might not. Jury is still out. But that's just it, I haven't. And I don't know where I or anyone else gets off ordering religious groups to adopt the newest and latest fad. What's next, not mentioning God's name during services, because it might offend atheists that want to attend, for the social aspects, but really take offense to mention of the Almighty? Damn, now I'm give HoreTore & Little Grizzly ideas. :wall:

---

Hehe, I was forced to go to a church service in the army once... And I didn't complain about the mentioning of God, but I did remain seated when the priest told us to "stand up and profess our belief", and boy that sparked a reaction :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

---

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so what I am about to say has probably already been said by those smarter than I, because it's so blatantly obvious that I am, quite frankly Don, surprised you even had the balls to start this thread:

This is clearly not an example of a gay couple trying to force a church to marry them, which is the matter that you and I have argued many times in the past.

This is an example of a gay couple who wanted to use a facility (not even a church, at that) to perform their civil union, and they were discriminated against because the owners of the facility in question happen to disagree with gay marriage. Quite funny, since the couple in question are not even asking to be "married" in the facility in question.

So Don, to use your words, not mine: "Hogwash. You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman. :strawman2:"

Have a nice day.

:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice. And if you're not sure what it is, call up a black church and ask them if they think gays should be allowed to join their civil rights movement.

---

Hmm. Why are there black churches? Sounds like a result of some of Christianity's older prejudices. Maybe one day we'll be able to move past all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

---

Sorry, I must have missed that part of the article. Where in there did it say that a lesbian couple asked the methodist church to marry them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

No, I was headed more or less where Adrian II went, although I was lumbering there in a much more clumsy fashion. I think this is a borderline case, and not indicative of a larger assault on organized religion.

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

---

That sums up very nicely my feelings on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

---

Is the restaurant owner claiming his establishment is the property of his new religion? Or that by forcing this religious facility to serve blacks he'd be forced to implicitly condone their "black" behavior? I think the comparison fails on several levels....

Regardless, yes. I think an restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their business- it's not even a religious issue. If someone says they'll refuse to server any blacks because of their race, I would refuse to patronize their establishment and would expect many others to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Regardless, yes. I think an restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their business- it's not even a religious issue. If someone says they'll refuse to server any blacks because of their race, I would refuse to patronize their establishment and would expect many others to do the same.

---

I'm of two mind on that issue. Part of me agrees with you. But then a part of me asks, what about businesses other than restaurants? How about grocery stores? Or doctors? What if there was only one grocery store or doctor within 100 miles, and they both refused to serve a family because they were black? Or gay?

How about this: In my job, I do a lot of business with First Nations. One of the things that some of them have been involved with lately is building their own power generation plants in order to become independent and also generate a bit of profit selling excess power back to the general population of Canada. What if an independent, on reserve power generation plant refused to supply electricity to a house on the reserve because the owner of the house was married to a whitey?

You're talking about essential services, there Goofy. Surely you're not claiming the mental crutch that is modern religion is essential for anyone? I was under the impression you were doing some hoping and praying of a different sort for the day when otherwise sane and reasonable people, like your wife and I, would have the scales lifted from their eyes. Wouldn't shutting gay people out of active church membership in fact be doing them a service from your perspective? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You're talking about essential services, there Goofy. Surely you're not claiming the mental crutch that is modern religion is essential for anyone? I was under the impression you were doing some hoping and praying of a different sort for the day when otherwise sane and reasonable people, like your wife and I, would have the scales lifted from their eyes. Wouldn't shutting gay people out of active church membership in fact be doing them a service from your perspective? :clown:

---

Sorry Don, I was actually going slightly off topic there and following Xiahou's "businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason" line, not apropos of the original thread topic whatsoever. And the essential services I used in my post were private businesses, who, in Xiahou's world, should be able to refuse service to anybody they want. But let's limit it just to restaurants if you want. Picture this: A nice, middle class black family is driving accross the country for a family holiday. They stop for a bite to eat at a rustic looking cafe somewhere in middle America, mom, dad, 10 year old daughter and twelve year old son. Upon entering, the owner of the restaurant, standing behind the bar polishing glasses and joking with his cronies, catches sight of the black family. He then says loudly, so that everybody in the restaurant can hear it: "Get your black asses outa here. We don't serve niggers." It that his right as a business owner?

I don't care if churches ban gays, or blacks, or women from being members of their churches. They can do that all day long if they want. They are religious organizations. Religious organizations have been involved in indefensable, silly, and downright mean practices for thousands of years. Who am I to try to stop them?
:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

---

He can do as he whishes but no one will eat there and he will be foreclosed on :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

Hmm. Why are there black churches? Sounds like a result of some of Christianity's older prejudices. Maybe one day we'll be able to move past all of this.

---

Maybe one day you will do some reasearch about Americas chruches move past your self richeousnes and we can have a disscussion. Maybe one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hehe, I was forced to go to a church service in the army once... And I didn't complain about the mentioning of God, but I did remain seated when the priest told us to "stand up and profess our belief", and boy that sparked a reaction :laugh4:

---

As someone who is at great risk of ending up in the army in the upcoming years thanks to our fascist constitution, please elaborate on how it ended. :clown:

I have a hard time feeling bad for the church.

While I think they are justified in refusing to "serve" whoever they like, I can't really fault the gays for going after them in court.

The majority of Christian churches have been demonizing gay people for a long, long time, despite the teachings of Jesus.

When you make enemies and burn bridges, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the...

If the laws allow this kind of thing to happen, change them. Don't expect the gay community to have any more mercy or understanding than the Christian one has had, though.

I also agree with Sasaki. Why these people want to be married in a religion that hates them is beyond me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I also agree with Sasaki. Why these people want to be married in a religion that hates them is beyond me...

---

I don't hate them at all. However, it's still the church's right to decide to marry them or not. That's why we have seperation of Church and State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Maybe one day you will do some reasearch about Americas chruches move past your self richeousnes and we can have a disscussion. Maybe one day.

---

Yeah, you're right. Keep your unfounded prejudices. Just goes to show the church's detrimental effects on society. Their dislike of certain groups (based on whatever BS logic from years gone by) gets passed on to the congregations and the middle-classes then have their enemy to hate and breed intolerance, regardless of how stupid the entire situation is - (you realise people don't choose to be gay, so how can you persecute them?)

Nice other thread by the way, your question seems to have been answered quite competently by other people with common sense so I don't feel the need to contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I missed the line where Jehovah told the Levites to enforce a strict policy of "not being black".

---

That's not the point. I didn't say the restaurant owner is a Christian. Could be any religion.

Premiss: The restaurant owner's God and religious teachings forbid him to serve blacks.

Question: Is he within his right to refuse them as clients or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's not the point. I didn't say the restaurant owner is a Christian. Could be any religion.

Premiss: The restaurant owner's God and religious teachings forbid him to serve blacks.

Question: Is he within his right to refuse them as clients or not?

---

Aaah, I see your point. I honestly read your comment in a different light. If after careful soul searching and prayerful consideration, not just following what some fiery preacher, priest or witch doctor told him, the fellow really honestly believed that he should exclude a certain class of people, then he'd sort of have to follow his conscience.

Isn't this how the Hasidim treat the rest of us? Does it really bother you all that much?

As for anyone interested in exactly what God's views are on the subject of a society given over to such sexual practices, I recommend a reading of Genesis, Chapter 18 and 19. Start about verse 20 in Chapter 18 and work your way to the end of Chapter 19. It gives a pretty good idea of just how patient God was with the Sodomites and the Gomorrah-lites that he would be willing to spare the cities for the "sake of even ten righteous men."

Leviticus 19, vs 17: Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

Leviticus 20, vs 13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.

Romans Chapter 1, vs 24-29: Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (Like the two recent lesbians mentioned) In the same way the men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Aids?)

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what not to be done. (Such as try to change the ways that even Churches ought to accept them through manipulation of the civil laws) They are filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

Then again, Jesus said that he came not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance. As he said in Matthew Chapter 9, vs 12: " It is not the healthy who need a doctor,....."

My view is that Gays will try to use the very fabric of our country-its laws and court systems-to force change, or at least silence within the mainstream religions. As I have shown above, God even kind of predicts this behavior. He has shown his patience by sending Christ to pay for sins, even this one, and would like to see all come to reason with him. I feel a moral obligation to warn my Gay brothers and sisters that they should reconsider. Even though I cannot agree with their "choice" I also cannot condemn them for anything; responsibility is a personal matter, and I have enough on my plate to be responsible for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

As for anyone interested in exactly what God's views are on the subject of a society given over to such sexual practices, I recommend a reading of Genesis, Chapter 18 and 19. Start about verse 20 in Chapter 18 and work your way to the end of Chapter 19. It gives a pretty good idea of just how patient God was with the Sodomites and the Gomorrah-lites that he would be willing to spare the cities for the "sake of even ten righteous men."

---

You're asserting that you know what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was? This is big news. Up until today, all biblical scholars have said that it's unclear, not spelled out, not even clearly implied.

"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;" Gen 18:20

And that is it in terms of explanation. We see later that the S&Gs are hostile to strangers, don't respect the guest/host relationship, and want to gang-rape the angels. Take your pick if any of those are the "very great" sin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You're asserting that you know what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was? This is big news. Up until today, all biblical scholars have said that it's unclear, not spelled out, not even clearly implied.

"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;" Gen 18:20

And that is it in terms of explanation. We see later that the S&Gs are hostile to strangers, don't respect the guest/host relationship, and want to gang-rape the angels. Take your pick if any of those are the "very great" sin.

---

A good point, although I disagree that the "sin" is not implied. I quote the following from Chapter 19, vs 5-6:
They called to Lot "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have sex (go into) them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. (He clearly identifies the main crime here) Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. (What father in his right mind, unless he were somewhat depraved himself, would do such a thing) But don't do anything to these men, for they are under the protection of my roof." (I interpret this as another nail in the coffin of these men who have become so sinful that they have also forgotten the law of basic civility).

Knowing what we do from the other points I have made from the Bible so far, it is a logical deduction that the main sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were wanton sexual depravity-in itself against God's laws of nature. While this is likely a rhetorical story, the main theme is clear IMHO.

A fair interpretation, Rotorgun, although I could argue that the violation of the guest/host relationship is the real sin. And what's with your modern English biblical citations? Real men roll with the King James, baby. Kick it old-skool with my main Bible, yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A fair interpretation, Rotorgun, although I could argue that the violation of the guest/host relationship is the real sin. And what's with your modern English biblical citations? Real men roll with the King James, baby. Kick it old-skool with my main Bible, yo.

---

Yes, this argument is familiar to me from many discussions about these passages. Many scholars point to this as God's main grievance. I feel that these words point to Sodom and Gomorrah as communities that had become very self oriented - not unlike what many feel towards our modern society. "Do your own thing" and "Whatever" have become the watchwords of a very "it's my world" attitude today. Whatever had taken place there to make it so in Sodom, sexual deviance had become a prominent behavior. As Fragony has inferred in his earlier posts, these people had lost respect for themselves, let alone anyone else - a byproduct of giving oneself over to what one knows is wrong. :juggle2:

Oh yeah, the King James version! I love that version with its wonderful 17th century prose. I just happened to have a New International Version Handy at the time. :study:

Well...see you guys tomorrow, I gotta get up at 4 AM! :thumbsdown:

PS: Great thread. I think it's a good thing to discuss such things. I tend to agree with Don Corleone here. He has really told us this before....and he wasn't the only one. :yes::beam:

Never be without the King James again. Come on, "Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe." How can any modern translation match up with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Real men roll with the King James, baby. Kick it old-skool with my main Bible, yo.

---

Go NAB or go home. :beam:

Edit: While we're on the Bible, I haven't seen anyone bring up Corinthians 9-10.
Really, I think Rotorgun nails it in the end of post 82. The "Christian" way should not be about condemning others. We should disapprove of homosexual behavior, but not hate homosexuals.

Interesting new study alleges that brain scans of gay people show difference in brain structure from straight people of the same sex.

Raises the question of whether homosexuality can really be described as a "choice", since it appears to be preprogrammed from birth. It makes the analogy between refusing services to gay people and black people rather more compelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If after careful soul searching and prayerful consideration, not just following what some fiery preacher, priest or witch doctor told him, the fellow really honestly believed that he should exclude a certain class of people, then he'd sort of have to follow his conscience.

---

Fair answer.

Now suppose the restaurant owner is not religious at all. He's an atheist. He refuses to serve blacks because he doesn't like them and maintains he has good reason not to like them.

Is he still within his rights?