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

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[woad&fangs]

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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

[Viking]

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

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Adrian II]

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?

[Don Corleone]

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?

[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."

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[rotorgun]

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.

[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.

[Adrian II]

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?

[Fragony]

They could just shrug it of and go to another bar because it's opvious they aren't wanted.

[HoreTore]

They could just shrug it of and go to another bar because it's opvious they aren't wanted.

That's a nice way to start a de-facto apartheid society.

[Fragony]

That's a nice way to start a de-facto apartheid society.

We would get along much better if we had one.

[Don Corleone]

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?

No, of course not. And I know where this is going, that what is the objective standard by which a court of law could determine the intent, and therefore cuplability, of said discriminator.

I don't have an answer for that one, I'm afraid. But before you get too gleeful, I'd like you to answer my question about where does the line for enforcing policial correctness unto religions end. Let's suppose a Lutheran church has a great beer night. It's the talk of the town, and everyone likes to come to it. But at the beginning of the festivities, the minister leads a benediction and asks for God to embrace all his children, calling for the eventual conversion of non-Christians to Christianity.

Well, what if some Buddhists and atheists in the audience took offense. Would they have the right to sue to force the minister to stop the benediction at the beginning of the party?

[Adrian II]

No, of course not.

Is the restaurant owner not within his rights in this particular case because he is not religious? In other words: are religious considerations inherently superior to non-religous considerations?

The restaurant owner could claim that consorting with blacks runs against his cultural identity. Is it the court's job to decide whether a man's idea of his cultural identity is legitimate, but not whether a man's religious feelings are legitimate?

But before you get too gleeful, I'd like you to answer my question about where does the line for enforcing policial correctness unto religions end.

I don't have a readymade answer to your question either. I'm racking my brain about it (always a sign of a good thread when people find it so compelling). I'm trying to find out, just like others.

But I do know that religion should not be privileged over other types of convictions in matters like these.