az mulls bill permitting business from refusing service to gays

[nebula]

Hello apple, meet Orange

 

Was that addressed to me or Ayin Jade? And what did you mean by this?

[nebula]

LFA: Minus any harm based on a religious point of view what harm comes from well regulated prostitution?

Me:The risk of spreading venereal diseases is one. Condoms don't protect against AIDS nor the virus that causes cervical cancer.

LFA: The CDC would disagree with you.  And with regulation the risk are mitigated.

I personally do not consider "mitigation" to be protection. If you do, that's fine.

But you cannot claim that venereal diseases are not spread, even with condom use, by prostitution.

[Guest shiloh357]

Interesting analysis. I can't say I see as you do, but that's okay. Here are my thoughts:

Jesus loves and came to save the sinner.

I'm not sure this is the way to reach the unbelievers. I always thought the way to reach them is through love. Remember, love your neighbor as yourself. Love even your enemy. If you have no contact with these unbelievers how are you going to win them to Christ? You really don't think a sign in your window saying no gays allowed will win unbelievers to Christ, do you?

This kind of stuff was ugly back in the civil rights days and it is ugly today. It is pure hatred for man because you don't agree or like their look, be it color of skin or sexual preference. Back then it was hatred against blacks, today it is hatred against gays. I know being black is not a sin and being gay is, but the issue to me is still simply this- do onto others as you would have them do onto you. It's that simple to me. Is it to you?

I think we should try to lead people to the message and gospel of Christ first and then let the Holy Spirit clean up the mess. I do not think it is our place to expect unbelievers to live by our code......until they become believers. Stop trying to be the moral police and instead start being ambassadors for Christ.

Spock out

 

This demonstrates the kind of confusion that exists.   This is not about Christian business owners denying service to people who are gay.  It is not about them banning gays from restauraunts or dry cleaners or bowling alleys.   I don't know any Christian business owners stupid or bigoted enough to do such a thing.

 

This is about Christians being asked to perform a service that would directly impact their Christian convictions.   The notorious example is of a Christian business owner being asked to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.    The business owner is not "discriminating"  against the same sex couple on the grounds they are gay.   They are not refusing to sell anything to them.

 

The Christian business owner does not feel his convictions allow him to make a cake for this person due to his strong feelings against same sex marriage.   The same sex couple, if they are intelligent, mature and decent people would simply find another bakery willing to accomodate them out of respect for the religious convictions of the business owner.

 

The business owner is not saying that they cannot come into his place and buy donuts or bread, or whatever.  He simply can't make them a wedding cake due to their same sex relationship.  

 

To try and compare this to a civil rights issue is nonsense.   This is not a civil rights issue.  No one has aconstitutional  "right" to be married in the first place.  Marriage isn't a right, it is a mutual covenant bewtween a man and a woman.

[nebula]

 

 

 

What sort of a message is being sent to non-believers discriminate against people that are different than them?   I think that private businesses should be able to do this legally, but morally I think it is very wrong.

WWJD?

Do you think he would approve of this?

 

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who lived under Torah in a culture of people submitted to Torah. An unrepented homosexual or lesbian wouldn't have even dared to make a peep about it.

 

Jesus' words to the prostitutes were, "Go and sin no more." Would His words to a homosexual or lesbian be any different?

Interesting analysis. I can't say I see as you do, but that's okay. Here are my thoughts:

Jesus loves and came to save the sinner.

I'm not sure this is the way to reach the unbelievers. I always thought the way to reach them is through love. Remember, love your neighbor as yourself. Love even your enemy. If you have no contact with these unbelievers how are you going to win them to Christ? You really don't think a sign in your window saying no gays allowed will win unbelievers to Christ, do you?

This kind of stuff was ugly back in the civil rights days and it is ugly today. It is pure hatred for man because you don't agree or like their look, be it color of skin or sexual preference. Back then it was hatred against blacks, today it is hatred against gays. I know being black is not a sin and being gay is, but the issue to me is still simply this- do onto others as you would have them do onto you. It's that simple to me. Is it to you?

I think we should try to lead people to the message and gospel of Christ first and then let the Holy Spirit clean up the mess. I do not think it is our place to expect unbelievers to live by our code......until they become believers. Stop trying to be the moral police and instead start being ambassadors for Christ.

Spock out

 

Hi Spock -

 

Firstly, you were asking "What would Jesus do?" To determine what Jesus would do, you have to look at what He did when He walked this earth as a man. When approached with questions or when addressing issue, Jesus always referred to Torah or told a parable that can be backed by the Torah.

 

So, what would Torah say?

 

 

But I think the better question would be, "What would Jesus have you do?" Or better yet, "What would the Father have you do?" Jesus always did as He saw His Father doing.

 

 

Now, about what makes a better witness - is compromising yet another conviction because it makes us look good and makes society happy a witness?

 

Rev. 2:14 - 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.

 

I saw an interesting skit one time that made an impression on me. It portrayed "the rich young ruler" approaching Jesus, asking Him how he could inherit eternal life. Jesus responded with the 4 Laws of Salvation and explained the concept of Himself being the bridge between you and the Father. The man replies something like, "Wow, and I can still be a rich ruler?" And Jesus responded, "Oh yes, and we can use you as a testimony...."

 

It's very odd, but once in a while, Jesus seemed to push people away from them unless they would make a commitment to be His disciple.

 

 

That being said, I recall listening to the testimony of a former Lesbian. For whatever reason, she had the desire to go to church, and the church she went to accepted her in as she was, never pushed her about "her lifestyle" or anything. They even let her become a part of the hand bell choir. Somewhere along the line, she felt the conviction to separate from her partner, which she did. And sometime after surrendering her life to Christ, her attitude towards her identity and lifestyle were transformed. She had since embraced womanhood and all that goes with it (including dress, hair style, and make up).

 

 

So this issue isn't something that we who are not in their shoes can point fingers at and tell them they are "right or wrong". Each of us has to seek what the Lord would have us individually do in our own circumstances. He might tell you to do something different than He might tell me. God is funny like that!

 

 

 

Now, as Shiloh pointed out, the company isn't refusing gays on anything other than making a cake that supports their wedding. Have they refused birthday cakes? Valentine's Day goodies? No, just making a wedding cake.

 

On the converse, does someone have the right to force someone to make a cake for them who does not have their heart and soul in the making of it?

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that mortality should not be legislated.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion about punishing "hate crimes"? Or spanking laws?

 

Hate crimes are stupid and go against the constitution's equal protection clause.  They punish the same action differently based up assumed emotions.  They are just an Orwellian way to try and control people. Spanking can harm others so there has to be some sort of rules. I should probably not get started on my personal opinion on spanking.  Did you see the footage of the Kansas lawmaker trying to justify a law that would allow teachers, caregivers and parents to spank children hard enough to leave marks.  It was embarrassing to watch

 

OK. Can you not see how your opinion on these things are founded on your moral convictions?

 

no, I cant.  Let me explain.

Hate Crimes..

 

Two men are standing on the street, Bob and John are their names.  Two other men walk up and attack Bob and John using the same physical force and brutality.  The two men are arrested.  The man that was attacking John was yelling racist comments during the attack.  This man gets a harsher sentence based upon perceived emotion than the man that attacked Bob.  The harsher sentence is meant to discourage such attacks.  Thus John is getting greater protection under the law than Bob, and this is against our constitution.   This is not a moral judgement, this is just factual.

 

Spanking.

If one person is leaving marks and bruises on another person, that person is being harmed and the law should profit one person from harming another.  Again, not a moral decision, but one of what our laws are designed for.

 

I disagree with you.

In Case 1, you are using the Constitution as your moral guide for legislating law.

In Case 2, your morality guidelines against doing harm are superseding someone else's morality guidelines towards disciplinary actions towards children.

 

 

yes, they are two separate things, the fact you mentioned them together does not change that.  With Hate Crime laws we are discussing the state favoring one victim over another.

With spanking we are discussing one person causing harm to another.  Disciplinary actions do not require physical damage, that is not discipline, that is abuse.  Think about this, if a parent slaps a child across the face they will be seen as abusing the child, if they slap them across the bottom it is discipline.  Where is the logic in that?  How does the location change something from abuse to discipline? 

 

There is no correlation between hate crimes and spanking.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

LFA: Minus any harm based on a religious point of view what harm comes from well regulated prostitution?

Me:The risk of spreading venereal diseases is one. Condoms don't protect against AIDS nor the virus that causes cervical cancer.

LFA: The CDC would disagree with you.  And with regulation the risk are mitigated.

I personally do not consider "mitigation" to be protection. If you do, that's fine.

But you cannot claim that venereal diseases are not spread, even with condom use, by prostitution.

 

 

I cannot be responsible for your personal definitions of words.  The very nature of protection is to mitigate the damage.  You wear a seat belt in your car for protection in case of an accident.  This does not remove all harm, but it does offer protection,

 

Yes, venereal diseases can be spread by prostitution, they can be spread by any sexual contact.  If prostitution were legalized it could then be regulated, including those choosing that profession (remember it is not just women)

 

In Nevada where it is legal the workers are checked weekly for STDs and monthly for HIV. 

[Spock]

What sort of a message is being sent to non-believers discriminate against people that are different than them?   I think that private businesses should be able to do this legally, but morally I think it is very wrong.

WWJD?

Do you think he would approve of this?

 

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who lived under Torah in a culture of people submitted to Torah. An unrepented homosexual or lesbian wouldn't have even dared to make a peep about it.

 

Jesus' words to the prostitutes were, "Go and sin no more." Would His words to a homosexual or lesbian be any different?

Interesting analysis. I can't say I see as you do, but that's okay. Here are my thoughts:

Jesus loves and came to save the sinner.

I'm not sure this is the way to reach the unbelievers. I always thought the way to reach them is through love. Remember, love your neighbor as yourself. Love even your enemy. If you have no contact with these unbelievers how are you going to win them to Christ? You really don't think a sign in your window saying no gays allowed will win unbelievers to Christ, do you?

This kind of stuff was ugly back in the civil rights days and it is ugly today. It is pure hatred for man because you don't agree or like their look, be it color of skin or sexual preference. Back then it was hatred against blacks, today it is hatred against gays. I know being black is not a sin and being gay is, but the issue to me is still simply this- do onto others as you would have them do onto you. It's that simple to me. Is it to you?

I think we should try to lead people to the message and gospel of Christ first and then let the Holy Spirit clean up the mess. I do not think it is our place to expect unbelievers to live by our code......until they become believers. Stop trying to be the moral police and instead start being ambassadors for Christ.

Spock out

 

Hi Spock -

 

Firstly, you were asking "What would Jesus do?" To determine what Jesus would do, you have to look at what He did when He walked this earth as a man. When approached with questions or when addressing issue, Jesus always referred to Torah or told a parable that can be backed by the Torah.

 

So, what would Torah say?

 

 

But I think the better question would be, "What would Jesus have you do?" Or better yet, "What would the Father have you do?" Jesus always did as He saw His Father doing.

 

 

Now, about what makes a better witness - is compromising yet another conviction because it makes us look good and makes society happy a witness?

 

Rev. 2:14 - 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.

 

I saw an interesting skit one time that made an impression on me. It portrayed "the rich young ruler" approaching Jesus, asking Him how he could inherit eternal life. Jesus responded with the 4 Laws of Salvation and explained the concept of Himself being the bridge between you and the Father. The man replies something like, "Wow, and I can still be a rich ruler?" And Jesus responded, "Oh yes, and we can use you as a testimony...."

 

It's very odd, but once in a while, Jesus seemed to push people away from them unless they would make a commitment to be His disciple.

 

 

That being said, I recall listening to the testimony of a former Lesbian. For whatever reason, she had the desire to go to church, and the church she went to accepted her in as she was, never pushed her about "her lifestyle" or anything. They even let her become a part of the hand bell choir. Somewhere along the line, she felt the conviction to separate from her partner, which she did. And sometime after surrendering her life to Christ, her attitude towards her identity and lifestyle were transformed. She had since embraced womanhood and all that goes with it (including dress, hair style, and make up).

 

 

So this issue isn't something that we who are not in their shoes can point fingers at and tell them they are "right or wrong". Each of us has to seek what the Lord would have us individually do in our own circumstances. He might tell you to do something different than He might tell me. God is funny like that!

 

 

 

Now, as Shiloh pointed out, the company isn't refusing gays on anything other than making a cake that supports their wedding. Have they refused birthday cakes? Valentine's Day goodies? No, just making a wedding cake.

 

On the converse, does someone have the right to force someone to make a cake for them who does not have their heart and soul in the making of it?

Neb,

Good thoughts worthy of being pondered (as usual from you). Thanks.

Spock

[nebula]

This does not remove all harm, but it does offer protection,

 

Thank you for admitting it causes harm.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

This does not remove all harm, but it does offer protection,

 

Thank you for admitting it causes harm.

 

 

What doesn't cause harm?

[Guest shiloh357]

Pimps are known to be cruel "employers".

Legalization and regulation would help to resolve both of these issues

 

 

Only in your imagination.  We regulate lots of stuff and people's lives are still destroyed by those things, regulations, or not.  No amount of legalization or regulation will work.  We have regulation concerning alcohol and yet alcoholism and liver disease are still huge problems.  Alcoholism is at the root of the destruction of so many families and no amount of regulation can mitigate the damage that alcoholism does. 

 

To argue that the problems with prostitution can be fixed by regulations ignores the very fact that prostitution is harmful to women socially and emotionally.  Objectifying women as  sex objects and the harmful effects it has on women cannot be regulated away.   Prostution isn't safe physically due to disease and unwanted pregancies, abortion and the harm that comes from that.  

 

Legalizing prostitution will not remove the social stigma it carries and will only serve to leave women hating themselves, leaving them suicidal as well.  One only needs look at what sexual objectification does to women who are NOT prostitutes to see the harm that prositution can bring to women, with or without legalization or regulation.

 

Legalizing prositution would not bring any benefit to this country but would only deepen the pit of immorality we are sinking into as a nation.  You cannot regulate the sin out of prostitution.