Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

quote:

---

Righto. Punish us for our Biblical beliefs then, that's what you want to do.

---

Lies and slander are no measure of justice.

quote:

---

I obey God, period

---

You mean that you follow your own prejudices, against the teachings of the Bible.

quote:

---

Your society forbids me to obey God. You call that justice, I call that fascism. End of subject.

---

No society can permit religious belief to be a get-out-of-jail free card. And that is settled law, which you agree with when it works against others. That the same should apply to you IS justice.

quote:

---

I'd say there are plenty of lies on your side, about what justice is, and slander in the form of accusing my beliefs of leading to tyranny. Lots of lies and slander on your side, and that amounts to your wanting to punish us for our Biblical beliefs. And you have the thranny of the state on your side.

---

And yet you can't answer our arguments which show that we are supporting justice, and you are against it. Nor the arguments pointing out how your position can lead to tyranny, and loss of religious freedom.You, on the other hand just offer wild accusations which ignore inconvenient facts.

quote:

---

No, I obey God, the true God who was recognized by your culture and mine up until the recent takeover by paganism or secularism or whatever you want to call it, which has redefined justice, freedom, the lot, to accommodate false gods and evil gods and every kind of god but the true God. And yes, your false ahistorical and fascistic definition of justice is going to punish those who obey the true God, haven't I been saying so all along?

---

I could not have offered a better argument that you desire a tyranny.

quote:

---

Talk about lies and slander.

---

One only needs to read your words to see that I spoke the truth.

quote:

---

As I recall nobody fought the desegregation law once it was in place, because it was not a law of God but in fact a violation of a law of God.

---

Buzsaw was insisting otherwise throughout his time here. It took until the year 2000 for Bob Jones University to drop their ban on inter-racial dating. And then there was the opposition to desegregationg schools, busing pupils in: WikipediaDesegregation was a hot issue.

Answer me this simple question Faith.On what legal basis should the court decide that it is wrong for a segregationist to refuse to provide a cake for a mixed-race wedding but right for one of your "Christians" to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding ?I'm not asking for YOUR rationalisations. I'm asking for the basis that the courts should use.

quote:

---

That race is a legitimate protected class, homosexuality is not.

---

So, freedom of religion is NOT the issue, You just want the right to discriminate against homosexuals.Do you have valid secular reasons why a minority frequently discriminated against and even persecuted should not be considered a protected class ?

quote:

---

Let's do the twist now. You're one of the best at it here.

---

Of course not. If homosexuals are not a protected class you have the right to discriminate against them. You want the law to say that homosexuals are not a protected class.If it were really a religious freedom issue you would need a legal reason based on religious freedom that would allow the courts to favour your view while disallowing the segregationist position, which is just as religious as yours. But you don't even try to offer one.You don't even offer a valid secular reason why homosexuals should not be considered a protected class which makes your position even less tenable.

quote:

---

I'm not interested in discriminating against homosexuals as I've said a million times already.

---

But you specifically suggested ending legal protection against discrimination.

quote:

---

I was giving a logical answer to your question,

---

It was a very revealing answer, but not especially logical. You might as well have said that there was no reason that the courts should apply. But that would be more openly conceding the point.

quote:

---

Here's another logical answer to the question: have a law declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman.

---

Which mean enshrining the discrimination you say you don't want in law. However, it is another answer which concedes the point.You've proven that religious freedom is not a relevant issue. Just as you've shown that the Bible does not support your position. You need to quit rationalising and start understanding yourself.

quote:

---

I really can't help wondering, though I'm pretty sure you'll stick to your guns, if any of you will have second thoughts when you realize how many Christians will be put out of business and perhaps even end up in prison over this.

---

Probably not many in the U.S.. After all those that live in a state that includes gays as a protected class just have to treat gays like everyone else. And let's not forget that Christians are also a protected class.I'd say that the real problem is the people kicking up hysteria over gay marriage.

quote:

---

One of the best-known theologians in the country just said during panel discussion that he hoped people would visit him in jail

---

I'd be surprised if many important theologians were well-known. Certainly not many that are presently living.

quote:

---

but still, the way the laws are going he knows all that has to happen is that someone will come to his church and ask what he thinks about gay rights and he'll tell them what the Bible says and be arrested. and other teachers I hear on the radio have been mentioning if only in passing, sometimes in the context of a Bible passage about persecution, how laws are being designed these days to make criminals of Christians. It's inevitable in most Christians' minds.

---

There's no criminalising of hate speech in the U.S. Nor are there any laws designed to target "Christians". There are a lot of "Christians" bitterly complaining that their privileges are being eroded, but why should they be entitled to special treatment ?This is a fine example of the attempts to whip up hysteria with falsehoods.

quote:

---

R.C. Sproul is about the biggest in the country at the moment

---

I've heard the name but I don't know how important he is as a theologian.But the big question. Is whether he's lying or just ignorant.

quote:

---

but I suppose the anti-Christian mentality doesn't keep up with these things.

---

What makes you think that you don't ?

quote:

---

He merely put into words what Bible-believers are feeling these days as we watch the gay marriage support spread and escalate.

---

Then the fact that it is untrue says a lot about you self-styled "Bible-believers"

quote:

---

So should I assume that if huge numbers of us "self-styled 'Bible believers'" are criminalized for our views of what the Bible says you won't have second thoughts, but take the position that we deserve it?

---

You should take it that lying about being persecuted is no way to get my support.

There is no law criminalising hate speechThe hate crime laws only provide for greater penalties for crimes motivated by hate.Freedom of religion protects belief absolutely. It does not convey immunity to the law for any act deemed to be religiously motivated.There is a strong tradition of freedom of speech that protects even hate speech.The only laws being complained about are those that compel businesses to serve homosexuals as they serve everyone else, and those only exist in some States of the U.S. These laws cannot be said to directly target Christians.The principle that such laws can override sincere religious beliefs is widely accepted - and Faith herself accepts it. Freedom of religion, therefore, is not an issue.The Bible directly says that the secular law should be followed, and if there is a Biblical case for overriding that prescription in the case of these laws it has not been adequately explained. To directly go against the Bible requires more than questionable inferences.Likewise Faith, when asked, provided no legal justification for permitting "Christians" to disobey the law or for the law to be set aside as unconstitutional. Instead, she merely said that the law should be changed to permit discrimination against homosexuals.Compare the reality against the claims made by Faith, and those like her and draw your own conclusions.