The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Beeblebrox237]

Yep, blame it on religion when there are plenty peaceful religious people who mean no harm. Typical Liberal mindset.

Yep, blame liberals for defacing religion when there are plenty of extremist religious people who mean harm. Typical conservative mindset.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The masses follow the bible. The bible says gays are bad. So yes. The masses of at least Christians are against gays

That's two huge assumptions. I don't know very many Christians, if any, that follow the Bible to the letter. The most religious people I know are also some the most understanding, forgiving and generous people I know. I think we need to separate the rhetoric we hear in the media from those pushing their own political agenda, on all sides, from the people on the ground, just living their lives and trying to get by every day. I'm not an expert in religious matters, but I would think that a truly devout Christian could easily make a case for wanting to do business with gay people, if only to become a part of their lives and bring them closer to Christ.

I wonder if they ever ask themselves, "If Jesus was a baker instead of a carpenter, would he bake a cake for a sinner?".

 

[squadops]

Typical liberal mindsets; Islam is a religion of peace, only a few extremists give it a bad name. Christianity is a religion of gay bashing, only a few non extremists are an exception.

 

[BradTC12]

Yep, blame liberals for defacing religion when there are plenty of extremist religious people who mean harm. Typical conservative mindset.

Haha, yeah I sure see Christians beheading people and burning people alive. Many religions are peaceful. Just because a few are extremist, doesn't mean you need to get rid of religion all together.

 

[Aki Ko]

I don't know very many Christians, if any, that follow the Bible to the letter.

As someone who lives in the "Bible belt", the fact of the matter is that very few Christians follow the Bible to the absolute letter. Some may follow this or that, but I've never heard of one who follows the Bible completely. Hell, the church always likes to go over certain sayings multiple times. It's nothing but repetition on what they want you to hear.

But I have no judgment on people with certain beliefs. That's their choice. What I do have an issue with is how they choose to act when it comes to other innocent individuals.

The most religious people I know are also some the most understanding, forgiving and generous people I know.

They can be. Others... not so much. It all varies on the individual, especially with their mindset and their type of belief.

 

[nascarfan1400]

That's two huge assumptions. I don't know very many Christians, if any, that follow the Bible to the letter. The most religious people I know are also some the most understanding, forgiving and generous people I know. I think we need to separate the rhetoric we hear in the media from those pushing their own political agenda, on all sides, from the people on the ground, just living their lives and trying to get by every day. I'm not an expert in religious matters, but I would think that a truly devout Christian could easily make a case for wanting to do business with gay people, if only to become a part of their lives and bring them closer to Christ.

I wonder if they ever ask themselves, "If Jesus was a baker instead of a carpenter, would he bake a cake for a sinner?".

I'm not saying there can't be nice religious people. Again though, the vast majority.

I'm not trying to attack people who are religious. You don't have to agree with LGBT people but discrimination is wrong regardless of your belief

 

[Aki Ko]

I'm not saying there can't be nice religious people. Again though, the vast majority.

Who is the vast majority you keep speaking of? There's different types of Christians, ya know. Which state? What percentage makes up the vast majority?

 

[nascarfan1400]

Who is the vast majority you keep speaking of? There's different types of Christians, ya know. Which state? What percentage makes up the vast majority?

From the East US I can only say 10% are accepting, 20% don't mind it, and 60% do not accept it. From those I've met. The last 10% are lgbt themselves. So yes, 40% of those I have heard of or know accept it, but 60 dont

 

[Aki Ko]

From the East US I can only say 10% are accepting, 20% don't mind it, and 60% do not accept it. From those I've met. The last 10% are lgbt themselves. So yes, 40% of those I have heard of or know accept it, but 60 dont

Well, there's your reason. Those are the ones you've met so far. There's a whole bunch of other people to consider instead of generalizing the entire masses.

 

[nascarfan1400]

Well, there's your reason. Those are the ones you've met so far. There's a whole bunch of other people to consider instead of generalizing the entire masses.

Yes, Yes, Okay. But from so many religious ive met, and formerly being on the fence on LGBT myself, religion has had made a bad impression on me.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Haha, yeah I sure see Christians beheading people and burning people alive. Many religions are peaceful. Just because a few are extremist, doesn't mean you need to get rid of religion all together.

Someone needs to stop taking everything so seriously.

 

[Jahgee]

This thread has no chill

 

[Joel]

Christianity: Serious problem or alternative lifestyle?

 

[LeMansAid]

Christianity: Serious problem or alternative lifestyle?

Hehe. If you really were a noob, you wouldn't even know that, to reference it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, Yes, Okay. But from so many religious ive met, and formerly being on the fence on LGBT myself, religion has had made a bad impression on me.

There's a difference though between what someone says in conversation and what they do in their business. All kinds of people believe in all kinds of things in their home, in personal conversations, but it doesn't mean it translates to their business. I'd guess that few people who have feelings on this matter would actually turn away a paying customer, regardless of what they say around the dinner table. These laws in support of religious freedoms have been on the books since Clinton was POTUS with the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It passed both the House and the Senate with only 3 dissenting votes. Obama voted for similar legislation in 1998 in Indiana.

 

[Epic B]

Obama voted for similar legislation in 1998 in Indiana.

You mean Bush right?

 

[BradTC12]

You mean Bush right?

Actually Clinton did.

 

[squadops]

It was Obama(if it was in Illinois).

 

[Epic B]

It was Obama(if it was in Illinois).

Oh. Never mind then. I thought he meant the president.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh. Never mind then. I thought he meant the president.

I did mean the President, but yes it was Illinois not Indiana, my mistake. State Senator Obama.

 

[Epic B]

I did mean the President, but yes it was Illinois not Indiana, my mistake. State Senator Obama.

Okay.

 

[squadops]

Your post made perfect sense to me but I'll line it out to see how the laws have gone 👍

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into federal law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, the bill passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 97 to 3.(bipartisan consensus I'd say)

The power of God is such that even in the legislative process, miracles can happen

Here it is...
http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/rfra-act.html

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

• 
  (a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

• 
  (b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--

• 
  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

• 
  (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

• 
  (c) Judicial Relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Here is a clip from the Alabama State Law and the reason it was created, similarly 20 other states have followed suit.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/constitution/1901/CA-170364.htm

Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C., § 2000bb, to establish the compelling interest test set forth in prior federal court rulings, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional stating that the right to regulate was retained by the states.

SECTION III. The purpose of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is to guarantee that the freedom of religion is not burdened by state and local law; and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious freedom is burdened by government.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS

Alabama Ala. Const. Art. I, §3.01
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. §41-1493.01
Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-571b
Florida Fla. Stat. §761.01, et seq.
Idaho Idaho Code §73-402
Illinois Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 775, §35/1, et seq.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama did vote for a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It passed the Illinois Senate 56-0 and became law on July 1, 1998.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rack-obama-vote-religious-freedom-restoratio/

Indiana 2015 SB 101, enacted March 26, 2015
Kansas Kan. Stat. §60-5301, et seq.
Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. §446.350
Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. §13:5231, et seq.
Mississippi Miss. Code §11-61-1
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §1.302
New Mexico N.M. Stat. §28-22-1, et seq.
Oklahoma Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §251, et seq.
Pennsylvania Pa. Stat. tit. 71, §2403
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §42-80.1-1
South Carolina S.C. Code §1-32-10, et seq.
Tennessee Tenn. Code §4-1-407
Texas Tex. Civ. Prac. & Remedies Code §110.003
Virginia Va. Code §57-1

As you can see, the latest uproar is a bit silly seeing as all of these state laws basically mimic the Federal Law which passed unilaterally by a huge margin. There is no need for left vs right or fear mongering over future abuse of a law that's been in existence for 20 years.

Edited in Obama and The Illinois law.

 

[Daniel]

Yes, Yes, Okay. But from so many religious ive met, and formerly being on the fence on LGBT myself, religion has had made a bad impression on me.

It may be because of your location. I went to a Catholic primary and high school, and while there was casual homophobia everywhere [hagay.jpg] but anyone who actually was gay never really had any problems (as far as I know).

The lovely indoctrination from the teachers wasn't very supportive though. :c

 

[IforceV8]

This article written by a Indiana trial lawyer explains this mess. https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.co...storation-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

 

[Rich S]

This article written by a Indiana trial lawyer explains this mess. https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.co...storation-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

Can an employer fire a employee who refuses to serve gays? This is the question. Can large corporations fire an employee or a share holder who wishes to not cater to those he doesn't believe in religously. What if the employee's views come into personal conflict with the business owners or business policy itself?

Can these employees still be fired under this?

If so than we can probably get away with this "Act" without it causing undo harm to the GLBT crowd. If not then there's a problem as businesses are being restricted from hiring those they want or dont want. That would essentially make the "ACT" or legislation an anti-capitalist piece of work as I think the majority wouldn't want to do business with someone who does such a thing, and a business owner who cant unload un-ruly employees would be screwed.

 

[Liquid]

If I can add something positive to the thread, I went to watch a football game in Vienna last Friday and at half time the supporters all displayed coloured balloons in an imitation of the rainbow flag as a sign of anti-homophobia in football. This stand for the home fans did it as did the opposite stand of away fans

The green banner says Homophobie an die Kurve kicken (Kick homophobia to the curb), the pink banner to the left of the goal says Lieb doch wen du willst (Just love whom you want) and another one said Liebe hat kein Geschlecht (Love has no gender).

There are about six different football teams in Vienna and one of them has had a growing problem with neo Nazis and specifically with homophobic fans, so it was nice to see the rest of them campaigning in this manner. They talked about it on the PA at half time too and all 7,500 of us were in support of the demonstration. Lovely to see in a sport as popular and potentially powerful as football.

One of the best sights I've seen for a long time, even if my photo doesn't quite catch the blue and violet.

 

[GT40_427]

Can an employer fire a employee who refuses to serve gays? This is the question. Can large corporations fire an employee or a share holder who wishes to not cater to those he doesn't believe in religously. What if the employee's views come into personal conflict with the business owners or business policy itself?

Can these employees still be fired under this?

If so than we can probably get away with this "Act" without it causing undo harm to the GLBT crowd. If not then there's a problem as businesses are being restricted from hiring those they want or dont want. That would essentially make the "ACT" or legislation an anti-capitalist piece of work as I think the majority wouldn't want to do business with someone who does such a thing, and a business owner who cant unload un-ruly employees would be screwed.

The question I have is if these same people who would use this law to refuse service would also refuse service to liars, adulterers, people who don't accept Jesus Christ as the lord and savior. Somehow I don't think they would.

Where I do think the law becomes necessary is in specific cases like this - http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judge-authorizes-personal-ruin-for-florist/ - where the florist didn't want to provide flowers for a gay wedding. It would seem that the person requesting this was simply looking for a lawsuit and got one, and was allowed to sue the business owner out of her life savings, home and livelihood.

Another question I have is if a business owner refuses service, why is it so hard to just go to another business who doesn't try to apply their beliefs and will gladly help them?

Regardless, should the first amendment which protects the right to free expression of religious beliefs, not be upheld over hurting someone's fragile feelings?

Tolerance is a two-way street.

 

[IforceV8]

Can an employer fire a employee who refuses to serve gays? This is the question. Can large corporations fire an employee or a share holder who wishes to not cater to those he doesn't believe in religously. What if the employee's views come into personal conflict with the business owners or business policy itself?

Can these employees still be fired under this?

If so than we can probably get away with this "Act" without it causing undo harm to the GLBT crowd. If not then there's a problem as businesses are being restricted from hiring those they want or dont want. That would essentially make the "ACT" or legislation an anti-capitalist piece of work as I think the majority wouldn't want to do business with someone who does such a thing, and a business owner who cant unload un-ruly employees would be screwed.

It looks like Sec 11 cover that based on the comments, refusal to do you job gives you the right to go find another job at the hate bakery were only "their" kind is allowed.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I think a business owner should be able to choose who they do and do not do business with.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service"

I don't see the big deal. If I can't get my gay wedding catered by, or photographed by Such And Such, Catering Co./Photography, there are plenty of competing companies that will be happy to take my business.

And, do I really want a company that does not want to serve me, but is being forced by law to serve me, to actually serve me?

I don't think so.

 

[DCP]

1 Corinthians 6
On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…

I understand people have different beliefs, but the God of the Bible makes it quite clear that homosexuality is an abomination. It's clear that one cannot be a homosexual Christian, and still expect to get to heaven.

The bible says in the beginning, God made them both MALE and FEMALE.
Most diseases etc come from such things, as it is a plague. Aids and HIV etc come from this behaviour.
Even with the animals, you will never see males mate. It's clear, they were made male and female.

If one chooses not to believe in God, then the above means nothing to them, but the reality is, there is a price to pay for such sin, just as a criminal will pay for his crime before a judge in court. We were not put on Earth to get away with evil nasty deeds. These crimes are punishable, one way or the other.