Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

I took it as an implication. That everyone who doesn't like a law, should be able to ignore or change the law. Everyone, means the state should control everything, if you want the state to over ride local or individual beliefs and ordinances.

Where it's been shown, its not the state, but the city. And you want a larger enforcer, to override local enforcement. Especially, if you disagree.
The business could move outside the city limits. But if the state were to enforce something, then the business must go outside the state limits. And if the fed gov't takes up the issue, then the business must go outside the country.

 

same was true of those against inter-racial marriage

they just want them to sell them what they advertised as for sale to the general public, in this case a wedding cake

 

Can you provide one single example of a business that has adopted a 'no gays allowed' policy?

 

States give marriage licenses. They recognize those license as legal contracts. So the state should not discriminate, and can not discriminate on those contracts.

By denying services they would any other marriage. Simply because they don't like the couple for who they want to marry. Based on the sex of those people.
A marriage, is a marriage, is a marriage. According to the state.

I was a very deep Christian not so long ago. And I was very discriminatory as well. Since I dropped the church BS christianity, I no longer abide by the unchristian rules churches tried to spout.

 

No, same as I can't give an example off the top of my head of a no black policy either.
But, they existed. It's why we have civil rights laws.

There had been in the not so distant past, cases of people being fired for being gay. Killed for being gay. Ridiculed for being gay.

So, did one post a sign, saying gays not allowed? I bet there was, but I can't give an example.

 

Is a bakery classified as a private business? Why do you continue to avoid answering this question? Is it because you don't want to admit that it is actually a private business? I think so!

Should this be enforced by law? Do you think that the current Public Accommodation laws don't go far enough? Do you think that it should be illegal to refuse service to anyone?

Matthew 7:1 is not saying that we cannot be critical of people. Are you critical of racists? I certainly am.

 

can you show one business with a 'no blacks allowed' policy

no, cause people know it's wrong in their hearts and minds..... they just don't care

why do you defend discrimination against gays?

 

never said it was, I am saying the business judging the gays are being judged, that is true - not smart for a business

denying people service based on their race or gender is more then just being critical

"Is a bakery classified as a private business?"

nope, it's a business open to the general public, do you deny that? if they want to make it a private business closed to the general public, they can though

 

I do distinctly remember gays only bars.
And do you know why there were gays only bars? Hint: It wasn't because they wanted to discriminate against non gays.

 

Nope. If you read my post properly, you would know that I asked you, "what is "art" then in your eyes?" Do you actually have an answer for this?

I certainly don't, which is why I'm glad that it never happens! And are you under the impression that these wedding services business owners say "your kind is not served here?"

Wouldn't it still be wrong for them to discriminate on the basis of a protected Characteristic?

 

it does happen, so you agree, discrimination of gays should not be allowed

intra-gender discrimination is as wrong as inter-racial discrimination - but we allow it for private members only businesses as they are not pretending to be open to the general public, they let the public know they discriminate, they do not try to hide it so they can harass customers and deny them service

 

Do you then throw out John 3:16 as a lie, too? Because that verse clearly implies that it is faith alone which saves you and not works. By your fruits means that if you are a Christian, you will do good works, but doing good works is not enough to save you. It only shows what you are, it doesn't create what you are. Doing good works doesn't make you a Christian, doing good works shows that you are a Christian. Being a Christian is something that occurs in your mind and in your heart, not in the works of your hands, "lest any man boast".

 

So you would let homosexuals out of the closet and push Christians into it. "You can be a Christian, just don't let anyone know it."

 

nope, Christians can be Christians, they just can't discriminate if they run a business open to the general public, they have to serve everyone regardless of race, gender or religion

 

Not sure if you have reading comprehension issues - or if you just did not read my post (which quotes Jesus directly) but, It is not my fault that the teachings of Jesus in Matt/Mark contradict Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith Alone).

You completely avoid discussion of the specific passages I quoted in relation to salvation "only those who do the will of the Father". What is the "Will of the Father" according to Jesus in the Sermon on the mount.
Further - there is a reason why the majority of Christianity does not accept Sola Fide.

There are a number of problems with John 3:16 and your interpretation of that passage.

1) Your interpretation of this passage contradicts the the teachings of Jesus in Matt/Mark. This passage could easily be interpreted to mean "belief in the teachings of Jesus will yield eternal life". From a textual criticism perspective - the reading in quotes would then be preferred.

2) Citing one ambiguous passage - against an entire sermon which is dealing directly with the subject of obtaining passage through the pearly gates - hardly qualifies as a rebuttle. Your interpretation also goes against Matt 25 - sheep and goats parable where those who "have faith" but do no good works do not get in. Your interpretation also goes against James 2 (which is in keeping with the teachings of the Jesus of Matt/Mark.

3) Then there is the problem of interpolation/ artistic licence (aka pious fraud). John was written many decades after Mark - and after the destruction of the Temple. Christianity at the time was dominated by Pauline Christianity and the Church of Jerusalem had all but dissappeared. The Church at the time was very anti Jewish - as is the Gospel of John (unlike Matt/Mark).

The author of John hellenistic pauline fusion work. A work which is trying to appeal to a Pauline (Greek - Gentile ) audience.

4) (3) assumes that John 3:16 was originally part of John 3. The Bible itself footnoot's John 3:16 (and what comes after) as believed at least by some Biblical Scholars to have been a later addition (interpolation). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NRSV

Regardless of 3/4 - the fact remains that your interpretation of this passage contradicts the Jesus of Matt/Mark.

 

Homosexuality doesn't fall into any of those three categories. And my point remains, you would push Christians into the closet, i.e., not allow them to express their Christianity in a public way, by, for example, refusing to participate in gay marriages. There is a serious argument going on in universities over religious organizations on campus and whether they should continue to be "allowed" to operate because they discriminate... on religious grounds. They don't allow those who are not of the same religion to join their organizations. (Shocking!) This is the kind of bullshit I see coming down the pike from those who believe that gay rights trump the 1st Amendment. You all have a religion, and it's called secular humanism, and those who refuse to bow down and worship it will be made pariahs and excommunicated from all public involvement, like getting a job or running a business. I'm an atheist, but I say **** secular humanism and those who would make the state God. So, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war." Good luck in your quest to make the government actually abide by the 1st Amendment.

 

So short answer, yes, you reject John 3:16. Bizarre. Personally, when I was a believer, I rejected the book of James as being outside of the mainstream of the rest of the New Testament. Anyone who relies on the book of James for his theology necessarily has to throw out 3/4 or more of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John and all of Paul's writings. And since Peter accepted the apostleship of Paul as legitimately coming from Jesus/God, you undercut nearly all of the rest of the New Testament by doing so. It's curious that in Galatians, Peter acts as a middleman between James in Jerusalem and Paul among the Greeks, but in the end, he realizes that Paul has the better argument and that James is wrong. In any case, taking the Sermon on the Mount as the only evidence that Jesus ever gave regarding his own status is ignoring a substantial number of passages within the canonical gospels. Mark 8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. (Jesus does not dispute it.) Matthew 10:32-33 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Note no mention of works in this verse.) Luke 12:8-10 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. (Clearly Jesus is saying he will be the one who decides who gets into heaven, and it's based on confession, not works.) Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (Here Jesus implies that not only are good works unnecessary, but evil works will be forgiven and not keep you out of Heaven.) So your theology is on very shaky grounds.

 

I think that it is wrong, but I don't think that there should be a law which says that businesses can't do it. This is because there is no NEED for the law because businesses don't discriminate in 2018! All that ends up happening is religious wedding service business owners get caught up in it, even though they are not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation!

For the second time you have failed to answer my question: Are you under the impression that these wedding services business owners say "your kind is not served here?"

Do you think that a bakery can become a private club?

 

well we disagree then, I think there should be laws to prevent businesses from deceiving the public like that

just become a private members only business, problem solved, do not pretend to be open to the general public if your not

yes, I think they SHOULD become a private club in fact

if they refuse them service, yes, they are not serving their kind there

 

OR political beliefs, right? Remember, you said that they should serve racists.

 

yes even political beliefs imo - though that is not a race or gender discrimination, I agree they should serve anyone that has the money - if they do not want to do that - become a private members only club

I do not think Muslim taxi drivers should be able to refuse people with beer in their sacks, or pharmacists can refuse to fill valid prescriptions either, or hand our marriage applications, ect...

just do their job, stop trying to use their position to force their religion or political agenda on people by denying people service

 

So these laws are not about protecting minorities?

Again, do you think that a bakery CAN become a private club?

So then why are they happy to serve gay people all of the time?

 

nope, the laws are about business not deny people service based on their race or gender - people do not want to almost be out of gas and find the gas station doesn't serve their kind

 

if they were, they would not be in this situation, they are denying them service, that is why we are having this discussion

 

I did not reject John - I merely stated some of the issues with your interpretation of the passage and the passage in general. Who knows .. perhaps John is correct and Matt/Mark are wrong.

As expected you talk over my post and completely ignore the scripture posted and the main argument = John 3:16 contradicts the Jesus of Mark/Matt.

You then spout some nonsensical gibberish about Peter accepting Paul's apostleship as "coming from Jesus" followed by making up meaning that does not exist in the blasphemy passage.

You cling to "Luke" which was written very late yet reject Mark, Matthew and James.

In short - what a joke of a post replete with avoidance and denial.