Why the backlash against Indiana and not other states with similar laws? Timing.

You are so wrong! American Indians have a LONG history of treating homosexual people with great respect.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america

 

Pot meet kettle. Both sides do this and I call it standing upon principle. What is an obstructionist to one will be a principled person to another.

Indeed and our country was purposely founded on a idea that the minority is protected by and from the majority. Mob rules is grand if you are part of the mob, but not so great if you are not. Mob rules is not freedom, its tyranny at a social level.

 

As I pointed out, it refers to homosexual acts, not homosexuality as a sexual orientation - which was not understood at the time the bible was written. The story of Lott clearly had nothing to do with sexual orientation, for example.

(In fact, the story of Lott includes God blessing sexual acts that are clearly declared as capital crime in the Bible. Does that not suggest we should exercise a degree of tolerance as well?)


As to your last sentence, I don't see any significant limitation in the Indiana law on what Indiana laws Christians may ignore.

 

http://bluenationreview.com/breaking-georgia-puts-anti-gay-right-discriminate-bill-hold/

 

It's not ONE person, it's a vast majority! Or do you mean.... like imposing the 2-3% of "gay morality" on the other 90% is fine, but .....? BS. Your frikkin "gay morality" argument is complete BS. Or have you forgotten, life & liberty apply to the other 90+% too???

 

You are attempting to apply your modern terminology to ancient scripture and failing miserably at it.

 

Divisive, discriminatory laws are being hyped by one hardcore special ideological interest organisation:

ALEC cannot be allowed to stay in the closet.

 

Your claim is that this is a case of same sex orientation. But, it is clearly NOT that as choice is indicated - "their women exchanged ...". Same sex orientation is not a matter of choice. Homosexuals don't "exchange" their orientation. There is no indication that these individuals in the Bible were forming relationships that had the characteristics of marriage as found in every Christian denomination today - fidelity, mutual support, love, permanence, respect, etc.

We have cases of what is discussed in your Biblical passage, too. Prison sex is an example. But, nobody believes those participants are same sex oriented or are interested in permanent relationships with their partners.

 

Homosexuality among Amerindians played no special part in most tribes. Since there was no written laws by these cultures, revisionist historians will infer anything they want.

https://books.google.com/books?id=d...native americans tortured homosexuals&f=false

 

Again you are attempting to apply your terminology and it fails every time with scripture that is thousands of years old.

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing in the Bible about ANY race or gender being wrong or a sin.

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

However, it does specifically mention homosexuality. You are trying to make it a blanket issue when it's NOT.

 

A dumb attempt at analogy. Almost as poor as gay rights extremists hyjacking the civil rights movement...not quite...but close.

 

?? This IS a civil rights case! What the heck did YOU think it was about?

This issue is about the civil rights of same sex oriented people (not even necessarily citizens) in America.

 

Case law and court decisions make your position illegal now. It's no longer 1790.

 

The US is not a theocracy, and being homosexual is not a sin under any religious strictures.

A baker licensed to do business with the public has every right to deny customers' engaging in sexual acts, homosexual or heterosexual, on his premises; he does not have the right to refuse to serve the public for whatever prejudices he is afflicted by - either a homosexual baker discriminating against heterosexual customers or the reverse.

Business is business. It's not a venue for discrimination.

 

Who are the gay people hurting? Nobody.

Who is this legalized discrimination going to hurt? Gays and possibly many others.

Can't you see the difference?

 

You have no right to force anyone to go against their Christian belief.

In the US we have this thing called the Constitution, it's why we bounced the British out of our country all the way across the Atlantic Ocean.

We have religious freedom in our country. The Bible doesn't mention race or gender, it does however specifically mention homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Because our Constitutionally protected belief make some folks feel icky, well that's just too bad.

 

It is amusing to see those who applaud discrimination against homosexual Americans whining about free-market capitalism under which corporations are free to decide where they wish to invest and where they refuse to for whatever reasons they independently decide.

What a country where taking a moral stance is conducive to profit!

 

No religion, Christianity included, has any doctrinal injunctions against baking cakes, and the religion-card can't be shamelessly played as an excuse for discrimination.

 

"My terminology"?? I'm using the English language, which is admittedly not the language of the Bible - which comes to us through many translations between languages and even variation within languages. Look at the large number of English language versions! So, my argument doesn't have to do with the language - it has to do with the events that are described in the Bible. And, there really isn't much variation in the events themselves.

And, yes, we've made advances in science since 1ad. And, we've advanced in other ways. Look how significantly our view of women differs from that of the Bible!

If God can bless Lott's sex crimes, how can we justify taking a hard line interpretation that we know from science is wrong and use that as the basis for discriminating against our fellow Americans?

You want this to be about me, but the catch is that not even the Pope agrees with you. This is really about you and your hard line and hurtful discrimination.

 

That argument has already been debunked. The case being described is clearly not that of sexual orientation.

 

Jesus' message was in favor of helping the Samaritan as well as the harlot.

God's message was to bless Lott's incest.

Your message simply does not measure up.

And, yes, the judgement of your religious beliefs has become an issue for the courts of Indiana.

Indiana is not going to allow you to simply ignore any law you want to claim is counter to your religion. So, the Indiana courts will need to examine your religion to determine whether you have a legitimate complaint.

This is one of the factors that killed the AZ law that was written to excuse the breaking of laws by those who claimed it was counter to their religion.

 

And it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus. Because it was illegal for her to sit in that particular seat, there was no reason for anyone to talk about any alternatives.

Because no one is allowed to talk about any alternatives that go against the status qou.

 

Not Discrimination, just the religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Being Black isn't prohibited in the Bible, being Latino isn't prohibited in the Bible, being Asian isn't prohibited in the Bible, being female isn't prohibited in the Bible..............

There is nothing in the Bible about ANY race or gender being wrong or a sin.

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

However, it does specifically mention homosexuality. You are trying to make it a blanket issue when it's NOT. It is my protected RIGHT. The fact you don't like it is just too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

However, it does specifically mention homosexuality. You are trying to make it a blanket issue when it's NOT. It is my protected RIGHT. The fact you don't like it is just too bad.

 

OMG! Here comes the word "Bigotry" once again! ...hey libs! ...that word/catch phrase is getting old...also it's being very diluted in meaning!!

 

Okay...so your version of GODS word happens to mention that a man should not lay with another man as he would with a woman...then goes on to say you should not eat shellfish, wear mixed clothing, eat pig or cow, and it's fine to sell your daughter...yet THIS is a big deal?

Their book says blacks are cursed by their God....why are you right while they are wrong?