Why Trump Will "Succeed"

Nope, it may not be, it’s dependent on the nature of the discrimination (broadest meaning of that word) - is it based on a good faith objection? Which circles us back to the beginning - it’s weighing the discrimination against the objection. And as much as a traditional Christian’s beliefs re: gay marriage might not suit your tastes, it isn’t conceived in “hetero” supremacy or anything sinister, and so there’s plenty of space to accommodate a good faith objection here without unduly burdening wedding cake seeking gay couples.

Nope, you want winners and, more importantly, you need and crave losers here. You know as well as I do the issue isn’t that gay couple’s needs for wedding services will go unmet without these laws. No couple that wins such a lawsuit is actually going to compel the making of the cake from the loser. The point is to create and shame the loser.

Fairness is fundamental to justice - but you don’t want fairness, you want victory.

More anecdotes from my neck of the world - friends and professional Democratic colleagues who are exasperated with the vacuity of the IP crowd and getting their antics hung around their necks in elections,

Hate could be viewed as a sin of sorts in a religion based on the principle of forgiveness.

God IS love.

God does not reflect.

Which begs the question of when can religious freedom be used as a defense since anyone can claim anything is contrary to their beliefs. And that’s the problem because it isn’t the actual doctrines of the religion but an individual’s interpretation that we are talking about. Can we just let people make up the rules of their religion as they go along?

And the state of Alabama.

Andrew Sullivan, read the whole thing, but in particular:

And so, if there are alternative solutions, like finding another baker, why force the point? Why take up arms to coerce someone when you can easily let him be — and still celebrate your wedding? That is particularly the case when much of the argument for marriage equality was that it would not force anyone outside that marriage to approve or disapprove of it. One reason we won that debate is because many straight people simply said to themselves, “How does someone else’s marriage affect me?” and decided on those grounds to support or acquiesce to such a deep social change. It seems grotesquely disingenuous now for the marriage-equality movement to bait and switch on that core “live and let live” argument.

3 Likes

I liked this too, TB:

“…If liberals were more liberal; and Christians more Christian; this case would never have existed. It tells you a great deal about the decadence of our culture that it does…”

4 Likes

You act as if ‘traditional Christian beliefs’ are timeless and immutable, which of course they aren’t. Mainline Christian churches used to countenance slavery, white supremacy/anti-miscegenation, subjugation of women and children, etc. So, eg, if this baker was a really traditional Christian, he might in good faith object to making a cake for an interracial couple. Does that pass your ‘good faith’ sniff test? Would the “nature of the discrimination” be OK with you in that instance?

Further, this notion of ‘traditional Christian values’ is, in many respects, chimerical. A number of mainline protestant churches now not only endorse same-sex marriage, they perform them. So from their (good faith) point of view, this baker is theologically in error. How many churches would have to bless (if you’ll pardon the expression) the act of same-sex marriage before objecting to it on religious grounds would morph into a bad-faith act per you?

Finally, I am at a loss as to how you can claim to know that the source of these discriminatory attitudes came from a place of “good faith.” Frankly, I find the concept theologically perverse.

This is an unsupportable, irrational and frankly insulting statement on your part. You don’t know me, much less what I “want.” I would appreciate it if you would refrain from this sort of personal nonsense henceforth.

That would a ‘no,’ then.

No, I don’t. But even if I did, it’s irrelevant.

Nope, and asked and answered. There is no comparison to race. I have no interest in copying and pasting what I already addressed on this. Moreover, as @Aragorn noted, your attempt to tie the kind of racism your talking about to a religious belief was a swing and a miss.

It seems every rebuttal you have is to equate what blacks faced in America as the same thing. No way. Not even close.

Ok, so? Irrelevant. The point is not about rightness,or wrongness of theology, but whether we allow the freedom to have and exercise a given belief. Whether some some mainline Protestant churches think the traditionalist baker is “theologically in error” has nothing to do with anything we’re talking about.

Ok, no problem - then don’t attend that church and worship how you feel led by your heart. But let others who believe differently do the same - in the name of tolerance and diversity.

No, it isn’t - only question with respect to the law: what public purpose does it serve? There’s no debate it isn’t to allow currently denied access to private service that are unavailable because of discrimination. Well, then what’s the point? Process of elimination - it’s to humiliate the offender.

That isn’t an insult, there’s nothing personal about it. It’s deduction. The goal is to make an example out of the unacceptable thinking on the part of the baker. You want a loser here. That’s a fact, not a slight.

I’m not sure there’s any polling on this, but I’ll take a look. In the meantime, I’ll continue to report in my observations as I see 'em.

2 Likes

Well, being black isn’t the same as being gay. Very different motivations behind the refusal to do business (i.e. it’s comparing apples to oranges - if you can make a case that it’s apples to apples I’d be interested to hear it - no sarcasm).

My answer would be the same, however.

Logic hasn’t changed just because the person happens to be black in this scenario - one does not, nor should they, have the right to another person’s labor strictly because they wandered into their store.

1 Like

I would argue that the motivation is the same: hate and ignorance.

And this deserves an additional reply. This may blow your mind, but two people can disagree on a subject, even vehemently, and both can still be reaching their respective conclusions in good faith. Good faith does not mean reaching the “correct” conclusion and lack of good faith is the reason a person is reaching a “bad” or “incorrect” conclusion.

Candidly, though, and this isn’t personal by any stretch, but this is exactly the problem with so much of ‘liberal’ thinking today. ‘Liberals’ simply can’t fathom that anyone would ever think differently from them, especially on social issues, without it being because of some impure or sinister motive. Just can’t be.

It’s a very wrong turn of Liberalism, but the turn has been made nonetheless. But all this is another thread, really.

4 Likes

You are taking a position based on tribalism. You could easily insert any person whose thinking is filtered through some ideology for liberal. I would include you after reading your post.

1 Like

Well, no, I’m not talking about conclusions, I’m talking about the process by which people reach them. That’s what good faith is about, regardless of ideology.

You said that liberals can’t fathom that others might disagree with them. That’s a condition that all tribalists suffer from.

Haven’t they always done this? The Catholic Church has been changing it’s mind on the rules of the religion for forever. So have other religions.

Might not have been official rule changes but evangelical Christians had no trouble supporting someone who is not religious (despite trying his best with pretending like he knew the Bible) narcissistic beyond belief, and a foul mouthed sexual predator who has a history of talking about wanting to bang his daughter.

Religious people have never had a problem changing their rules and never will. It’s what makes it so good. Something comes out that you like or don’t like and it doesn’t fit with current religious beliefs. Just change that shit and move on. Got more important things to think about like tax exempt status for Joel Osteen’s pyramid schemes.

Apparently, it’s time for me to retreat to my padded cell for a while and cool off. Apologies to anyone offended by the profanity in the (since withdrawn) comment above.

I’ll be back when I can behave myself like a big boy.

1 Like

You mean the Hebrew and Greek texts that say in at least five places that homosexuality is a sin? Kind of hard to re-interpret that. If the readers of those texts believe they are the words of immortal God… don’t expect the scriptures to soften over time.

I didn’t see it before you deleted it, but no worries in any event. Sounds like tequila and PWI on a Saturday night got the best of you. :wink:

2 Likes

It’s one thing for a Church to change or reinterpret its beliefs but I’m talking about individuals who claim to follow some doctrine coming up with their own interpretations.