ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
You think that Jewish bakeries only sell unleavened bread during Passover week (the days of unleavened bread)?
Only the christian victimhood complex could come up with such insane hyperbole. Selling a cake to a homosexual is not the same thing as being forced to have sex with someone. I wish that you had at least an ounce of shame and you should be embarrassed for making such a comparison.
I don't know, I'm not Jewish. I know unleavened bread has significance during Passover. It occurred to me that avoiding yeast had a religious connection that would be important during Passover.
Only the christian victimhood complex could come up with such insane hyperbole. Selling a cake to a homosexual is not the same thing as being forced to have sex with someone. I wish that you had at least an ounce of shame and you should be embarrassed for making such a comparison.
It's a business transaction either way... How about if we take a bit of the emotional context out of it and instead of a prostitute, make it a massage therapist??
I don't know either, but the thought of a bakery with no yeast in it is kinda comical. Leavening has to be not just left out of all recipes, it has to be removed from the premises, completely. Leavening is representative of sin.
An interesting question that got asked.
Sally decides to go to Nevada and become a prostitute. She wants to go to college later on, and needs the money.
Sally, however, is black, and has traumatic memories of being racially discriminated against / abused / what-have-you by white men. So Sally decides she's not willing to have sex with white men - it's too personal, too painful.
Should the state force Sally to have sex with white men, against her will? Should the state force her to be sexually penetrated by the men who will re-awaken her trauma, or punish her if she doesn't want to?
Actually, that only applies to the person's home, not their place of business.
The physical contact of a massage, is not the same as that of intercourse. So it is emotional, it's also a hypothetical that likely never will be challenged.
Such hate!
Notice ladies and gentlemen we cannot simply have "Christians" engaging in hyperbole, they have to be "the christian victimhood complex"...
So much hate......
Not so. It was required to be removed from all of ones property.
"No leaven shall be seen of yours, and no leavening shall be seen of yours throughout all of your borders."
Even a stranger in your home or business is prohibited from consuming leavening, regardless of the fact that they didn't share the belief.
So there are exceptions to the rule that businesses have to accommodate their customers?? There are lines that can be established that can't be crossed?? This is the point of this whole thread. There are cases where a person's personal feelings are so strong that allowing the state to force them to do something that pushes them beyond those feelings is wrong. Selling a cake to someone who is in adultery may not cause the feelings as selling a cake to a homosexual. The state should never have the right to force someone into doing something that is that far outside of what they deem acceptable. Take the case of pacifists being drafted for military service. They were given a exclusion to that service. Would you feel that it's acceptable to force a pacifist to "kill or be killed"?
You're quoting Deut. 16:4, I was thinking of Ex. 12:19.
The term used in Deut. has several meanings, including "quarters". The term used in Exodus is one clearly indicating one's home. While the application of the term used in Deut. is one that is rarely used, it is the one definition that reconciles with Exodus. Also, keep in mind that Exodus was a poetic book, while Duet. was a very literal one.
Nobody should be forced to kill anybody. That you would compare baking and serving up a cake with killing people is funny. Also, US laws should not take into consideration the feelings of a religious group. You simply should not be permitted to freely discriminate against a person because of their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation, all three of which they are born into, and as such haven't a bit of control over. Whereas about everything else, including religion is a choice.
This is not a question about Sally, but about the State. Sally has been a prostitute for some time now, and discriminating all that time - should the state punish her for her discrimination or force her to have sex with white men?
It's not about the actions of the individual, but the actions of the State. For some people, the act of supporting a homosexual marriage may actually be more stressful than killing someone. Should the State have the right to force someone into doing something that violates their core beliefs?? Based on what this nations has done in the past, that answer is a resounding "NO!!". This is something that the left once fought for and now fights against (and that the right has embarrassingly dodged for far too long). Either that State has the right to force you violate your core beliefs or it doesn't. The scope of that belief is NOT up to you or me to decide, since it is ENTIRELY subjective.
Lol. The whole bible is comical to me, I put no stock in it. But I'll tell you what. Judaism is no different than Christianity when it comes to interpretation. Ask an orthodox Jew if he can sell leavened products from his business during the Days of Unleavened Bread and Passover.
It's not about the actions of the individual, but the actions of the State. For some people, the act of supporting a homosexual marriage may actually be more stressful than killing someone.
Likewise, if the prostitute refused to service a lesbian. If your business is providing sexual pleasure, surely you can't discriminate on sexual orientation grounds, can you?
An interesting question that got asked.
Sally decides to go to Nevada and become a prostitute. She wants to go to college later on, and needs the money.
Sally, however, is black, and has traumatic memories of being racially discriminated against / abused / what-have-you by white men. So Sally decides she's not willing to have sex with white men - it's too personal, too painful.
Should the state force Sally to have sex with white men, against her will? Should the state force her to be sexually penetrated by the men who will re-awaken her trauma, or punish her if she doesn't want to?
In general, Jews tend to be MUCH better at explaining controversial statements in their holy text than conservative Christians do. Seriously, you can't say ANYTHING polemic to a conservative Christian without their persecution complex kicking in. And before the CC's prove my point by accusing me of generalizing them, then fine, that only applies to 99.999% of them.
In general, Jews tend to be MUCH better at explaining controversial statements in their holy text than conservative Christians do. Seriously, you can't say ANYTHING polemic to a conservative Christian without their persecution complex kicking in. And before the CC's prove my point by accusing me of generalizing them, then fine, that only applies to 99.999% of them.
I forgot, you aren't ever serious. My apologies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?