Your use of the word "campaign" is inappropriate. Churches have doctrine and that has been plain for centuries.
What line do you see that needs to be drawn?
Seems pretty clear.
Then you shouldnt have used it in your claim that I was uninformed re: such things occuring in the past.
And as a more general term, it actually does work...that's why I explained more detail, even in my last post....so you'd be able to support your claim and show me how uninformed I am.
Adultery is a better discussion. Generally those denominations most accepting of gay marriage are also those most likely to consecrate marriages between parties who have been divorced. The denominations most opposed to gay marriage are also those least accepting of marriages between divorced parties. Thus, all are generally being true to their convictions.
We'll see. I suspect resistance will concentrate on those services whose provision would require the provider to participate in the conscience-offending activity. A wedding planner, for example, or a caterer asked to provide servers.
hmm really are you sure about that?
Evangelicals are more likely to be divorced than the average American—even Americans who claim no religion.
This unexpected claim comes from an unexpected source: three researchers at Baylor University.
Jerry Park, Joshua Tom, and Brita Andercheck report that about 17 percent of white conservative Protestants and 16 percent of black Protestants are divorced, compared to 14 percent of all Americans.
They point to the research of demographers Jennifer Glass and Philip Levchak, who argue that the evangelical encouragement to marry young and have more babies, along with discouragement to obtain higher education, is to blame. A strong evangelical presence increases divorce rates across the board, Glass reported.
"The common conservative argument that strong religion leads to strong families does not hold up," stated Park, Tom, and Andercheck in their February 4 report for the Council of Contemporary Families.
However, Bradford Wilcox, sociology professor at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, disagrees.
"The claim … that religion doesn't help marriage is bunk," he said. "In terms of people being integrated into a religious community—be it Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish—there is a strong correlation between the couple's integration and marital quality."
Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage? | Christianity Today
Instead of carving out protections for one group or another, all that needs to be done is have Congress apply the accommodation laws to a limited number of businesses like hospitals, restaurants, hotel/motels, gas stations etc. and exempt business owners. Those businesses who are in remote areas should be under accommodation laws to ensure everyone in that area could not be denied.
According to the most remote towns in this country, the top ten have multiple listings for bakeries. Even the most remote, which is Barrow, AK.
Top 10 Remote Small Towns
I think that is all that needs to be said and makes the wheels on the gay agenda bus go flat.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if people were indeed given license to discriminate against serving the people they felt they should not have to do business with.
They would apply for a different type of business license and then be required to post the group(s) they do not want to serve in a publicly visible place, just like 'no shoes, no shirt, no service.' Like, "we dont serve women here.' Or 'we dont serve Jews here." Or 'we dont serve gays here.' Or 'we dont serve blacks here.'
That would be perfectly legal with that type of business license. Then we could see if society in general would support these businesses or not. The fewer businesses with similar services/products in competition in an area would affect this as well but I'd be willing to bet people would go out of their way to avoid such businesses if they disagreed with what was posted. I know I would. I do it now regarding 'no guns allowed' signs even when not carrying.
One part of the law could dependent upon the Judges leaning rule in favor of a person refusing service to gays.Discrimination? How so?
Moore sent last-minute instructions Sunday night to Alabama's probate judges, ordering them to ignore a federal ruling that made their state the 37th to allow same-sex marriages, in favor of a state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
As the same-sex marriage issue takes center stage -- the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring -- Moore's move could turn him into the target, as he was in 2003. Supporters of same-sex marriage have long called it a human rights issue and Moore's criticism of this federal ruling recalls southern resistance to civil rights developments decades ago.
Discrimination? How so?
The Indiana law has a potentially lower threshold – “likely to be substantially burdened” — while the Texas law also made clear that the RFRA does not trump existing civil rights law: “Except as provided in Subsection (b), this chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution under a federal or state civil rights law.”
Moreover, Indiana (unlike many other states, including Illinois) does not have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, though there are gay rights laws in the cities of Indianapolis, Bloomington and South Bend. The fact that lawmakers rejected anti-discrimination clauses added to the anxiety of gay-rights advocates. (In Georgia, when an anti-discrimination clause was successfully added to a proposed RFRA, advocates of the legislation pulled the bill entirely.)
Trying to find that darn link
Here are opinions on what was missing from the law.
Indiana does not have laws barring discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Is the controversial Indiana law ‘the same’ as a law backed by Obama? - The Washington Post
Angie's List calls the revision to the "religious freedom" law "insufficient," becoming the first major local company to reject the deal hammered out by Indiana legislators, the business community and others.
"Our position is that this 'fix' is insufficient," Angie's CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement Thursday morning. "There was no repeal of RFRA and no end to discrimination of homosexuals in Indiana."
...
"That's just not right and that's the real issue here. Our employees deserve to live, work and travel with open accommodations in any part of the state."
I saw that in my research yesterday. Even with "the fix" discrimination can occur and because of that, Angie's List reiterated that they will not be expanding operations in Indiana, as they had previously planned.
Angie's List rejects 'religious freedom' law revision, calls it 'insufficient'
Yes discrimination can occur. Why does Indiana not have sexual orientation protections?
As they do not at the State level, many took this as an attack on gays.
Yes discrimination can occur. Why does Indiana not have sexual orientation protections?
As they do not at the State level, many took this as an attack on gays.
So the majority ruled that people can be discriminated against.Indiana does not have sexual orientation protections because a majority of Indiana voters do not want them.
So the majority ruled that people can be discriminated against.
Why? I guess the same reason CNN talked for months about the missing plane, or michael jackson's death etc. It's just headline grabbing. There is an employment protection bill in the US house (it passed the senate if you can believe it) that is stalled because repubs want to add religious exemption. Well guess what, that would defeat the whole purpose.
Some of these conflicts are unavoidable. You just gotta decide, should someone lose their job cause their boss has a religious objection to their sexuality? This fear led my gay uncle to marry and live a lie for sake of his boss' prejudice, then divorce and take another job across the country once he was able. Who the hell wins in that scenario?
Ultimately what i harken back to when i hear "nobody has a right to dictate another's actions" is jim crow south. You know, desegregation meant forcing colleges, restaurants, bus drivers to do things against their will. Now you might say race, well, that's an identity not a behavior. This "rfra" makes no distinction between gay couples getting married and the teenager who is gay, never been in a relationship, and already has it bad enough cause he lives in ****ty indiana. All are targets
Personally though, i would not want to do business for something like a wedding cake with someone like that, nor would i trust them to do it right. Strategically, the fallout has been more trouble than it's worth.
I wish it never happened, so people stop using the bakery as a strawman and focus on the real problems like the hateful intent behind this indiana "rfra", the doctor who wouldn't treat the infant of the gay couple (depriving necessities), employment and housing discrimination. None of that is in the bible to my knowledge, so i see it as they're lying when they hide their bigotry behind their 'faith,' and i would think that would upset a lot of Christians like yourself who are gay friendly
How am i asking someone to 'endorse'/'enable'/participate in my sexuality or my sex life when i go to buy milk? Or as the poster above said, i got in a car crash and the hospital won't treat me cause i'm gay? What does one have to do with the other?
Tell me that didn't really happen. I can think of no way that could even be justified in someone's own conscience.
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?