Christian business owners . . .

[Lorizael]

Cat licks?

Cat-holics.

[Sava]

Maybe his penis isn't fabulous

I suspect it is rather unremarkable.

[giblets]

Hmm. But he thinks any sex that doesn't result in childbirth is evil and equal to gayity.

I mean, ew even masturbation is gay. You are touching a penis!

He doesn't have a problem with old people have sex after menopause.

[Sava]

normally, for him, that would be a sin

but......

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus justified the establishment of the Christian church to comparing it to divorce. The people didn't do anything wrong, but the leaders did. The religion was unfaithful to God. Therefore a new religion was started. If what you're saying is true then the people would only be justified in leaving the Jewish religion and becoming atheists.

Jesus explicitly says that "because your hearts were hard". It was never intended to be divorce and that the ideal has always been marriage for life. Those who did divorce have been doing wrong and contrary to the will of God and what he established for marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm. But he thinks any sex that doesn't result in childbirth is evil and equal to gayity.

I mean, ew even masturbation is gay. You are touching a penis!

Not quite. If you can't have children, there's nothing sinful with having sex when you're old. Deliberately engaging in Contraception or sterilizing yourself is right out.

Also **** you Sava.

[Kidlicious]

Jesus explicitly says that "because your hearts were hard". It was never intended to be divorce and that the ideal has always been marriage for life. Those who did divorce have been doing wrong and contrary to the will of God and what he established for marriage.

Stop being ridiculous. He said you can get a divorce if your spouse has sinned. Where did he say everyone who is divorced has sinned?

[Elok]

Summary: Right-wing Christians' real motive is that they just want to be able to discriminate against LGBT people because they hate them; not out of any sincerely held religious belief.

Singling LGBT people out, while ignoring other "sinners" is motivated by politics, not sincerely held religious belief (civil rights for LGBT people is at center, national political stage, as you said).

No, I get the feeling you didn't actually read what I said all that closely. In no particular order:

1. The Bible must be understood as a whole. Given its complexity, this means that a fair amount of interpretation is necessarily involved, and interpretations will vary. You, for example, are ostensibly Christian, but ignore or explain away all of the instances where the Bible denigrates homosexuality (I am not interested in your rationale for doing so). You also ignore (I assume) all the things you are castigating these business owners for ignoring, like divorce, etc. In effect, you are chiding them for ignoring one less part of the Bible than you do. This does not make sense.

2. In the culture war in general, and this battle in particular, these Christians are the conservative/reactionary side--the defenders of the previous status quo. What they want is essentially the way things used to be. Your side of the fight has been introducing changes to the status quo, one or two at a time, for decades. Currently, you are changing our attitude towards gay stuff, so that is what they "make a big deal about." The people who started the fight in the first place are the ones guilty of "singling out" the issue, regardless of their rightness or wrongness in doing so. They are not "picking on" bigamists, for example, because that is not currently something that people are pushing for in large numbers. It's not even legal AFAIK. They don't go for divorcees (in part) because they already lost that battle. You don't get to throw a punch, then call the other guys aggressors when they punch back (this is a metaphorical "fight" over matters of principle, so FFS don't quote "turn the other cheek" on me). That, too, would be ridiculous.

3. The issue, as I understand it, is not whether to serve gay people at all, but whether to serve them in a manner that implies acceptance of their gayness--making cakes, arranging flowers, or catering for a gay wedding, for example. That pizza place in Indiana or wherever explicitly said that they'd be fine with just baking a pie for a gay person in a non-wedding context. There is no counterpart for any of the other things you mentioned. We do not typically make cakes for divorces, prostitutes, one-night stands, etc. Thus it is not even possible for them to discriminate against any of those things you mentioned. The opportunity simply will not and does not come up.

I assume you would understand if they refused to bake a "God is Dead" cake for the local chapter of American Atheists. This is pretty much the same thing, from their perspective, except that atheism is not growing as fast as acceptance of homosexuality. They do not wish to celebrate their own downfall, and there is no sensible reason to make them do so. You're just rubbing their face in the dirt after you won, and rationalizing your incivility by resorting to an asinine Jim Crow metaphor. Because, you know, if you let them refuse to make even one wedding cake, they'll be hanging gays from every lamp-post.

[Elok]

Though some were undoubtedly good - for example, I can read Scripture in English due to the Reformers, which is something that the Church wasn't all that for, though I don't blame Aquinas (or whoever) for that .

We've been translating Scripture into the local vernacular from the get-go. That's where Cyrillic came from, remember?

[Kidlicious]

I don't think that changes the fact that the church leaders have purposefully mislead people from the get-go. Yet you say we can't understand the Bible for ourselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We've been translating Scripture into the local vernacular from the get-go.

Not where Luther was (or where England was - poor Tyndale).

[rah]

1. The Bible must be understood as a whole. Given its complexity, this means that a fair amount of interpretation is necessarily involved, and interpretations will vary.

Which to me has always been code for whatever you think the bible means is insignificant because there's a secret cabal that has more knowledge and is right and you are not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's restate that a bit and tell me what you think:

Which to me has always been code for whatever you think science means is insignificant because there's a secret cabal that has more knowledge and is right and you are not.

Or, for something more liberal arty like:

Which to me has always been code for whatever you think history means is insignificant because there's a secret cabal that has more knowledge and is right and you are not.

Which to me has always been code for whatever you think literature means is insignificant because there's a secret cabal that has more knowledge and is right and you are not.

Is there a problem with scholars of history or literature or science making determinations based upon their studies and expertise and ordinary shmoe's not being on their level?

[giblets]

Scholars have a habit of losing touch with reality. Also, who is a scholar? If Ben can get a degree in History being a "scholar" in that subject doesn't mean a lot.

[Kidlicious]

Let's restate that a bit and tell me what you think:



Or, for something more liberal arty like:





Is there a problem with scholars of history or literature or science making determinations based upon their studies and expertise and ordinary shmoe's not being on their level?

Was the Samaritan woman at the well a scholar?