Human Rights --- Gay vs Religious Freedoms

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 30, 2003, 2:39 pm

the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.

Gay, Christian, Lesbian, it makes no difference. If the man wants to be an asshole in his buisness dealings, that is his right.

The group in question also has the right to take their buisness elsewhere and to choke said assholes revenue off by warning others away from his bigotry.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 2:39 pm

Nothing's ever that simple

Or they can just choke the asshole

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 30, 2003, 3:16 pm

Xyun wrote:the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.

You even further make my point. So a person has no choice in being gay...just like they have no choice in what color they are? So again I ask you....if a white man walks into a black man's print shop and asks him to print up some KKK applications and he is refused, is the white man going to win his argument in court and get a fine levied against the black man?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 30, 2003, 3:34 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Xyun wrote:the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.
You even further make my point. So a person has no choice in being gay...just like they have no choice in what color they are? So again I ask you....if a white man walks into a black man's print shop and asks him to print up some KKK applications and he is refused, is the white man going to win his argument in court and get a fine levied against the black man?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

That's a good question!

I am going to say....no!

Here's why: The black guy was denying service to the white KKK dude based on the material he wanted to print, not because of his race.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 3:38 pm

But you stretch it when you say that the white man is in the KKK. That's a belief all his own. That's not something he is born with and it's not a race issue, it's the content of said papers he's asking to have printed. That would be offensive to the black man, not the fact that the customer is white.

What Brockie did was say he didn't want to print the papers because of the Organization that they gay man represented.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » September 30, 2003, 3:57 pm

...a person has no choice in being gay...just like they have no choice in what color they are?

That's an opinion based on extremely debateable material...

So again I ask you....if a white man walks into a black man's print shop and asks him to print up some KKK applications and he is refused, is the white man going to win his argument in court and get a fine levied against the black man?

No, never going to happen.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2003, 4:19 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Just for the sake of argument, how about if the KKK goes into a print shop owned by a black man and asks for printhead and cards to be printed up. Or flyers for a rally. If the black man refuses to print their garbage, should he be fined and forced to print it? You know the answer to that as well as I do. You people are so anti-Christian that you automatically go to the defense of anyone that has a conflict with them.

that's an absurdity though. in fact most of the posts on this thread giving "what if" examples are fairly absurd. why would the KKK go to black owned business? if the KKK went to a black owned print shop and asked for some flyers printed up and the owner told them to pound sand no I wouldn't have a problem with that, because the KKK has a negative agenda against black people. if an average, unassuming white guy came in to a black owned business and wanted fliers printed up and the black owner told him to get his honky ass out of his store then I would hope that the store owner would be brought up on human rights charges for discrimmination.

it has nothing to do with railing against christianity in general, it's just that christianity is the pre-dominant religion in north america and many christians tend to be stupid, studdorn and discriminatory about their faith. I have no problem with your average christian, just the bible thumping rednecks like atokal that think that just because gay people exist and want equal rights under government that they have some bizarre gay agenda that involves turning everyone in the world into a gay person or anally raping them or something.

christ the bible says so many fucking things that christian fundies completely ignore but for some reason two passages in leviticus dominate practically their entire moral structure. honestly why are you so afraid of gay people?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2003, 4:25 pm

masteen wrote:So gay groups don't have agendas? Bullshit. They exist to lobby for gay friendly legislation (hate crimes), gay rights, ect. If you don't think that's an agenda, you're fucking deluded.

If you think that "don't discriminate against us" and "stop getting drunk, piling out of your pickup trucks and beating the shit out of us" is some kind of nefarious agenda then you have a problem.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » September 30, 2003, 4:31 pm

stop splitting hairs about the whole content vs agenda thing. it was some fucking letterhead. WHAT CONTENT? unless there were little pornographic images of people getting fucked in the ass and some sort of slogan like "we love the pinktaco!", the guy's defense is retarded.

i don't even know what to say about the whole argument about what_being_gay actually is. if you believe being gay is something you're inherently born with, then you can draw all the kkk parallels you want to since it would be akin to being born black. if you believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice, then this is probably more like refusing service to someone who's had an abortion when you're pro-life.

and that's a whole new argument inside the already existing one.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 30, 2003, 4:40 pm

Deijah Vu wrote:But you stretch it when you say that the white man is in the KKK. That's a belief all his own. That's not something he is born with and it's not a race issue, it's the content of said papers he's asking to have printed. That would be offensive to the black man, not the fact that the customer is white.

What Brockie did was say he didn't want to print the papers because of the Organization that they gay man represented.

Let me replace a couple words in one sentence to show you how ignorant you are.

What *the black man* did was say he didn't want to print the papers because of the organization*(KKK)* that the *white* man represented.

Please refrain from being a moron if you continue to post here.

Kyoukan wrote:that's an absurdity though. in fact most of the posts on this thread giving "what if" examples are fairly absurd. why would the KKK go to black owned business? if the KKK went to a black owned print shop and asked for some flyers printed up and the owner told them to pound sand no I wouldn't have a problem with that, because the KKK has a negative agenda against black people.

My question is, why does a lesbian/gay organization go to a Christian owned print shop? The gay and lesbian organizations do have a negative agenda towards Christians.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 30, 2003, 4:40 pm

kyoukan wrote:
masteen wrote:So gay groups don't have agendas? Bullshit. They exist to lobby for gay friendly legislation (hate crimes), gay rights, ect. If you don't think that's an agenda, you're fucking deluded.
If you think that "don't discriminate against us" and "stop getting drunk, piling out of your pickup trucks and beating the shit out of us" is some kind of nefarious agenda then you have a problem.

I didn't say it was "nefarious," although it's a very cool word. It is most certainly an agenda. The hate crime legislation has cost this country a lot of money (some PDs have dedicated hate crime units) and some might see it as a violation of the goal of equal protection under the law because it gives certain minorities extra special protection under the law.

IMO, it really only taught homophobes and racists to either keep their mouths shut whilst fag or nigger bashing or to just kill their victim.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 4:49 pm

masteen wrote:
I didn't say it was "nefarious," although it's a very cool word. It is most certainly an agenda. The hate crime legislation has cost this country a lot of money (some PDs have dedicated hate crime units) and some might see it as a violation of the goal of equal protection under the law because it gives certain minorities extra special protection under the law.

IMO, it really only taught homophobes and racists to either keep their mouths shut whilst fag or nigger bashing or to just kill their victim.

Hate crime isn't just against gays mind you. Hate crime includes racial crimes. Those units weren't solely based on gay rights. I'm sure if a gay man and a straight man were getting their asses kicked the police would respond in kind.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2003, 4:54 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:My question is, why does a lesbian/gay organization go to a Christian owned print shop? The gay and lesbian organizations do have a negative agenda towards Christians.

how do you know a shop is christian owned, and if you did, how would you know the christian is going to be some hypocritical fundie redneck who feels threatened by homosexuals? it's impossible to tell until you try and do business with them, unless they have a bunch of crucifixes and "god hates fags" posters up everywhere.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 5:02 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: Let me replace a couple words in one sentence to show you how ignorant you are.

What *the black man* did was say he didn't want to print the papers because of the organization*(KKK)* that the *white* man represented.

Please refrain from being a moron if you continue to post here.

My question is, why does a lesbian/gay organization go to a Christian owned print shop? The gay and lesbian organizations do have a negative agenda towards Christians.

First if all, learn to read. It says KKK applications. And it doesn't state the obvious as to why the black man refused. Now before you add your little inuendos and start slinging around words, the application to invite other people to hate you because your black IS offensive. As is the organization. So before you get slapped upside the head again with YOUR mindless ignorance, READ.

And have you ever thought that they went to a print shop because they needed something printed?? The gay and lesbian organizations do have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with offending Christians. Pull your head out of your ass and you'll be able to see that they want equality in all aspects, like women did 50 years ago and blacks 75 years ago.

Now with that said, look in the mirror and you'll see the true moron.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 30, 2003, 5:27 pm

why do the straight people always tell and tell the gay people are they are supposed to feel about things?[/quote]

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 30, 2003, 6:40 pm

Refusing to print something is not a hate crime. Beating the shit out of someone or denying them what they need to live would be. No one had to have their flyer printed in order to survive.

Drasta... that's a good question.

Marb

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2003, 6:49 pm

Threads like this never get far.

Sound reasoning is always blown over by impassioned opinion.

There is a critical issue here that we could all learn from.

But I suspect it wouldn't be noticed amongst the hate-laced ping pong balls flying back and forth.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 30, 2003, 8:00 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Just for the sake of argument, how about if the KKK goes into a print shop owned by a black man and asks for printhead and cards to be printed up. Or flyers for a rally. If the black man refuses to print their garbage, should he be fined and forced to print it? You know the answer to that as well as I do. You people are so anti-Christian that you automatically go to the defense of anyone that has a conflict with them.
that's an absurdity though. in fact most of the posts on this thread giving "what if" examples are fairly absurd. why would the KKK go to black owned business? if the KKK went to a black owned print shop and asked for some flyers printed up and the owner told them to pound sand no I wouldn't have a problem with that, because the KKK has a negative agenda against black people.

just the bible thumping rednecks like atokal that think that just because gay people exist and want equal rights under government that they have some bizarre gay agenda that involves turning everyone in the world into a gay person or anally raping them or something.

christ the bible says so many fucking things that christian fundies completely ignore but for some reason two passages in leviticus dominate practically their entire moral structure. honestly why are you so afraid of gay people?

Kindly point out where I come across as a bible thumping red neck.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 30, 2003, 8:16 pm

A more apt analogy would be, say, a black man goes into a white-owned print shop, and says that he would like to print out letterhead for the Congressional Black Caucus, or the NAACP, or some other such organization. I don't believe that the white owner would have any right to refuse such material.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 30, 2003, 8:57 pm

Not particularly fond of "hate crime" legislation either. Its illegal to murder and assault people. Its illegal whether you did it because you hated them personally, because they belonged to some category you hated, or just because you are an amoral bastard and don't care.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2003, 11:04 pm

Chmee wrote:Not particularly fond of "hate crime" legislation either. Its illegal to murder and assault people. Its illegal whether you did it because you hated them personally, because they belonged to some category you hated, or just because you are an amoral bastard and don't care.

it exists as a deterrant because the crime would not have happened were it not for the fact it was a hate crime. therefore it really has no motive.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 1, 2003, 5:31 am

Threads like this never get far.

Sound reasoning is always blown over by impassioned opinion.

There is a critical issue here that we could all learn from.

But I suspect it wouldn't be noticed amongst the hate-laced ping pong balls flying back and forth.

Especially when Moses comes down from his mountain and instead of handing the tablets over, smirks smugly to himself and wafts away having contributed nothing to the thread.

I've got no hatred for you Adex but when you swan around aloofly making these pompous pronouncements you sound like a total cunt.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 1, 2003, 8:10 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:My question is, why does a lesbian/gay organization go to a Christian owned print shop?

If it was billed as a "Christian print shop", then he might have an argument. Vice a christian owned print shop, which would include most of them in the country, at a guess.

Hate crime legislation is not a deterent BTW, it's a method to give harsher sentences based on the nature of the crime. Laws do not deter crime, never have, never will. But that's a whole 'nother argument

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 1, 2003, 8:47 am

This is not even comparable to hate crimes. This is someone refusing to do a print job because they feel strongly against an organization that wants to have something done there. I would bet this has happened many, many times in businesses across the U.S. and Canada in the past. The only reason there is a lawsuit is because one of the hot topics at this moment is gay rights. With as many offensive groups out there as there are, you know some of them have been denied service somewhere. And yeah, the gay and lesbian groups are going to be offensive to not just christians, but also to muslims, catholics, jewish, etc. Just as there is NEVER going to be complete tolerance for people with religious values (as this board so amply shows), you better understand that there is NEVER going to be complete tolerance for the gay lifestyle. You had better learn to deal with it just as all the religious people have.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 1, 2003, 9:51 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:...You people are so anti-Christian that you automatically go to the defense of anyone that has a conflict with them.

And you sir, miss the point. Do you truly believe there are no homosexual Christians? Maybe you confuse Southern Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc. as Christianity. They are all sects of the same religion with differing views. We have had this discussion before, and I have pointed out where people fuck up in the translations. Go out and visit every sect of Christianity, 1 per day, and we may not have to see you back here for another couple years.

Not all "religious" people, or "Christians" turn away "gays" as you put it. There are some that recognize that there is ONE thing that makes Christianity different from any other religion. Grace. You already have a place in God's heart WITHOUT having to do something to get there. The hatred that is spread by people "like" you (only using quotes because I don't actually know you) is also what makes people shirk away from religion. I know that at my church, we study from many different religions, but we are still Christian. Why do we do that? Because we are open-minded enough to recognize that even though something isn't in the Bible, it can STILL help you to be a good person and make it through the day.

As for the thread itself. Other than "possibly" being rude to the person he turned away, the owner really did nothing wrong. The stupidity came from someone taking the time to make a lawsuit over it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 1, 2003, 10:00 am

it can STILL help you to be a good person and make it through the day

Just like weed then! Praise Jah.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 1, 2003, 11:44 am

kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:Not particularly fond of "hate crime" legislation either. Its illegal to murder and assault people. Its illegal whether you did it because you hated them personally, because they belonged to some category you hated, or just because you are an amoral bastard and don't care.
it exists as a deterrant because the crime would not have happened were it not for the fact it was a hate crime. therefore it really has no motive.

Sure there is a motive, its a bad motive, but then again I would think most motives for murder and assault would be bad.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 1, 2003, 1:22 pm

We have some gay couples in my church and I'm Presbyterian. Even in those Chuches where they 100% belive being gay is a "sin" they should still welcome everyone into their chuch as I'm sure half the decons are comitting multiple sins on a daily basis. However from my past experiences people seem to forget the lines that says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Marb

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » October 1, 2003, 2:15 pm

i know why can't everyone like co-habitate ... is it really that hard? i mean does it really effect you that i have some man in my house instead of a woman? no it doesn't but in some warped weird omg im gonna be dirty because of them let me go bleach myself .... you turn it into a big drama issue ... the straight people about gays doing anything are more so drama queens then any gay flaming faggot on this planet.

they also tell us "oh your supposed to feel this way not that way just because im not gay doesn't mean i know how you feel!" you don't know how i feel ... say your mom got killed in some brutal fashion and i came up to you when you found her body and was just said "oh well shes dead get over it" see the point?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 1, 2003, 3:24 pm

I see the point and "understand" j/k. In all seriously though while one can empathize it truly impossible to understand exactly how someone else feels even if you have experienced the same thing.

On the other hand though I don't think people necessarily feel differently based on their sexual preference. I'm sure their all something things we have different priorities about but there are a lot of other similarities, many more so that just sexual orientation.

Thus it would be almost impossible to understand what it's like to be descriminated against because they are gay... unless they are gay and have had a similar experience. However I there are other ways someone can be descriminated against as well so there are ways one can identify and as I said earlier, empathize but no, not completely understand.

Marb

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 1, 2003, 4:21 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.

Gay, Christian, Lesbian, it makes no difference. If the man wants to be an asshole in his buisness dealings, that is his right.

The group in question also has the right to take their buisness elsewhere and to choke said assholes revenue off by warning others away from his bigotry.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2003, 5:06 pm

problem with that, Toke?

Everyone is making a huge issue out of what groups are involved in this mess. It makes not one whit of difference who the parties are.

The only question is; Do buisness owners have the right to decide not to do buisness?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2003, 5:17 pm

Yes. They don't even need a reason. The business can be understaffed or backlogged, or conflict of interest.

I think people are getting hung up about the wrong issue and are using poor examples to prove it. Most people don't deny the owner is a putz, but he has no obligation to provide his service. End of story

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 1, 2003, 5:45 pm

Yes Fallanthas I do have a problem with you calling him an asshole. He is a principled man who stands by his faith.

NOT discriminating against the individual for being gay, discriminating against the type of material that would promote or further an organization he is opposed to because of his faith . If standing by your beliefs is what makes someone an asshole then we are all assholes.

I have respect for him because he is not a gay basher, does not hate gay people, and does work for openly gay clients.

He will not print material for anyone whether they are gay or straight if that material was offensive or an affront to his beliefs.

I know he would not print a pornographic piece or anything that promotes that industry. Much the same he would not print material that supported hatred like KKK material. He is simply a man with a faith.

Further Miss McNaughton when rendering her verdict stated that in balancing this decision she has not limited Brockie from having his beliefs at home or at his place of worship. WTF is that? He can be a Christian at home or in church but must stop when he is in public? That is a violation of his rights as a Canadian.

This is the real issue here
I know most here won't understand that

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 1, 2003, 5:56 pm

Looks to me like he said he was acting like an asshole not was an asshole. "If a man wants to be an asshole in his business dealings..." At least that is the way I read it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 6:33 pm

Atokal wrote:Yes Fallanthas I do have a problem with you calling him an asshole. He is a principled man who stands by his faith.

NOT discriminating against the individual for being gay, discriminating against the type of material that would promote or further an organization he is opposed to because of his faith .

That's a stupid fucking argument (not surprising coming from a stupid fucking moron). Nothing in the bible says that being gay is any worse of a sin than eating meat on friday or cutting your hair at the temples.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 2, 2003, 12:14 am

kyoukan wrote:
Atokal wrote:Yes Fallanthas I do have a problem with you calling him an asshole. He is a principled man who stands by his faith.

NOT discriminating against the individual for being gay, discriminating against the type of material that would promote or further an organization he is opposed to because of his faith .
That's a stupid fucking argument (not surprising coming from a stupid fucking moron). Nothing in the bible says that being gay is any worse of a sin than eating meat on friday or cutting your hair at the temples.

More name calling WOW you pwned me. You are showing yourself to be nothing but a child. Kindly back up your argument with scripture. Further it wasn't a jew with shorn locks that asked for print to be done nor was it a carnivore eating meat on a friday night.

You have opinions about Christianity and the bible having probably never read the book or attended a church service except on Christmas and for funerals.

The new testament supercedes the old in many distinct ways, one of which is approving the eating of meat including pork as long as the meal is blessed. I will look up the chapter and verse for you. There is no place in the new testament that removes homosexuality as a sin. This is the faith or belief that Mr. Brockie has. Further your comments did not even address the quote you pulled of mine so grats on being irrelevant as well.

Cheers

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 2, 2003, 12:43 am

You're right Tanc,

My words came off as snooty. I'm sorry.

What I mean to say is I'm bummed.

I really would like to talk about this this conflict of gay acceptance vs. christain morals.

I mean we have gay folk here and well I'm a christain. We have everything we need to honestly sit down and come to terms with this issue.

But we're not talking to each other.

We're just recklessly slinging shit.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2003, 1:05 am

ok please go ahead and quote chapter and verse in the bible that condradicts every "sin" christians participate in today and says that it's perfectly okay to do it now, including shaving your beards, cutting your hair at the temples, eating meat on fridays etc. etc.

although I imagine your dumb ass has posted for the last time on this thread.

fucking hypocritical bible beating chimpanzee.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 2, 2003, 1:25 am

Be tough to call the man an asshole, considering I have never met him. You can be sure the clients snubbed felt he was acting like one, though.

Which, if you will read, I said was well within his rights. I don't really give a shit if gays or hunters offend him, the idea that a government can force one individual to do buisness with another in the private sector is stupid.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » October 2, 2003, 2:41 am

the idea that a government can force one individual to do buisness with another in the private sector is stupid.

The government can't force anything. They can, however, fine you for not doing so. If he wishes to continue paying fines, then he can continue to deny business based on anything he wants.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 2, 2003, 10:29 am

kyoukan wrote:ok please go ahead and quote chapter and verse in the bible that condradicts every "sin" christians participate in today and says that it's perfectly okay to do it now, including shaving your beards, cutting your hair at the temples, eating meat on fridays etc. etc.

although I imagine your dumb ass has posted for the last time on this thread.

fucking hypocritical bible beating chimpanzee.

First, I did not say the New Testament contradicts every "sin" christians participate in, I stated that the New Testament supercedes the old in some very significant ways. Now for Chapter and Verse regarding your baseless argument that eating on a Friday is a sin. I am truly sorry that time and time again you are merely a source of entertainment and very seldom fact.

Romans 20 v 3 - 6

3 Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 2, 2003, 11:01 am

Kyo,

This particular case isn't about the bible.

It's about freedom being squeezed. It's about two opposing moral sets, lacking tolerance towards each other.

If you want to talk about beard shaving etc. I'm happy to oblidge you on another thread. There are straight-forward answers to those questions.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » October 2, 2003, 11:16 am

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand

And I think your own quote pretty well sums up the hypocrisy that is modern Christianity.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 2, 2003, 11:26 am

The thing is...he didn't judge this customer in any way. He didn't lecture him on his sins. He didn't tell him that he was going to hell. He didn't do anything but decline to print something for an organization that he feels is morally wrong. He stuck to his convictions. If this was in the U.S. it would be overturned.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 2, 2003, 11:31 am

Vetiria wrote:
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand
And I think your own quote pretty well sums up the hypocrisy that is modern Christianity.

Editted mine as Kilmoll said it much better.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 2, 2003, 11:55 am

This is nuts. Toke, you're trying to say he's not an asshole because he is standing by his convictions? He may not be wrong from a legal standpoint, but he is, most definitely, an asshole. The reason people think that he's an asshole is because he picks and chooses which morals he decides to uphold.

There are plenty issues with following the bible word for word. Most realize it's an ancient tome that has been revised so many ways over time, it's difficult to truly make heads or tails of what to follow. People then have to make their own interpretations from reading it. He decides that it's still "wrong" to be gay even though there's really no reason believe as such. He picks and chooses what he has convictions about. "Sure, it's ok to lie because of blah blah blah", "Sure, I can do such and such a sin because of blah blah blah". But no, not being gay. No no no, that's TERRIBLE. "I'm going to stand firm on this one". Fucking hypocrite

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » October 2, 2003, 11:58 am

Fallanthas wrote: The only question is; Do buisness owners have the right to decide not to do buisness?

There's a sign at this bar that I visit:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

The next time I imbibe too much and they refuse to give me another beer, I'm going to sue based on discrimination against us alcoholic-americans.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 2, 2003, 1:53 pm

Chidoro wrote:This is nuts. Toke, you're trying to say he's not an asshole because he is standing by his convictions? He may not be wrong from a legal standpoint, but he is, most definitely, an asshole. The reason people think that he's an asshole is because he picks and chooses which morals he decides to uphold.

There are plenty issues with following the bible word for word. Most realize it's an ancient tome that has been revised so many ways over time, it's difficult to truly make heads or tails of what to follow. People then have to make their own interpretations from reading it. He decides that it's still "wrong" to be gay even though there's really no reason believe as such. He picks and chooses what he has convictions about. "Sure, it's ok to lie because of blah blah blah", "Sure, I can do such and such a sin because of blah blah blah". But no, not being gay. No no no, that's TERRIBLE. "I'm going to stand firm on this one". Fucking hypocrite

Once again I totally understand your perspective Chidoro, kinda chuckling here because I started this thread to really see what people thought about one persons rights being "trampled" because they conflict with another persons rights.

But back to what you stated. I fail to see where Mr. Brockie is picking and choosing what sins he can or cannot commit. I merely pointed out for Kyoukans sake that some old testament sins are covered by grace in the new testament.

There is not one place that I can reference in the new testament where the status of homosexuality is changed from sin. So although Brockie treats the person who is gay no different from hetro business people he does make a distinction about the type of organization he will do print for.

As to deciphering the bible here are some of the versus quoted in the court case.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:

I am not stating these are my beliefs persay, I am pointing out where Mr. Brockie and other Christians get the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

So I could understand you feeling that he is an asshole from your perspective. However he is not a hypocrite.

Cheers

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 2, 2003, 2:08 pm

Yes he is a hypocrite. I didn't say the bible had to retract some crap that it's a sin, it's that in this day and age he can pick and choose which sins he feels against or not.

He decided that while other sins are acceptable in this day and age, the "sin" of homosexuality isn't. It's hypocritical. The ONLY way he isn't is if he lives a COMPLETELY sin-free life. Otherwise, he's just picking and choosing.

He defines hypocrite