Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah, except in the gay case, that is the ONLY example where your body actually works AGAINST you towards sin. Your body forces you to be attracted to the same sex AND you find the opposite sex less sexually appealing. I'm not born wanting to collect tons of money. I have to learn a concept for money and fall prey to my desires. Even with lust your body is telling you to be with the opposite sex.

Hence it doesn't make sense. It is hypocritical. Why did god even bother to have such a person born if that person is destined to hate themselves (leading to higher suicide rate and even WORSE sin than homosexuality)? As soon as you allow in your arguing that homosexuality DOES come from the body's urges then it destroys all pretexts of it being a sin.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Just because you feel like you should do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it a good thing.

That's absolutely true.

However, the argument in this instance that it's not a 'good thing' hinges upon religious beliefs which are entirely void of supporting evidence. I could just as easily hold a religious belief, or even create a new religion [John Oliver showed how easy that is] which has the core belief that all orientations are cherished and encouraged in the eyes of god. My religion would hold as much merit as any other. Quite the pickle!

I'd rather deem whether it's a good or bad thing on empirical evidence. It's quite clear that gay people find love and happiness in relationships just like the rest of us. So I say it's a great thing. The pursuit of happiness and all.

a reply to: Dfairlite

So, if it's okay for a doctor to help heal a sinning patient, so they can go back out and do more sinning, how is that not in some way "condoning" their sin?

How is selling a product or providing a service that are the core offerings of a business "participating" in whatever the customer does with that product or service?

Isn't it the customer who is doing the "sinning"? Followup: Are you responsible for the sins committed that you don't know about? If not, why not?

I haven't said anything about cakes. You have said that the believer is liable if they help a sinner. If that is true, don't they need to be very, very careful with those they do business with to make certain that a given customer is not sinning, and that they are, by selling them something, participating in said sin with said sinner?

What are the source of the "two tests" you mention? Are they your own creation? Followup: so, in your opinion, believers are entitled to ignore any laws they wish merely by stating that observing the law is against their religion, even when the tenets and commandments of the religion are well-known and do not include any such prohibition?

So, your comment about the first Amendment was merely a "red herring" you tossed in regarding my question about individual actions?

How am I construing your Romans passage? Here it is, in context:

Romans 1:28-32King James Version (KJV)

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Paul is referring to sinners here. He even lists out the sins he finds most dire. The verse you listed is the summation of what happens to "sinners" i.e. "they which commit such things worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

So, are you the one that is committing the thing worthy of death? Notice the "not only ... but."

I think you may be misreading the verse, and even if you aren't, consider that there are 22 other prohibitions there besides "unnatural affection" one of which is being unmerciful ... so it seems that there are much more dangerous sins to be aware of besides possible homosexuality. If you are right, and you can't do business with anyone doing any of those things ... I'm not sure you're going to have much business to do, honestly.

So you were wrong about Thessalonians? Paul wasn't talking about not doing business with sinners, but was rather forbidding the believer to do anything to help anyone condemn their soul in the afterlife?

Where did Paul say that in Thessalonians? Follow-up: So if you as a believer are forbidden from doing anything that helps anyone do anything that might condemn their soul in the afterlife ... how are you able to do anything at all? Wouldn't following such a dictum mean that you had to have almost supernatural knowledge of what others were doing and how it affected their immortal souls?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Just in case nobody has posted this Is not going to happen as the bill on itself is discriminatory that alone is going to be grounds for its downfall.

What in the heck is Florida doing to themselves as a state? doesn't they know that all bills that are targeting individuals base on discrimination will never work?

How stupid can the politicians in Florida are.

a reply to: dawnstar

*nods* We have already established that "Christians" require others to follow rules that they themselves do not follow.

Logically, sin is sin. It is as much a sin to be unmerciful as it is to murder, or to backbite, or to have unnatural affections.

(My affections are quite natural for me, so I guess I'm okay! LOL)

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Darth_Prime

I don't see what's wrong with this. If an institution wants to deny business based on their morals they should have that right. Someone else will gain business from it anyways. I'm sure there are plenty of bake shops that will make a cake for a gay couple.

Besides, are you suggesting to force people to do things that they are morally against? Seems barbaric and oppressive to me. If someone was to deny me service because of their morals, I'd just go somewhere else and be happy to give my money to a business that won't.
Ghost

Sure, I'd love to say 'no' to muslims or christians when it comes to business. As an atheist, I can't stand it when people fall for religious mumbo jumbo. It is completely against my deeply god-free inner belief. It would be great if I could single them out and deny my services, showing my disgust at them and embarrass them on the way.
We should have signs outside shops declaring who should not come in because the owner hates them so much. That would make for a great society. /S

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

So, if it's okay for a doctor to help heal a sinning patient, so they can go back out and do more sinning, how is that not in some way "condoning" their sin?

How is selling a product or providing a service that are the core offerings of a business "participating" in whatever the customer does with that product or service?

Isn't it the customer who is doing the "sinning"? Followup: Are you responsible for the sins committed that you don't know about? If not, why not?

I haven't said anything about cakes. You have said that the believer is liable if they help a sinner. If that is true, don't they need to be very, very careful with those they do business with to make certain that a given customer is not sinning, and that they are, by selling them something, participating in said sin with said sinner?

What are the source of the "two tests" you mention? Are they your own creation? Followup: so, in your opinion, believers are entitled to ignore any laws they wish merely by stating that observing the law is against their religion, even when the tenets and commandments of the religion are well-known and do not include any such prohibition?

So, your comment about the first Amendment was merely a "red herring" you tossed in regarding my question about individual actions?

How am I construing your Romans passage? Here it is, in context:

Romans 1:28-32King James Version (KJV)

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Paul is referring to sinners here. He even lists out the sins he finds most dire. The verse you listed is the summation of what happens to "sinners" i.e. "they which commit such things worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

So, are you the one that is committing the thing worthy of death? Notice the "not only ... but."

I think you may be misreading the verse, and even if you aren't, consider that there are 22 other prohibitions there besides "unnatural affection" one of which is being unmerciful ... so it seems that there are much more dangerous sins to be aware of besides possible homosexuality. If you are right, and you can't do business with anyone doing any of those things ... I'm not sure you're going to have much business to do, honestly.

So you were wrong about Thessalonians? Paul wasn't talking about not doing business with sinners, but was rather forbidding the believer to do anything to help anyone condemn their soul in the afterlife?

Where did Paul say that in Thessalonians? Follow-up: So if you as a believer are forbidden from doing anything that helps anyone do anything that might condemn their soul in the afterlife ... how are you able to do anything at all? Wouldn't following such a dictum mean that you had to have almost supernatural knowledge of what others were doing and how it affected their immortal souls?

You're being obtuse. If you contribute to the sin then yes you are partially responsible. If you are unaware of the sin then you're not responsible.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think you're misunderstanding my position. I don't think refusing services based on sexual orientation is a defendable (religious) position,which is why I have put the analogies in my posts. I think refusing services that contribute to sin (wedding cakes and photography for homosexual weddings and what not) is a reasonable religious position.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Dfairlite

a business is free to decide what they keep in their inventory, there is nothing forcing them to order cake decorations with two men!

Yes, there is a court. Q

a reply to: Hecate666

I agree, the religious crap in America is becoming its own doom, when it comes to bases of discrimination and very soon will be reversed back to the old good signs of racism and expanded, blacks no allowed, whites no allowed, Asians no allowed, ect, ect, ect, those are the ramifications of brainless laws and law makers when they show their true racist and discriminatory sides.

the roman empire were great at ordering their subject not to do business with certain provinces, kingdoms, towns and villages, (all predominately christian) usually with the excuse of some petty sin, but well, mostly because their leaders irked the pope in some way....
but they fully supported opening up trade negotiations with Genghis Khan!

a reply to: Hecate666

I think I may start a business selling signs to Christians in Florida, because by last count, if we were only going with the litany of sins in Romans Chapter 1 ... they'd need these signs:

No unrighteous.

No fornicators.

No wicked.

No covetous.

No malicious. (Boy that's going to cut down on a lot of these "Christians")

No envious people.

No murderers.

No debaters. (I guess they can't do business with any of us here on ATS ...)

No decivers.

No maligners.

No whisperers.

No backbiters.

No haters of God.

No despiters.

No one who is proud.

No boasters.

No inventors of evil things.

No unruly kids.

No one without understanding.

No covenant-breakers.

No one with unnatural affections.

No one who is implacable (does this include those who refuse to change their minds?).

No one who is unmerciful.

Whew, glad I'm not a "Christian" and can do business with all these folks! Ima gonna make a mint!

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is a great idea, with the states of affairs of the religious right in this nation and if they ever, I mean ever get away with establishing a theocratic America I can only imagine you making a killing on signs like that.

After all if is something America will ever be is a capitalistic nation.

a reply to: Dfairlite

*I'm* being obtuse? I'm simply applying the smallest amount of logic to your statements and asking questions.

Surely, it's your responsibility to help me save my immortal soul by giving me spiritual advice on these matters?

Surely you don't want to take any action that might help me endanger my immortal soul any farther?

I haven't misunderstood you at all I don't think.

You just said that "refusing services that contribute to sin" is a reasonable religious position (again.)

That is exactly why I am directing my questions to you, to help me understand and perhaps save my immortal soul from sinning (any further).

How do you know that any business you do, any goods you sell, anything you do in the course of a business day is not, somehow, in some way, assisting (or apparently by proxy) committing sins along side those persons?

How do you do any business at all? Wouldn't it be prudent to quiz your customers about what they intend to do with your goods and services before you sell them anything?

Remember, my immortal soul is at stake here. Thank you for your help!

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is a great idea, with the states of affairs of the religious right in this nation and if they ever, I mean ever get away with establishing a theocratic America I can only imagine you making a killing on signs like that.

After all if is something America will ever be is a capitalistic nation.

The saddest comment to me, Marg, is that once they eliminate the obvious sinners, they'll turn on each other ...

"What you mean you dunk instead of sprinkle??? Apostate!"

"What do you mean you don't confess your sins to the pastor??? Heretic!"

"What do you mean you drink wine with meals??? Blasphemer!"

Etc. etc. etc.

Once religious beliefs become the law of the land, we will see just how bitterly that sword can cut.

(And that's only the Christians ... wait'll they have to deal with the Sikhs and wear turbans and carry ornamental swords!)

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are right, but remember is also part of human nature for us to be the way we are.

I am not a religious person, but I believe that the soul is eternal, that is no such thing as haven and hell but as we end our lives our souls go back to their place they call home, the human brain is an amazing thing, is what makes us humans so unpredictable, when it comes to the purity of the soul is nothing like been human.

That is why I find very amusing when people fight for religious believes or what is sin, been righteous or evil, because if you really think about all that you know that is nothing but a fabrication of the human mind.

That is why as long as these type of believes are nurtured by "the" us as humans we will never get to really understand what we truly are without our human body in earth, enlightenment only comes to a few.

Even I have faults and even I am hindered by my human brain.

But, is good to see how people react to topics like this one in this thread.

I commend you in mission to bring some understanding to those that careless as long as their self-righteousness tells them they are doing what they do in the name of their man made god.

Been gay is not a sin, is part of been human and the choices and hardship we take when we decide to be in earth to take the human experience as souls

a reply to: marg6043

I have no issues with what others believe precisely as long as they don't inflict those beliefs on me or mine.

I wish I were as noble as trying to bring understanding to others, but thank you for your comment nonetheless.

I just want all of us to be treated fairly before the laws.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As humans we will never be treated equally as souls yes we are all the same, but our human mind will always have the prejudices, discriminations , racism and more due to that littler pesky thing call ego.

We are very emotional, beings, I mean the human being.

laws are created by men, with the same shortcomings and prejudices that makes certain laws very dangerous, specially like the one been discussed here in this thread.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that is what stuns me the most, they just don't seem to see that danger...
it's all about gays, and abortion, and birth control.... no it isn't, if they manage to get rid of those things there will something there to replace them. if they get rid of all the heretics, muslims, athiest, ect and actually do make this a 100% christian nation, well, europe was close to being a 100% christian continent with just about every state in bed with a church of one denomination or another, and they just turned on each other with wars all in the name of the same god!!

originally posted by: marg6043


laws are created by men, with the same shortcomings and prejudices that makes certain laws very dangerous, specially like the one been discussed here in this thread.

I wish people would understand that the laws in the Bible were created by men too. Some of them make good sense, but some of them are just silly cultural taboos based on lack of knowledge.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Some? More like most. Besides the laws about not harming someone else, all the other laws are ridiculous.