After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom: Neil Macdonald

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: JimBielson
Sorry but Orlando was not anti-gay bigotry.

From all reports now, he was a self loathing homosexual or he was jilted by a lover and couldn't handle it. He used ISIS and anti-gay bigotry as the excuse and that was B.S.

This seems now to be the correct interpretation of what happened. A gay guy frequently visits the gay night club, trying to pick up men. But, all he got was rejections. In fact, many witnesses have come forward to say they avoided the guy, when he approached them, because they thought he was weird. And even when he got one guy to chat with him in the club, some of that guys friends texted him, while he was chatting, and told him to come outside, where they told him not to chat with the shooter because they didn't like the guy.

So, you see, discrimination is not a person deciding that they don't like someone. Discrimination is using your influence to get other people to not like that person whom you don't like, just because you don't like that person yourself. This is what the gay guys were doing to him. They put pressure on their friends to not associate with the shooter. So, feeling discriminated against, rejected by the whole environment he was trying so hard to join, he got angry.

That's when he decided to punish the whole club.

If being gay is a right, then everyman should be accepted into the gay club, and treated with the same warm welcome when he tries to make friends. To deliberately get all your friends to "avoid" one particular guy, because you don't like that guy is simply wrong. It's discrimination to the extreme. The shooter was right to get mad. Everybody has the right to be accepted into the group they want to join, without being discriminated against because of the way they may look or because some individual in the group thinks their behavior is a bit off.

The poor gay guy was new at this. He had previously been married to a woman, and it didn't work out. He was looking to find his true self. He wasn't an expert at picking up gays. He didn't know all the rules and the clues of gay dating. He didn't know how to give off the "right signals" to attract a date. So, of course he seemed a bit off. The gay guys in that club didn't give him a chance. They shunned the guy even though he was a "regular" at the club.

After all that effort to "fit in", the guy just decided to end his life and all those who rejected him in a hail of bullets.

Spot on and my point is you cannot have two different measuring sticks for bullying and humiliation. Reflection is needed within the LGBT community because from all reports he was humiliated and possibly bullied at Pulse.

If they didn't love him, they wouldn't love anyone.. Sad but, I think a very true assessment of what really happened.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AMPTAH
To deliberately get all your friends to "avoid" one particular guy, because you don't like that guy is simply wrong. It's discrimination to the extreme. The shooter was right to get mad. Everybody has the right to be accepted into the group they want to join, without being discriminated against because of the way they may look or because some individual in the group thinks their behavior is a bit off.

Did you miss the part where he pulled a knife on a couple people?

Smith and Callen say they stopped talking to Mateen when he pulled a knife on them after they made a religious comment. "He said if he ever messed with him again, you know how it'll turn out," Callen said.

There is a limit to being open and accepting.

But, I still like your post

The guy was so conflicted about who he was he felt threatened at every turn I suppose. It is telling that he pulled a kinfe when he was made the butt of a joke. This leads me to believe even more that he was humiliated and bullied.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Bone75

I was unaware that baking a cake is considered sinful.

That's the twisty argument of the devil. Of course, there is nothing wrong with baking a cake. Just as there is nothing wrong with kissing or making love.

It's the context of the actions.

By taking things out of context, and separating the individual acts from the big picture, we can always formulate arguments to turn the logic around. That's why the devil is considered to be so clever.

Exactly why are you refusing to bake this cake? Because you *think* you're sinning by baking a cake for gays? If so, why would that be sinful?

A man comes up to you and says, "Do you have any bullets to spare? I'm out of ammo."

Is it right or wrong to give him some bullets?

See?

Giving the bullets isn't by itself right or wrong. You've got to know what the bullets are for.

Is he about to shoot up a night club? If he says yes, would you still give him the bullets?

Is he about to take down the night club shooter? If he says yes, would to still give him the bullets?

Do you see how the "context" changes the whole meaning of the act of giving someone more bullets?

I suppose every other customer who comes in is without sin, since you would bake cakes for them; therefore, that argument would make you (or whoever) a hypocrite. And you would be discriminating.

Why do you want the baker to know that the cake is for a gay wedding?

Once the baker is told that his actions are for the purpose of celebrating a sin, he then has to battle his own conscience and decide if he will knowingly be a participant in the promotion and celebration of acts that his religion tells him is sinful. The Christian is called to lead the sinners away from sin, and to show them the way to righteousness, not to join in with the promotion of the sin.

If all you wanted was a cake. Just tell the baker, please bake me a cake for a wedding. The baker doesn't have to know it's for a gay wedding, or straight wedding. He'll just bake a wedding cake, and believe whatever he wants.

But, by deliberately telling him it is for a gay wedding, you introduce a conflict with his religious beliefs. You are challenging his religion, not really wanting a wedding cake.

a reply to: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Liquesence
Exactly why are you refusing to bake this cake? Because you *think* you're sinning by baking a cake for gays? If so, why would that be sinful?

originally posted by: Amptah
A man comes up to you and says, "Do you have any bullets to spare? I'm out of ammo."

Are you kidding? You think this is equivocal? I'm sorry, but the rest of your post is nothing more than a twisted and deliberate perverted trick of "The Devil".

originally posted by: JohnMandell

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AMPTAH
To deliberately get all your friends to "avoid" one particular guy, because you don't like that guy is simply wrong. It's discrimination to the extreme. The shooter was right to get mad. Everybody has the right to be accepted into the group they want to join, without being discriminated against because of the way they may look or because some individual in the group thinks their behavior is a bit off.

Did you miss the part where he pulled a knife on a couple people?

Smith and Callen say they stopped talking to Mateen when he pulled a knife on them after they made a religious comment. "He said if he ever messed with him again, you know how it'll turn out," Callen said.

There is a limit to being open and accepting.

But, I still like your post

The guy was so conflicted about who he was he felt threatened at every turn I suppose. It is telling that he pulled a kinfe when he was made the butt of a joke. This leads me to believe even more that he was humiliated and bullied.

I know. Loved Amptah's post.

The whole thing, including his deep seeded self-hate is very sad, But, there's still lines I won't cross if I think it will put me in danger.

Besides, there were some that did try to be friendly.

originally posted by: Annee

Besides, there were some that did try to be friendly.

Please point to one youtube video or news article where a witness says they were trying to be friendly to the shooter.

All the reports say otherwise.

Straight guys don't go to gay bars and try to pick up gays.

And any shooter "casing" the joint only needs to go a couple times to see the layout of the place, he doesn't need to be a "regular".

So, there's no question that the guy was gay, and was trying hard to befriend the gays in the bar, and getting rejected from all the hostile gays, making fun of his religion.

As any gay who tries to be a Christian knows, the Christian scriptures have verses against men lying with men. They have to put up with that conflict. Can you imaging how Muslim gay guy will deal with people pointing out that Islam says gays should be killed? Of course, the gay Muslim will get upset. Just like the gays that want to identify with Christianity. But, the Muslim has an even bigger problem, because, while Jesus says forgive and do no harm, Islam doesn't have any such forgiveness. So, don't taunt the Muslim about being gay. Gays have to stop bullying other people into submission. I'm sure the gays that made fun of the Muslim's religion in the night club, were not religious. But, they should understand that some gays believe that they believe in one of the religions on earth. So, everybody should be careful making fun of other people.

originally posted by: windword

Are you kidding? You think this is equivocal? I'm sorry, but the rest of your post is nothing more than a twisted and deliberate perverted trick of "The Devil".

You're entitled to believe that the Book of Leviticus was written by the devil.

That's your right.

But, you should understand that other people don't think so. Respect their right to believe that God inspired the scribes to write the scriptures.

Either you believe in "religious freedom", or you don't, and think everybody must conform to whatever you want.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I thought your first post was nice.

Now we are done.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You're entitled to believe that the Book of Leviticus was written by the devil.

They didn't have assault rifles and bullets in Leviticus, although I bet God, oops, I mean "The Devil" wishes that they did...

originally posted by: windword

They didn't have assault rifles and bullets in Leviticus, although I bet God, oops, I mean "The Devil" wishes that they did...

But, in Islam, obedience is by the sword. If the religious gay whom the night club society rejected was a Christian trying to "come out" of the closet, the guy would probably just have left that club disappointed and not come back. He would have remembered... Jesus says when they reject thee, then "dust off your feet"...

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." -- KJV, Matthew 10:14

"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -- KJV, Matthew 10:15


The Christian would leave it up to God, to make judgment on the Night Club.

But, Muslims don't leave it up to God. They take it upon themselves to carry out the judgments.

So, when a Muslim tries to "come out" of the closet, and gets rejected, He falls back on the only thing he knows, the instructions found in Islam.

The gun is just the modern version of the sword.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AMPTAH

I thought your first post was nice.

Now we are done.

Yes, well, you saw something you liked, and saw something you didn't like. Many people find the same variation when reading the scriptures. Somethings the Holy Book says they like "Love thy Neighbor", then they read some more and find something they don't like "Thou shalt not have man lie with man, it is an abomination."

So, what to do? Throw out the Holy Book?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AMPTAH

I thought your first post was nice.

Now we are done.

Yes, well, you saw something you liked, and saw something you didn't like. Many people find the same variation when reading the scriptures. Somethings the Holy Book says they like "Love thy Neighbor", then they read some more and find something they don't like "Thou shalt not have man lie with man, it is an abomination."

So, what to do? Throw out the Holy Book?

You coveniently left out the rest of the verse:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

So not only can you kill them, but it's their fault that you did.

Doesn't sound all that different to me

And yes, throw out the book. How can you agree with an assortment of scripture that doesn't even agree with itself?

a reply to: AMPTAH

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." -- KJV, Matthew 10:14

Yep, that's what "The Church" did with the globe and first world nations, alright...LOL

My Christian mother, may she RIP, praised Jesus for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, in my lifetime, I've seen Christians lynching uppity blacks, so there ya go!

a reply to: AMPTAH

Whatever the guy does with the bullets is his own thing. Not yours.

Even if you suspected he might kill someone, you don't know for certain.

You can either give them, or stop offering to give people bullets.

And in any case the example is one of absurdity.

No one dies from a cake. And a "god" that cared about cakes and gays so much isn't any kind of all-powerful, all-knowing god I want anything to do with. Sounds like a pretty petty god to me. Do you think a being that can make black holes and supernovas cares about who gets a cake? Really? We're that important in an infinite sized universe?

I tend to think not. I tend to think we over exaggerate our own self-importance on this rock.

If you are going to offer your services to the "public" that means "THE public". If you never want to make cakes for gay people, don't get a public business license and only sell cakes out of your home to people you approve of.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

So not only can you kill them, but it's their fault that you did.

Doesn't sound all that different to me

And yes, throw out the book. How can you agree with an assortment of scripture that doesn't even agree with itself?

No, you misunderstand the book. It says they are to be put to death. But, the book doesn't say that "you" are to put them to death. Jesus clearly says, it's not the Christian's job to put them to death. Jesus says, "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone." And no man dared to stone the prostitute. That they will be put to death is certain, but only God can determine the time and the judgment. He has other means to put them to death. Not by Christian hands.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: AMPTAH

Whatever the guy does with the bullets is his own thing. Not yours.

Even if you suspected he might kill someone, you don't know for certain.

You can either give them, or stop offering to give people bullets.

And in any case the example is one of absurdity.

Well, that's another big topic in the current debate, isn't it.

I mean, Donald Trump has just agreed to the principle that no one on the US "Watchlist" should be able to buy a gun. Even though they may not ever have committed a crime. Trump says, no guns and no bullets for you, if we suspect you "might possibly be thinking of doing some inappropriate shooting".

And that's the fella you're voting for in November.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

I'm saying that in a majority Christian nation, if the Christians consistently bad mouth a group and discriminate against them, it's going to influence the thoughts of other groups.

That's all.

So your premise is that a guy thought it was okay to kill a bunch of gay clubbers because some Christians declined to participate in a union ceremony, but did nothing else to disrupt that gay couple's lives?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: DeadFoot

So not only can you kill them, but it's their fault that you did.

Doesn't sound all that different to me

And yes, throw out the book. How can you agree with an assortment of scripture that doesn't even agree with itself?

No, you misunderstand the book. It says they are to be put to death. But, the book doesn't say that "you" are to put them to death. Jesus clearly says, it's not the Christian's job to put them to death. Jesus says, "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone." And no man dared to stone the prostitute. That they will be put to death is certain, but only God can determine the time and the judgment. He has other means to put them to death. Not by Christian hands.

I don't misunderstand the book; but when you have lies like that in there it is clear that some are going to take it upon themselves to pick what to believe and what not to. Your interpretation is one thing, how others will spin it is certainly another. There are may many MANY different churches under Christianity because the interpretation is different for so many people. My personal interpretation, after Jesus' coming, would be that Leviticus is a historical account of ancient Christian law that was all but thrown out by Jesus.

I do not see anyone under the guise of "religious freedom" denying divorced people their services, or children who curse at their parents. Would the cake shop owner refuse to make a cake for a child's birthday because he heard the kid curse at his father? Doubt it.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The Christian would leave it up to God, to make judgment on the Night Club.

But, Muslims don't leave it up to God. They take it upon themselves to carry out the judgments.

So, when a Muslim tries to "come out" of the closet, and gets rejected, He falls back on the only thing he knows,

Then a Christian should bake the damned cake and leave the rest up to God.

You've shown your true colors.

Bye.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: AMPTAH


Then a Christian should bake the damned cake and leave the rest up to God.

You've shown your true colors.

Bye.

But, then the Christian would be "doing something" to further promote the sin. There's a difference between "taking action" and "refraining from action". The Christian "refrains" from actions, that he prefers to leave up to God. But, when he is asked to "participate" in some action, he has to do it only if it is consistent with his conscience, because God will judge him on his actions.

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" -- KJV, Romans 6:16

The problem is, you can't say one thing, and do the opposite. Whom do you obey? That's the type of thing that led Jesus to label the Pharisees hypocrites. They loved to tell people what to do, but then they didn't follow the rules themselves. The Christians are warned to watch whom they serve.