US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of these societies (at that time) were different from our own.

But still (in our days) you are allowed to reject homosexuality or to refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech. Just as in the case in my OP

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of the societies at that time were different from our own.

But still you are allowed to reject homosexuality or yo refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech.

An abomination is just that an abomination but it's not in the ten commandments. Hell, a man could unjustly accuse his wife of adultery and she would be put to death so he can get a younger version...not a sin back then.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of the societies at that time were different from our own.

But still you are allowed to reject homosexuality or yo refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech.

An abomination is just that an abomination but it's not in the ten commandments. Hell, a man could unjustly accuse his wife of adultery and she would be put to death so he can get a younger version...not a sin back then.

You are expanding your argument. It doesn't have to be in the ten commandments. Take a look at the passage in my last post.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of the societies at that time were different from our own.

But still you are allowed to reject homosexuality or yo refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech.

An abomination is just that an abomination but it's not in the ten commandments. Hell, a man could unjustly accuse his wife of adultery and she would be put to death so he can get a younger version...not a sin back then.

You are expending your argument. It doesn't have to be in the ten commandments.

Who determines that? You? Me? There is a reason the ten commandments exist and only ten, the rest is left to cultural and societal norms or what works for the majority. And what of same sex couples that adhere to all those commandments are they still to be condemned?

I was surprised to see this case come up. Didnt the court also rule this way about a baking a cake? Seems like a no brainer that a cake and a website are both speech.

So why didnt a lower court enforce the SCOTUS earlier decision.

Oh, yeah, I realized it was a stupid question as soon as I typed it. Team donk.

a reply to: quintessentone

Romans 1:27

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It seems Christians have a solid basis for their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether you find it wrong but this is what it is. In this passage homosexuality is given as 'men who committed shameful acts with other men'

Religious beliefs can be used and will be used in similar cases when one doesn't want to approve or serve another one.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Why are there protected classes?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of the societies at that time were different from our own.

But still you are allowed to reject homosexuality or yo refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech.

An abomination is just that an abomination but it's not in the ten commandments. Hell, a man could unjustly accuse his wife of adultery and she would be put to death so he can get a younger version...not a sin back then.

You are expending your argument. It doesn't have to be in the ten commandments.

Who determines that? You? Me? There is a reason the ten commandments exist and only ten, the rest is left to cultural and societal norms or what works for the majority. And what of same sex couples that adhere to all those commandments are they still to be condemned?

I meant expanding. Typo.

The Christians determined it already and not me. You're making a mistake. Religion is embedded deeply in a society/culture. They're often indistinguishable.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

Romans 1:27

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It seems Christians have a solid basis for their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether you find it wrong but this is what it is. In this passage homosexuality is given as 'men who committed shameful acts with other men'

Religious beliefs can be used and will be used in similar cases when one doesn't want to approve or serve another one.

Who determines which same sex couples are committing shameful acts and where a true love union exists between them? All the Bible speaks of is lust and debauchery being shameful but it's not a sin.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

Here are the five commandments of Islam but Islamic law does not apply here nor is any sin regarding homosexuality within any commandments. It's societal/cultural interpretations thereafter and we cannot go back and add it to the commandments. Stop grasping at straws or strawmen.

www.metmuseum.org...

What you've written doesn't address whether homosexuality is accepted In Islam. In fact it doesn't address anything. It speaks of nothing other than one God, how many times you need to pray, and a few other.

wikiislam.net...

Practicing homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam and is punishable under Islamic law, which is derived from the Quran and Hadith

But again not the point of the conversation. Point is made in my OP. Religion and free speech were used to deny services for this gay couple.

Nope, again open to interpretation.

The above discussion was based on the assumptions that both verses 15 and 16 relate to the fornication or adultery committed between men and women. However, some commentators of the Holy Qur'an, including Qadi Thanaullah Panipati, are of the view that verse 16 refers to homosexual act committed between two males. Verse 16 is translated as follows:

"And those two of you who commit it (the shameful act), torture them both".

quran.com...:16/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran

The interpretation of the text here is based on assumptions and presumptions.

No.

You need to accept homosexuality is a sin in all Abrahamic religions as already known. It's not a secret.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of the societies at that time were different from our own.

But still you are allowed to reject homosexuality or yo refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech.

An abomination is just that an abomination but it's not in the ten commandments. Hell, a man could unjustly accuse his wife of adultery and she would be put to death so he can get a younger version...not a sin back then.

You are expending your argument. It doesn't have to be in the ten commandments.

Who determines that? You? Me? There is a reason the ten commandments exist and only ten, the rest is left to cultural and societal norms or what works for the majority. And what of same sex couples that adhere to all those commandments are they still to be condemned?

I meant expanding. Typo.

The Christians determined it already and not me. You're making a mistake. Religion is embedded deeply in a society/culture. They're often indistinguishable.

Subjective interpretations are deeply embedded in bias and discrimination and we are seeing it play out here.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

Romans 1:27

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It seems Christians have a solid basis for their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether you find it wrong but this is what it is. In this passage homosexuality is given as 'men who committed shameful acts with other men'

Religious beliefs can be used and will be used in similar cases when one doesn't want to approve or serve another one.

Who determines which same sex couples are committing shameful acts and where a true love union exists between them? All the Bible speaks of is lust and debauchery being shameful but it's not a sin.

It's more than a sin. From the passages I gave you it looks much more than that as the punishment for these acts in these societies was often death. Again this is very extreme but these societies are different to our own.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

Here are the five commandments of Islam but Islamic law does not apply here nor is any sin regarding homosexuality within any commandments. It's societal/cultural interpretations thereafter and we cannot go back and add it to the commandments. Stop grasping at straws or strawmen.

www.metmuseum.org...

What you've written doesn't address whether homosexuality is accepted In Islam. In fact it doesn't address anything. It speaks of nothing other than one God, how many times you need to pray, and a few other.

wikiislam.net...

Practicing homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam and is punishable under Islamic law, which is derived from the Quran and Hadith

But again not the point of the conversation. Point is made in my OP. Religion and free speech were used to deny services for this gay couple.

Nope, again open to interpretation.

The above discussion was based on the assumptions that both verses 15 and 16 relate to the fornication or adultery committed between men and women. However, some commentators of the Holy Qur'an, including Qadi Thanaullah Panipati, are of the view that verse 16 refers to homosexual act committed between two males. Verse 16 is translated as follows:

"And those two of you who commit it (the shameful act), torture them both".

quran.com...:16/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran

The interpretation of the text here is based on assumptions and presumptions.

No.

You need to accept homosexuality is a sin in all Abrahamic religions as already known. It's not a secret.

I go by what Jesus tried to teach humanity not by the whims of men that rewrote Bible passages to match their values.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

I see you ignored my last post to you.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

I know it's extreme and troubling but the ethics of the societies at that time were different from our own.

But still you are allowed to reject homosexuality or yo refuse services based on your religion and freedom of speech.

An abomination is just that an abomination but it's not in the ten commandments. Hell, a man could unjustly accuse his wife of adultery and she would be put to death so he can get a younger version...not a sin back then.

You are expending your argument. It doesn't have to be in the ten commandments.

Who determines that? You? Me? There is a reason the ten commandments exist and only ten, the rest is left to cultural and societal norms or what works for the majority. And what of same sex couples that adhere to all those commandments are they still to be condemned?

I meant expanding. Typo.

The Christians determined it already and not me. You're making a mistake. Religion is embedded deeply in a society/culture. They're often indistinguishable.

Subjective interpretations are deeply embedded in bias and discrimination and we are seeing it play out here.

As opposed to what? The absolute truth? Can you find me a passage in Christianity or Islam that argues in favour of homosexuality?

This is the basis for the beliefs of many Christians and Muslims in the 21 century. Positions that don't approve homosexuality, regard it as a sin, and won't serve others based on their religious beliefs.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

Here are the five commandments of Islam but Islamic law does not apply here nor is any sin regarding homosexuality within any commandments. It's societal/cultural interpretations thereafter and we cannot go back and add it to the commandments. Stop grasping at straws or strawmen.

www.metmuseum.org...

What you've written doesn't address whether homosexuality is accepted In Islam. In fact it doesn't address anything. It speaks of nothing other than one God, how many times you need to pray, and a few other.

wikiislam.net...

Practicing homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam and is punishable under Islamic law, which is derived from the Quran and Hadith

But again not the point of the conversation. Point is made in my OP. Religion and free speech were used to deny services for this gay couple.

Nope, again open to interpretation.

The above discussion was based on the assumptions that both verses 15 and 16 relate to the fornication or adultery committed between men and women. However, some commentators of the Holy Qur'an, including Qadi Thanaullah Panipati, are of the view that verse 16 refers to homosexual act committed between two males. Verse 16 is translated as follows:

"And those two of you who commit it (the shameful act), torture them both".

quran.com...:16/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran

The interpretation of the text here is based on assumptions and presumptions.

No.

You need to accept homosexuality is a sin in all Abrahamic religions as already known. It's not a secret.

I go by what Jesus tried to teach humanity not by the whims of men that rewrote Bible passages to match their values.

I don't know what Jesus tried to teach. I really doubt it was a historical person and had ever existed. The version of Christianity you see today is Paul's ideas and views.

a reply to: carewemust

I wondered why a lower court, the very first day, didn't throw it out. The first SCOTUS ruling was clear.

a reply to: AlienBorg

We all want to be protected and feel special don't we?

All you have to do is claim to be gay or trans and viola you are special!

Maybe this explains the popularity in once rare orientations and identities.

a reply to: quintessentone

My position on this subject is very clear. I don't regard homosexuality as a sin and don't care what people do in their private lives.

I think religious beliefs based on the freedom of speech and freedom to exercise your religion are valid reasons to reject homosexuality as a whole or to reject providing services to others.

Some courts will reject this but others will accept it. The Supreme Court did accept it in this case.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Please try not to debate whether lesbianism is allowed in Christianity or Islam or Judaism. You can ask members of all three religions and I am sure of the answer you will get.

I have not tried to debate the fact that there are Christian sects, Muslims and Jewish sects that think all homosexuality is sinful. My point is that there is nothing in the Abrahamic text that condemns women laying women. There are however plenty of condemnation for sex outside of marriage, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and trimming your beard improperly. Will we see business owners discriminating against cohabitating hetero couples because of their sinful lifestyle? Will the wedding website designer make sure that the couple haven't been divorced?

The fact that some of those religious sects of the Abrahamic religions believe lesbianism is a sin, even though the Old Testament does not condemn it, is an example of how subjective one's personal religious view can be and how people can cherry pick excuses to legally discriminate.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why do you feel like the only person that might object to creating a gay website is doing it for religious reasons?

Maybe that person was abused by a person of their same sex as a child, and has strong emotional reaction to creating anything celebrating that lifestyle, and thus simply cannot perform the task, adequately? Isn't it honest to turn the work down?