« Restoring People: The Leprosy Doctor | Main | Jesus' Wife Fragment »

April 10, 2014

Comments

We've lost the battle on this issue in the sense that in the USA, SSM will most likely be legal in most states in the very near future, and the courts will have overturned those states that have legislated against SSM.

However, as Alan said, a lost battle is not a lost cause. Our best defense will be the way we model how marriage was designed to work, in the way a husband and wife treat one another, and in the way they are supposed to raise their children. Secondarily, education and knowledge of God's word in order to "tear down strongholds" and build up our brethren.

Brothers and sisters the times are getting darker, as predicted in the Gospels. Use the darkness to let your light shine brighter.

The natural direction I see from here is establishing the right to enter into a natural marriage, which is to restore a kind of marriage where it is not so easy to get divorced. Maybe it should be called marriage reform, but it would distinguish itself from the watered down meaning of marriage now, which seems to be to secure purported rights and make social statements.

Alan had me going in the first twenty seconds of the video. Ha ha. But I feel that this appears to be the goal of many a utopian dreamer who schemes of a society where voices to the contrary are silenced. The first estate of the pre-French Revolution. The church in Soviet society. Now.

It seems to put the lie to the ideals of the "arena of ideas," "diversity," and "tolerance." Too often Christianity has been on the "wrong side of history" (another meaningless slogan of recent coinage) in dealing with the views of society. But ... surrender?

In response to Rob Bell's silly idea that the Church should cooperate with the prevailing culture, my best single word replies is ... Telemachus. This was the friar who was so horrified by gladiatorial battles that he worked his way into the arena to stop the bloody proceedings. He was dispatched by the "prevailing culture" who gathered for the day's brutality. Shortly thereafter, the Emperor Honorius banned gladiator shows in 404 A.D.

The present moment is too short a time to believe a position is ineffective. Alan's example of abortion is apt, still legal after all these years, but still liable to fall into disuse with the passage of time.

To allow evil to triumph is simple enough, as Alan reminds us. Just say nothing, do nothing. But this would be a deafening testimony that the faith we hold deeply is of trivial value. That's why surrender is not an option.

Christians are free to express what they believe the ideal of marriage is from the pulpit, television and radio. They can remain married for life. They can live out their marriage vows modeled after the Biblical ideals of female submission and male governance and where both members are believers.

What they are losing is their ability to make civil law reflect all of these beliefs.

Do you believe this is somehow a form of "persecution" or "oppression"?

Christians are free to express what they believe the ideal of marriage is from the pulpit, television and radio.
For now.

Eventually it will become h8 speech and be banned.

And, BTW, it will initially be declared h8 speech, not by the people, who will be horrified, but by the nine tyrants in black robes.

But then as time passes we will all be asked to believe that that is what is right.

And we the sheeple will.

James Bradshaw,

Yep. LOL on persecution, oppression.
LOL on the whole over-the-top thing.

No. On second thought, it is outrageous (I don't mean 'funny'.) that Christians in the US would use the reasons they use to call themselves persecuted/oppressed while pining for the days when to appear gay meant to be presumed a criminal. It's a mere loss of comfortable, unwarranted privilege. These complaints are an affront anyone oppressed anywhere at anytime - particularly if they are feigned. (I can't decide whether it's more painful to think they are feigned or sincere.)

They have freedom of religion and are not losing it. They have freedom of speech and are not losing it. (I think the photographer case was wrongly decided and, in any case, isolated. The difference between the bakery and the photographer is that free speech protects the photographer who is an artist while cake - even wedding cake - is normally a commodity.)

They have freedom of religion and are not losing it.
For now.
They have freedom of speech and are not losing it.
For now.

The pro-homosexuality / pro-SSM, intolerant, hate-filled bullies will not ever quit forcing their views down our throats and destroying anyone who dares to express an opposing view.

Therefore, neither can we quit fighting back against these bullies.

It really is that simple.

@RonH:

Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a cake for a neo Nazi group with third Reich paraphernalia (swastikas, etc.?)

I'd like to emphasize that what we must do is make sure children do not get placed in a scenario where they are raised by a homosexual couple. Even atheist sociologists are saying this too. We don't know what the effects of such a thing will be. Let's assume that homosexuality is moral and there is nothing wrong with it. Society is not prepared for that kind of change yet. Leave the kiddos out of it. We do not need to be doing social experimentation with children. It's not a good idea.

>> Christians are free to express what they believe the ideal of marriage is from the pulpit, television and radio.

Ah yes, acceptable Christian media. Let's call this the Christian ghetto where like-minds can support each other. It is no better than a box to contain thought. This is tacit support for the OP.

The Christian message is not to be so contained. The Christian seeks the "peace of the city." And this means addressing the moral aspects of culture. If this is objectionable, so would be the alternate, the silencing of individual conscience that fails to comply with a default "accepted position on the matter."

I'd like to emphasize that what we must do is make sure children do not get placed in a scenario where they are raised by a homosexual couple.
While I agree with you about the perils, I'm afraid that train has left the station. Doesn't this happen all the time...you know Heather has Two Mommies?
The difference between the bakery and the photographer is that free speech protects the photographer who is an artist while cake - even wedding cake - is normally a commodity.
As if freedom of association isn't also a right that we want protected in this country. The baker should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Unwinnable

As we look around the world, do we not see much that should be classified as unwinnable? It appears that way to me. As far as I can tell, I can’t step foot outside my house in the morning before I see evidence of the unwinnable. We do go outside though.

As it relates to the culture at large, there’s not much in the win column is there? It makes sense when I look in the mirror that it’s that way.

Fortunately, the unwinnable is in the here and now. We are commanded to act in the here and now for reasons totally separate from the winnable and the unwinnable as defined by us.

As if to ask God Vegas odds. We’re kidding ourselves.

"I'd like to emphasize that what we must do is make sure children do not get placed in a scenario where they are raised by a homosexual couple."

Right. Because heterosexuals never abandon or abuse their own children.

There are numerous upstanding gay men and women in society. The fact that you are all incapable of seeing them as anything other than worthless degenerates speaks to your own blindness.

"The pro-homosexuality / pro-SSM, intolerant, hate-filled bullies will not ever quit forcing their views down our throats"

Christians speak ill of gays from the pulpit, from television, from the radio. They quote Leviticus, saying "our blood is on our own heads". They seek to strip us of every legal protection that they themselves enjoy for their chosen religious affiliation in employment and housing. They want to deny our relationships any legal recognition whatsoever. Who is forcing what down whose throats?

As a youngster, we would some times get into discussions on how we got here. How did we become babies and get to the hospital so our parents could bring us home?

Finally one day, such a discussion with an older boy yielded the truth.

I remember well the reaction of one of the boys after hearing about the heterosexual union that brought him forth. He had a difficult time accepting it. He said something like "my dad would never do something like that to my mom". Yuck! Sick!

Can you imagine what he would have done had he been raised by a male couple, had he heard what they do for sex?

An orphan having no family can be a good thing.

James,

I fear that in advancing the "righteous cause," the trend is in the elimination of the other voice, and this by a version of "demonization" that refuses to see the other side as motivated by noble purpose, in the defense of truth. In the end, all lines of communication line broken.

A positive story where communication is tried, and at least understanding of issues are clarified without agreement. I recall listening to Matthew Vines coming to a local church and explain his ideas of "Gay Christianity." Three items leap out at me in the importance of the event:

1) In the beginning, Matthew Vines made a quick request to see the hands of those who felt homosexuality was a sin. He noted well over 95% thought so. Supporters in that assembly were few.

2) At the end, the expression of fear and trepidation Vines felt offered as he spoke of that up-coming speaking event.

3) The respectful reception Vines received. No one booed. No one was convinced by Vines' presentation, but none accused Vines of satanic reasoning, just poor interpretation skills. Noteworthy among those who responded to his message was one young woman, a slight sounding lady with a demure Didi Conn voice, pleading with Vines to realize that she desired him with heart-felt pleas to please reconsider his position "for his soul's sake."

This is the missing dimension of the whole debate. The "gay community" refuses to see people led by the authority of Scriptures to renounce the lifestyle for the sake of the "gay individual." Call them vicious, use every form of defamation possible to advance the "cause." Both sides have to reconsider their approach, be more tactful of the person who is of the other opinion.

Insisting on the other side to remain silent is more than rude; it is perhaps a subtle admission that it can be compelling if left unchecked.

brett,
cc WL,

Maybe you can see the spectrum of cases your question points out.

If you hunt me with a rifle at night, I don't have to sell you a croissant in the morning.

On the other hand, I'd normally have to serve the guy with the NRA t-shirt (or the one he got from the Brady Campaign) - and rightly so.

A business can't refuse service arbitrarily. This is what courts say (freedom of association notwithstanding) and they have good reasons: arbitrary refusals are incompatible with the reasons we establish communities which enable businesses to exist in the first place.

Businesses owe the community service. The community provides the business with services vital to its existence. The community provides the roads that lead to the business. When the business catches fire, the community fights the fire it out. When someone steals from the business, the community looks for the thief.
Etc.

The community has compelling interests in banning arbitrary refusal to serve. A refusal to serve can, intentionally or not, put someone in danger. Arbitrary refusals invite an escalating cycle of retaliation. Arbitrary refusals don't contribute to debate; they are a bad way to handle issues.

Therefore, in return, with exceptions such as those mentioned, everyone in the community gets service.

One class of reasons for refusal to serve accepted by courts involve threats/dangers to the business or its customers.

Another class that I think should be accepted is those reasons backed by other principles - such as freedom of speech.

A Republican speech writer can decline to work for a Democrat because requiring him to work for the Democrat means forcing him to promote a view he disagrees with.

Likewise a graphic artist can refuse to design a poster promoting a view he disagrees with.

A wedding photographer is not a mere transcriptionist. To be a good wedding photographer, I think, she has to be a promoter of the event she's photographing. In the famous case, giving that photographer the benefit of the doubt (she means to be a good wedding photographer), the refusal was justified.

Since selling someone a wedding cake doesn't normally imply an endorsement of the particular wedding, they gotta sell it. In that famous case, refusal was probably arbitrary. But if the wedding cake were special - a work of art, like my daughter once made for some friends of ours - that would be different.

RonH


The community provides the business with services vital to its existence. The community provides the roads that lead to the business. When the business catches fire, the community fights the fire it out. When someone steals from the business, the community looks for the thief.
I think this isn't as clear as it should be.

Here's how it should actually read:

The business pays for services vital to its existence through taxes collected by the community. The business pays taxes for the roads that lead to the business. When the business catches fire, firefighters paid for by taxes on the business put the fire out. When someone steals from the business, policemen paid for by the business look for the thief.
FTFY

I disagree that 'the community' has provided anything to the business that gives 'the community' the right to micromanage its affairs. What they have done is collect taxes from the business and spent that money incredibly wastefully and often on things that the business owners don't care for to 'provide' the vital services that the business does need. If anything, the almost criminal way in which the business owner's tax monies are spent by 'the community' incurs a further obligation by 'the community' toward the business, not the other way.

At the very least, after the taxman has fleeced the business owner, 'the community' should leave the business alone. The owner should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatever. Seinfeld's Soup Nazi should have every right to say "No soup for you!" anytime he wants for whatever reason he wants. If you don't like that, don't go to the Soup Nazi next time you want soup.

If you don't like Mozilla's CEO, use Chrome instead of Firefox. If you don't like Chick-Fil-A's CEO, eat at McDonald's instead. If you don't like Hobby Lobby's views about contraception, shop at Michael's instead. The free market has ample remedies for these 'horrible' injustices. We don't need to bring in the Washington Mafia to fix things.

WL,

I gave reasons for my view.

Refusals can put people in danger.
Refusals invite retaliation.
Refusals aren't a argument; they don't settle issues.
I'll add one: each refusal saps the economy.
And another: if a group that refuses gets big enough, then they can make life untenable for the group they refuse.

I get your view - a man's shop is his castle.
You just repeated it.
Give reasons for your view.

I pointed out that judges typically don't agree with you.
Look it up.

Why should I listen to you instead of these judges?

Why do you bring up Hobby Lobby and those others but not the owners of white only lunch counters?

RonH


I’d ask those that advocated Eich’s ouster:

Now that he’s no longer employed by Mozilla, where should Brendan Eich be able to work?

Should he be able to work bagging groceries at the local grocery store? Perhaps tearing tickets at the movie theater?

If it was right to drive him from Mozilla, then it’s right to drive him from the grocery or the theater as well.

Perhaps he should be unemployable? Perhaps his family should go hungry?

KWM writes: "Perhaps he should be unemployable? Perhaps his family should go hungry?"

That's exactly what fundamentalist Christians have been pushing for over the last several decades in their opposition to ENDA laws. They believe it's a matter of their "religious freedom" to fire gays with impunity.

That being said, I would not have asked for Eich to resign. I disagree with his views (strongly), but from all accounts, he was willing to abide by Mozilla's company's non-discrimination policies, and he otherwise seems like an intelligent person.

Respect goes both ways. Keep this in mind.

Refusals can put people in danger.
So if I don't bake a wedding cake for Adam and Steve, someone will be in danger?

Maybe I will be.

Thus:

Refusals invite retaliation.
This is the argument of the racketeer.

But then, a large part of our government just is a protection racket.

Refusals aren't a argument; they don't settle issues.
So what? My baking a cake does?
each refusal saps the economy
Again, so what? What obligation does the business owner have for helping the economy? If a business owner goes into business for the express purpose of damaging the economy, that's his right. Such businesses seldom last long. The free market has a way of weeding them out.
if a group that refuses gets big enough, then they can make life untenable for the group they refuse.
And if a group that demands service of those who'd prefer not to associate with them gets big enough...aided by the compelled servitude of those they demand service of...they may make life untenable for those they demand service of.

Ron, I'm sorry, but your 'reasons' are no reason.

By the way, if the problem with the government protection racket isn't good enough, then I don't have any reason for you to agree with me over judges.

Just out of curiosity, then, do you think Elaine should have sued the Soup Nazi when he refused to sell her soup? And what would the remedy be? Should he be compelled to make soup for her? Or should the soup store have been closed? Or what?

Why do you bring up Hobby Lobby and those others but not the owners of white only lunch counters?
Sorry Ron, I know you don't really have an answer to my argument, but I'm not taking the bait.

Sad turn in the line of posts.

Political jargon. Meaningless. Fear-mongering. Sanctimonious.

One side could easily co-opt the wordage of the other side to make the same point backwards at you.

>> That's exactly what fundamentalist Christians have been pushing for over the last several decades in their opposition to ENDA laws.

could with a little switching become ...

That's exactly what extremist secularists have been pushing for over the last several decades in their opposition to DODA laws.

Refusal is logical.
Refusal is principled and easily performed in tactful ways.
Refusal is Lexington-Concord punctuated with the shot hear 'round the world.

>> And another: if a group that refuses gets big enough, then they can make life untenable for the group they refuse.

Agreed. But remember that this argument cuts both ways. Krystalnacht. The smashing of shops that demonstrated that the big group is in charge.

So let's please drop the jargon and find reasonable resolutions to this problem. Yes, respect goes both ways. We've agreed on one thing. Let's go for number two.

Here is what I had in mind above.

Refusals can put people in danger.
I meant like refusing to sell someone gas causing them to run out. On the highway? In the snow? In the desert?
Or refusing them a room when they need to stop driving and sleep.
The point is being refused some services (No not cake baking.) can lead to a dangerous situation.
Refusals invite retaliation.
The retaliation I had in mind was more refusal of service by the group first refused.
Refusals aren't a argument; they don't settle issues.
WL says 'So what?' to this.
I guess I think we should give each other reasons and arguments for our positions rather than engaging in economic warfare which is what refusal of service is.
I'll add one: each refusal saps the economy.
WL says 'So what?' again - the shop owner does not care about the economy.
Well, I do.
How about you?

WL says 'The owner should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatever.'
I asked if that includes the owners of 'white only' lunch counters.
He's not taking the bait.
What in the world does that mean?

I meant like refusing to sell someone gas causing them to run out. On the highway? In the snow? In the desert?
How does that work exactly? The gas station attendant stops and asks someone whether they're gay before selling them gas?
The retaliation I had in mind was more refusal of service by the group first refused.
The word you are looking for there is "escalation".
I guess I think we should give each other reasons and arguments for our positions rather than engaging in economic warfare which is what refusal of service is.
Maybe you're right. Should the state, then, compel us to engage in arguments? What's more likely is that after the state has decided how businesses are to be run, anti-SSM arguments will get labeled as h8 speech.
WL says 'So what?' again - the shop owner does not care about the economy. Well, I do. How about you?
Again, you think the state should force businesses to do what's good for the economy. Why just businesses? Why not individuals? Should the state illegalize economically sub-optimal behavior?
I asked if that includes the owners of 'white only' lunch counters. He's not taking the bait. What in the world does that mean?
Still not taking the bait.

Missed this one:

refusing them a room when they need to stop driving and sleep.
As dangerous as this may be, it does happen all the time for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with sexuality.

What if the customer can't pay? Refusing service doesn't become less dangerous in that case. Should the state compel hospitality providers to provide their service to people free of charge (at least after certain hours...you know, so we don't have sleepy people driving around.

What if the hotel is full? In order to prevent danger, will the state force strangers to share rooms?

What if the hotel manager just doesn't like the look of a customer. Let's say she suspects that the customers want to use one of his rooms as a private place to complete a drug deal? But she can't prove it...and maybe she even turns out, in fact, to be wrong. Must she provide a room?

Let's say she suspects that the customer is there to complete a prostitution transaction (but can't prove it). Let's even suppose that prostitution is legalized (as many liberals argue it should be). Must, then, she allow her place of business to become a brothel?

Or at least, after hours...just to prevent the danger of sleepy drivers.

WL: As dangerous as this may be, it does happen all the time for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with sexuality.
Sexuality is in the background now. I am talking about
WL: The baker should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
____________
WL: Let's say she suspects that the customers want to use one of his rooms as a private place to complete a drug deal?...brothel...
See above:
RH: One class of reasons for refusal to serve accepted by courts involve threats/dangers to the business or its customers.

Hi W/L, good response...points out the ridiculous fallout...also, implied in RonH's objections is the unproven assertion that gayness is equitable with racial characteristics, it's not.

One class of reasons for refusal to serve accepted by courts involve threats/dangers to the business or its customers.
But in the case I supposed that prostitution was legal, that the manager was wrong about the drug deal. She just didn't like the look of the customer, so she refused service.

Suppose that the business owner perceives a threat to her business should she allow openly gay customers to rent rooms.

Maybe her hotel is so located that the majority of her clientele are knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing bigots like me.

the unproven assertion that gayness is equitable with racial characteristics, it's not.
Yes, of course it isn't. And homosexual activity surely isn't.
unproven assertion that gayness is equitable[sic] with racial characteristics
That assertion is irrelevant to my point. It's not just RonH who says you have to justify refusing service even if the refused is not in any protected group. The courts say so over and over for the reasons I have given. Stinking can get you refused. Wearing gang colors can get you refused. But there has to be a reason.

Hi RonH, corrrect me if I'm wrong...it seems as though you consider it foundational to your position that the courts must compel people to do the right thing[whatever that may be] and that social pressure isn't preferrable.

IOW, would you consider it a legitimate option, in a case of refusal of service to anyone for any reason/no reason, that there are consequences...not from the court/law, but from the people as individual persons excersizing their own moral decisions?

FWIW, I think that if law compels, the founding principle: true liberty is the freedom to what you ought to do, not freedom to do what you swant to do is destroyed such that true liberty is impossible. This is why moral teaching should be valued above all things, not be discouraged...as it is in the U.S. these days.

Brad B,


First paragraph:
You're wrong so I'll correct you. I have not expressed any opinion about what the courts 'must' do. I have pointed out what they have done - partly to counter the idea that I'm off in my own little world on this and partly because, as a group, judges have some qualifications in this area.

Second paragraph:
I can't decode that. Are those really 'other words' for the first paragraph?

Third paragraph:
I, too, dread being forced to do something against your conscience. As a rule, it is of great value for us not to coerce one another against conscience. But it's one important consideration among many - not an universal override for all other circumstances - if only because consciences come into conflict. Finally, I think moral teaching is very important too. But you can say that on any side of any issue.

Hi RonH, seems from your use of the phrase "the courts have said so..." here and in previous posts, I had to wonder. Also, from this:

"as a group, judges have some qualifications in this area."
Is this a blank check? It sure seems as though you're aligning with govt. as bully.

I agree with W/L's earlier description in this thread when he said "nine tyrants in black robes". Simple fact is that judges are capable of gross error and irrational judicial activism ala Roe v. Wade.

As far as my restating, I meant to rephrase the question as: rather than the government compel doing the right thing, is social/peer pressure a viable option?...in your opinion? That is the point I'm wondering about.

Then, you said:

"Finally, I think moral teaching is very important too. But you can say that on any side of any issue."

Hmm, you have no basis for this...other than the world according to whoever.

I should have ended my last sentence in this way to complete the thought:

"Hmm, you have no basis for this...other than the world according to whoever, in this case, "nine tyrants in black robes".

Brad B,
cc WL,


Is this a blank check?

"as a group" and 'some qualifications' should have made it clear: No, it is not a blank check. Don't you think?

"Hmm, you have no basis for this...

Why say this? Do you have a case for

The baker should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Cogitatingduck,

The natural direction I see from here is establishing the right to enter into a natural marriage, which is to restore a kind of marriage where it is not so easy to get divorced.

The right? Did you know you are allowed to stay married as long as you both want in every state in the union? Did you know you can join a church that will throw you out if your divorce doesn't meet their standards?

Google 'covenant marriage'. Several states have them. It's hard to get out of one - just as you want it. Few people choose them, apparently. Go figure.

Hi RonH, I wouldn't care if it was the butcher, baker, or candlestick maker who reserves the rigth to refuse service to anyone because at the bottom line, the produce of their effort is their property until such time as they decide they are willing to part with it. Personal property rights are in fact an important element in maintaining personal liberty. Property rights, individual property rights are listed all over the founding documents to protect individuals from the state control of their person.

You reject blank check, but I take it there is still a check...one that allows the 9 tyrants to determine what happens to an individual's production/produce/product simply because they operate in a society as though operating in a society automatically admits subjugation and limitation of right of determination of ones personal property. Just because the U.S. government has treated people like chattle property for 100 years, acted as though the produce of the people is communal if the circumstances dictate it, and ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't mean it is founded on anything authoritative. It just means that the government is operating outside the law...not the one the 9 tyrants interpreted, the one above them.

An alternative would be: baker refuses service to a person/class/race...the rest of the baker's customer base doesn't like it so they find another baker or another person steps up and bakes for the baker-less since there is an opportunity. No need to trample personal property rights, and thus liberty.

I have not expressed any opinion about what the courts 'must' do. I have pointed out what they have done
No one denies this. What we're wondering is how what they have done extends to other cases and whether we like that extension.
partly to counter the idea that I'm off in my own little world on this
Again, no one thinks you are. I would imagine, Ron, that you represent a major stream of thought on this issue...perhaps even the majority opinion.
and partly because, as a group, judges have some qualifications in this area.
This intrigues me. Exactly what special qualifications do you think judges have? Personally, I think I'd rather have most of these decisions made by 9 people picked at random.

Brad B,
cc WL,

I take it from your last paragraph that you would support the owners of whites only candlestick makers, lunch counters, and doctors because the market will take care of it. Is that right?

It sounds like you have a very high view of private property. How far do you take this? Was man made for private property or private property for man? I think the latter. You can see what the notion of private property does for us by imagining a world without such a notion - a world where you farm all day and I take your harvest with impunity. People are motivated to steal rather than farm. But stealing actually produces nothing. So the notion of private property serves us well. It's useful - to a point.

Private property is a means to an end. The Constitution explicitly recognizes this, giving Congress the power

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Why would the writers care about 'Science and the useful Arts'? Because they are useful to people.

Notice too, that the writers intended patent and copyright to be for 'limited Times'. They held man above property and you should too.

WL,
cc BradB,

Exactly what special qualifications do you think judges have?
They went to law school were they train you to think about such things. Then, other similarly trained people endorsed them giving them ( the judges) power over themselves (the rest of the profession) not to mention. This is a reason to look at what judges have said (and why) - not to accept it uncritically.
[No one says I expressed an opinion about what judges 'must' do?]
Actually, I put the quotes around must because the word appeared in Brad B's comment
Hi RonH, correct me if I'm wrong...it seems as though you consider it foundational to your position that the courts must compel people to do the right thing[whatever that may be] and that social pressure isn't preferable.
That doesn't look like an attempt to paraphrase me. It looks like Brad B putting words in my mouth (not necessarily intentionally). If I don't fix it, it could look like assent. So I'm left in a difficult position: I don't like having to give clarifications like this. It's a distraction from the topic. Sometimes I just let it go - accepting the misunderstanding for the sake of keeping on topic. But I speak to be understood, so sometimes I feel I have to respond.

By the way, I notice in there that Brad B seems to prefer 'social pressure' to court compulsion. Court compulsion becomes 'tyrany' when a court does something y'all don't like but when they do something you do like?

Likewise for 'social pressure': it seems to become 'bullying' when practiced against the views y'all tend to hold. Search this blog for 'bully' - or listen for how Greg uses the word on the show. The bullies are gays, their friends, and secularists in general.

But that brings me back to my first comment: You are not being bullied, oppressed, or persecuted. You are just rather rapidly, and perhaps painfully, losing long-standing, comfortable, unwarranted, excess privilege.

RonH

So much to respond to and so little time, but first:

"By the way, I notice in there that Brad B seems to prefer 'social pressure' to court compulsion. Court compulsion becomes 'tyrany' when a court does something y'all don't like but when they do something you do like?"

No, tyrany because law by edict without respect to existing law or respect toward person. I do "prefer" social pressure, but do not exclude the need to compel...the problem is "compel" is the first and only option in the mindset of many. If the courts do something I dont like, they should at least have a justifiable argument instead of acting like the population doesn't know the difference between (****) and shinola. Even if the populace is being dumbed down and are fooled, this doesn't somehow make a bad decision more proper.

They went to law school were they train you to think about such things. Then, other similarly trained people endorsed them giving them ( the judges) power over themselves (the rest of the profession) not to mention.
I don't believe this is quite the way judges are selected. But even so, this strikes me as a reason to doubt what they have to say.
You are not being bullied
Well, for now, I'm not because I'm just a software engineer. But that baker was not bullied?

I don't think we mean the same thing by "bullied."

He RonH, as to your previous post I will start at the top and will piecemeal a response as I have time.

Civil magistrates do have authority to bear the sword to punish evil, and they do have authority to reward good behavior...this is a biblical view of government in the city of man. I doubt we really disagree that the magistrates have authority in these two areas, but how and when it is accomplished and by which means is employed is likely where we wil find disagreement. Once again, I think we will find that your worldview will not be supported by anythihg more solid than "the world acording to whoever", but how the magistrate acts is essential to the validity of the power it weilds and it's justification to act as a minister for good.

The case of the baker, or lunch counter segregation, is one where the magistrate should reward good behavior by incentivising the right thing to do. If that be non segregated lunch counters(which by the way all Christians should support), tax incentives or outright tax credits for businesses that do what ought to be done have an advantage over the one that doesnt. This solution in no way bullies a person or business who chooses to segregate or not serve based on race. I hope you get my point...out of time til late today.

The issue of the photographer is plain and simple - you cannot force someone to sin against their beliefs. Shadrach, Mechach and Abednego people. ANY Christian will resist that. Also, it's like forcing a Jehovahs witness to celebrate Easter. Look at Huckabee's examples, their even better to show how stupid that court judgement was.
What Christians, that is ALL who believe that government is the problem, is to "divorce", as a protest, and force government to rewrite the tax code.
There, no one gets the stupid "benefits".
And RonH, that is a religous ceremony - that's your distinction.

Hi W/L, you siad:

"Well, for now, I'm not because I'm just a software engineer. But that baker was not bullied?"

I assure you that you are bullied, when you have some of your earnings are taken from you and used to fund things I'm sure you oppose, and then if you refuse your contribution, there will be some persuasion leveled upon you aka bullying you to keep your contributions coming.

You are not alone when you responded to RonH with this:

"don't believe this is quite the way judges are selected. But even so, this strikes me as a reason to doubt what they have to say."

William F.Buckley famously said:

"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

What these whiz kid fans dont seem to realize is that a good judge or leader of any kind posseses wisdom something rarely found in a purely academic environment-as you well know.

The comments to this entry are closed.