Sunday, April 5, 2015
Double standard?
End of last week, comic Steven Crowder released video of his efforts to buy a same-sex wedding cake in Dearborn, MI. The three stores in the video refused. Only thing is, they were run by Muslims instead of Christians. I have yet to see this reported by anyone in the mainstream media and I have yet to hear of any protests. We wouldn't have a double standard here would we? Is there anyone willing to take on the Muslim community for their anti-gay religious beliefs? I doubt it. Crowder video
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
First off, he needs to do this video in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class, and where the law does not give religious exemptions. I don't believe it is in Michigan other than in employment matters. I cannot find where Dearborn has a local ordinance giving protection. Also, I didn't hear any of these bakers say no because homosexuality is a sin and violates their religious beliefs or anything like that.
There is not even a debate as to whether or not Islam considers homosexuality a sin. Remember when the president of Iran told students at Columbia that there are no homosexuals in his contry. That's because when they get found out, they get executed.
What the video shows is that Muslims are smarter than Christians. They just refuse, but don't explain why. Even so, I'll bet you that when someone gets on video a Muslim refusing on religious grounds, there will not be an outcry like we heard in Indiana last week.
Indiana's problem was the way they constructed the law. They basically state sanctioned discrimination on religious grounds and overrode any local ordinance in the process. They obviously new they did wrong since they amended the law. Send this guy to Colorado, get a muslim to say no based on religious beliefs and sue them. IF he wants to be an activist, then go be one, but do it in the right state.
I'm sure it will happen sooner or later if Christians keep getting persecuted for holding to their beliefs.
Should a doctor be abel to refuse to treat a gay person because being gay is a sin in his belief? And if so, should that gay person die due to that doctor's refusal, then what?
These people are not refusing service to people because they are homosexual; it is same-sex marriage they oppose. I would not, for example, marry two men. But I would welcome homosexual people into our church. In fact, we have many times.
but they could. The Indiana law would have allowed religious belief to be used as a defense to not serve a customer. So again, I ask my doctor question. And by the way, nobody has said nor do they expect you or any religion to marry two men. You marrying two men versus a baker delivering a cake to a same sex wedding has no similarity.
There is no belief in Christianity that we should not serve a person because of their sexual immorality. That is a non-issue. The issue is lending support to same-sex marriage.
Suppose I own bakery and a couple comes in and says, "We need a cake to celebrate the one year anniversary of the beginning of our affair. Our spouses don't know we're sleeping together, but we want to celebrate our anniversary with our close friends." I would not make a cake for this event. Is this discrimination? Yes. But it is not discrimination against people; it is against immoral conduct. That's where Christians take their stand.
Indiana's problem is they tried to fix a problem that was not a problem in their state. They also went to far by saying the state stays out of the dispute if religion is the claim for not serving a gay customer or gay wedding.
I have no problem with any state putting in their Public Accommodation laws an exemption to cover your concern on gay weddings. Indiana went to far and opened a Pandora box by disallowing government arbitration. When the governor is asked at least 6 times on national tv if that law allowed discrimination against gays, he would not answer that question, so Indiana went much further than just gay weddings.
As for your example I don't think that's discrimination at all. Adulterers are not a protected class and I doubt they ever will be, nor should they be. No baker has to make a Nazi make for a skinhead.
Read this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/04/colorado-bakery-that-refused-to-bake-anti-gay-cakes-did-not-discriminate-state-agency-says/
If this guy was just trying to be an activist, he really should learn the law he is trying to use to make his point.
The most amusing part I find in this is how Indiana backed down when the money started talking. Did not take long for Arkansas to back down when Wal-Mart spoke up. So good luck to any Christian group trying to get an exemption versus all that money from corporate America.
Tom, it doesn't matter whether homosexuals are a "protected class." That's a political term; it has nothing to do with morality. My point is, Christians cannot support and encourage immorality, whether it's between an man and a woman or between two men. State-sanctioned immorality is still immorality. Abortion is the ultimate example.
Well Dave, sometimes when running a business you just have to suck it up and do things you might not like. One is not always allowed to pick and choose and if a business owner cannot deal with that, then find another line of work.
Tom, what you don't understand is that some of us live under a higher authority than the state. I would rather obey God than man. In the mean time I will agitate for change, for it's an immoral government that coerces its citizens to compromise their sincerely-held, biblically-based, millenia-old beliefs.
so you want a christian type caliphate state, which i, and I feel certain the majority in this country do not want.
Of course not. Where do you get that? All I want is the government to go back to allowing the citizens to practice their faith without hindrance or intimidation. I don't want the government enforcing religiosity on people. That has never worked. But when they tell me I have to tacitly show my approval of some sinful activity, they are in effect imposing a religious doctrine on me that is contrary to the Bible. That is crossing the line. It is the state making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't say they can't prohibit the free exercise of religion except when someone thinks they're being discriminated against. They can't prohibit it at all.
Post a Comment