Originally posted by BigPiney
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gay Wedding Cakes
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ted View PostBut I suspect that religions that don't conform to recognizing gay marriage will become obsolete in the long run... so add this to my prediction: Someday gays will enjoy being married in the temple as well. Of course, they may not be married for time and "all eternity" for what may seem like an eternity but I would guess they will be married "for time" within my child's lifetime. Someday the church leadership may look back on the ban on gay marriage and write in their FAQ "we don't know where that came from."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Crockett View PostSo if the Church decides its okay to perform gay marriages for time -- i.e., homosexual relations are not sinful -- then why not for eternity, too? Why the difference?Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Crockett View PostSo if the Church decides its okay to perform gay marriages for time -- i.e., homosexual relations are not sinful -- then why not for eternity, too? Why the difference?"If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by falafel View PostStill can't procreate! Spiritual penises and spiritual butt holes can't produce spiritual children."If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ted View PostBut I suspect that religions that don't conform to recognizing gay marriage will become obsolete in the long run... so add this to my prediction: Someday gays will enjoy being married in the temple as well. Of course, they may not be married for time and "all eternity" for what may seem like an eternity but I would guess they will be married "for time" within my child's lifetime. Someday the church leadership may look back on the ban on gay marriage and write in their FAQ "we don't know where that came from."
But if we don’t believe sec is needed to make a spirit baby (which I don’t think it is but really couldn’t care less) then there’s no reason gay marriage can’t be eternal and not just for time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostIs sex required to make spirit babies? Just curious since that seems really weird. I know some Mormons believe that polygamy will be needed in heaven so we can populate worlds with spirit babies, which might mean Thant heaven is just one big orgy :condom:
But if we don’t believe sec is needed to make a spirit baby (which I don’t think it is but really couldn’t care less) then there’s no reason gay marriage can’t be eternal and not just for time.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAin't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by old_gregg View Postwhat in tarnation is the “business world”? private enterprises that do not provide necessary public services or accommodations should be free to discriminate against whomever they please on whatever basis they feel like. a wedding cake bakery does not provide lodging, facilitate travel or provide staple foods.
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostYou are painting an inherently complex issue in black and white terms. It is not that simple and it is not equivalent to racial discrimination.'
Also, you said:
The "government's rules" include freedom of religion. We have a classic case of competing interests here."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostI guess 'business world' is a poor term. Let me try to state my general opinion. If you own a business, and you receive all the benefits the law affords you for having a business, the law can forbid you from discriminating against groups of customers based on personal prejudices. And I think the government should protect against discrimination, even if your business doesn't provide essential services.
I see no easy distinction. Both forms of discrimination are based on prejudices that should have no place in society. If there is no rational societal basis for discrimination, it shouldn't be tolerated in private business. Again, anyone who claims freedom of religion for prejudicial thought/action can run with it in their church or private life. If your business operates in the private sector, leave your religious beliefs behind. There should be a societal responsibility to treat all citizens fairly.
This isn't a hypothetical, by the way. As previously stated, my company currently refuses to accept business from pornographers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostI guess 'business world' is a poor term. Let me try to state my general opinion. If you own a business, and you receive all the benefits the law affords you for having a business, the law can forbid you from discriminating against groups of customers based on personal prejudices. And I think the government should protect against discrimination, even if your business doesn't provide essential services.
I see no easy distinction. Both forms of discrimination are based on prejudices that should have no place in society. If there is no rational societal basis for discrimination, it shouldn't be tolerated in private business. Again, anyone who claims freedom of religion for prejudicial thought/action can run with it in their church or private life. If your business operates in the private sector, leave your religious beliefs behind. There should be a societal responsibility to treat all citizens fairly."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by cowboy View PostMost people see this case as another version of Katzenbach v. McClung, but I disagree. It would be one thing to refuse service to people because they are gay, but this is opposition to the activity, not the person. The counter argument, of course, is this is a legal activity, and they would not be opposed to providing service if the participants weren't gay. I disagree. Taking this to a ridiculous extreme, this would seem to imply that a female photographer who photographs nude women should be compelled to do the same for a man. No analogy is perfect, so I don't want to go far with that one, but the point is that I don't think anyone should be compelled to provide a service for an activity that they don't want to participate in.
Before anyone starts calling me a homophobe, I have a business that provided material for a gay wedding, and I'd do it again. I didn't know what it was for at the time, but I certainly didn't have a problem with it. The customer has returned a few times for other things. I just think people should have the freedom to say no.As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by BigFatMeanie View PostAn interesting analogy, in my opinion, is whether the government should be able to compel technical/software companies or individuals to do things that violate the religious/moral/expression principles the company disagrees with.
My company refuses all business from pornographers. Should we be forced to take on their business?
Should the software engineers at Apple be forced to create government backdoors or to otherwise hack into customer data that the customer hasn't granted them access to?
If I was an individual contract software engineer, should I be forced to take on projects and write code for things that I felt were morally objectionable?As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by mpfunk View PostYou should not be forced to take business pornographers. Of course, pornographers are not a protected class and a pornographer makes a choice. LGBTQ individuals are not making a choice.Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
can somebody - lebowki perhaps since he said it - help me understand how this is different than racial discrimination? TIA
I'm a baker, black guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're black.
gay guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're gay.
I don't see the difference, but to be fair, I'm not very smart.I'm like LeBron James.
-mpfunk
Comment
-
Originally posted by smokymountainrain View Postcan somebody - lebowki perhaps since he said it - help me understand how this is different than racial discrimination? TIA
I'm a baker, black guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're black.
gay guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're gay.
I don't see the difference, but to be fair, I'm not very smart.
I think the only way you can answer it and draw and distinction is if you believe that there is some choice involved with being LGTBQ. I don't think that there is any choice involved, so I see no difference.As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
Comment