Author Topic: Riddle me this  (Read 11684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Riddle me this
« on: April 23, 2016, 02:11:24 PM »
If its perfectly ok for folks like the Boss, and other entertainers not choose not to perform at a certain venue, based on some "principled position", how is that any different than a baker or florist choosing not to perform functions for a certain venue, based on a principled religious position?? 

Yet one is celebrated & the other condemned, .... by the same folks
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2016, 03:20:51 PM »
it`s pretty much the same but both has differing social standing. in the past it was ok to refuse people of certain race and now it`s not. religion today simply needs to back up it`s refusal with not because it`s moral but for tangible reason. ex. gay are by nature thieves and doing business with them will cause loss of income. gays are unsanitary and will risk the shop to be condemned.

both those claims were the reason race was denied service and religion was used to. I got no problem for the boss to refuse as long as he doesn`t get paid. if his contract says he still gets a check he should not collect.


hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2016, 03:59:28 PM »
Springsteen et al are not refusing to play concerts for crowds (or provide services or jobs) that are specifically conservative, anti-LGBT, or any one specific belief. So when they don't perform, it affects people of ALL beliefs, even those that support their own cause. If they screened fans and only allowed you in if you were personally LGBT or supported their cause, then the comparison to some so-called Christian who refused service only to those he disagreed with would be more appropriate.

Economic boycott such as this has long been used in the US.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2016, 04:19:04 PM »
A boycott is a boycott is a boycott.  Rationalizing and giving a pass for one while condemning and prosecuting the other is largely hypocritical.  Both aren't seeking compensation, merely a choice NOT to provide a service based on nothing more than a supposed strong moral/spiritual conviction

Let it be on record, I don't have a problem with the Boss refusing to participate/perform....so long as he's not paid.  I feel bad for the fans, but that's his financial/moral decision, based on not supporting what the state is.  Same to the baker and flourist, who based on long held religious conviction, chose simply not to participate in specific functions that celebrate those acts they don't support.  But they don't get paid either

In other words, IMHO, another instance of how destructive Political Correctness is becoming to this nations' long standing position on freedoms & Constitutional protections
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2016, 04:36:09 PM »
I`m against pc due to it`s momentum is so great it does even resemble it`s own cause. just saying pc is now offensive to some . It reminds me of a central american regime that eventually attacks it`s own allies out of paranoia. me saying that is non-pc and racist

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2016, 04:39:43 PM »
The baker refusing to bake a cake is not boycotting the wedding couple with the intent of preventing the wedding.

Springsteen is refusing to play because of change in the status quo at the time of agreeing to perform and  scheduled the time of the performance. And he is clearly trying to change the state policy on bathrooms.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2016, 04:46:43 PM »
The baker isn't trying to prevent anything.  He simply wishes to not participate in somethign his convictions tell him are wrong.  The "couple" can simply get another baker.  Nor is the baker trying to change state policy.  Springsteen however is "preventing" his own concert from occuring.  I suppose the venue could try to make some last minute calls and bring in Gallagher.  Point being, as Kimba rightly pointed out, both situations are pretty much the same.  Yet its ok for Bruce to do what the baker is trying to being prosecuted for??
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2016, 04:50:41 PM »
i thought the bathroom is just a showcase sample of religiious right to refuse service. is it separate?  I`ve been backing it because it has to least egffect on people and the opposition used wrong rebuttals. if they just say the law is can be modified to allow protection for all attendence then if or when a incident happens the liberal get all the blame. you can even word liberal get all the blame in the proposal.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2016, 04:58:34 PM »
strategicly the bakery situation is a bad move . they pretty much got martyr status note the support they get here and is one of the many.many reasons for the pushback this country is now experience.

this is not an issue of morality,right or wrong. those are just window dressing and hardly that

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2016, 05:46:02 PM »
Springsteen et al are not refusing to do business with just those who are not LGBT or support their cause. They are boycotting an entire state for passing a law they see as discriminatory and wrong. This is much like boycotting South Africa over their policies of apartheid years ago. Where was your outrage then when the world 'hypocritically' boycotted SA for refusing equal treatment to blacks? Or the Soviet Union for their invasion of Afghanistan?  Or, well, I could go on, but you get the gist.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2016, 06:02:41 PM »
Springsteen et al are not refusing to do business with just those who are not LGBT or support their cause.

It doesn't matter the rationalization H.  He's decided to not perform a function, based in his supposed moral conviction...he doesn't support what the state is supporting.  Fine.  NO different than what the baker or flourist is doing when deciding not to perform a function, based on their spiritual conviction.

If its ok for one, its sure as hell should be ok for the other.  And the kicker is neither the flourist nor the baker are trying to manipulate or extort state policy.  They could be claiming the same as what you infer Bruce feels...the notion grossly unfair discrimination, where their religion is being targeted & prosecuted.  Instead, they simply want to exercise the Constitutional freedom of religion....and yet they're the "bad guys" here??
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2016, 07:34:16 PM »
I would presume tge bakery incident was one of the factors that brought this law about.as i said before pushback

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2016, 07:38:49 PM »
Oops forgot

But religion itself is now in the spotlight here in the states. Before the church can say anything is not moral and never answer for it. Today eventually when someone will ask why? Strangely nobody has yet. Bothsides dont seem to want to go there

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2016, 07:54:38 PM »
...And....the 1st amendment to the Constitution includes the Freedom of Religion.  That entails a few components:
- The Government is prevented from establishing some national Religion/Church that everyone is to follow
- The Citizenry is free to practice their religion without Government intervention (so long as it doesn't infringe the rights of someone else.  And no, no one has a right to a cake or flowers)
- The Citizenry is alo free to not follow any religion at all, if they so choose

These are foundations to this Country and the freedoms we hold dear.  Just because something is no longer politically correct doesn't make it hateful, bigoted, or discriminatroy, if it falls within the boundaries of the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Whatever not referenced in the Constitution, is indeed a component of the States.  This however is clearly a Federal issue....one of Constitutional authority
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 08:19:12 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Riddle me this
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2016, 08:37:42 PM »
Question: "Did Jesus come only for the Jews and not the Gentiles?"

Answer: Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries (see Luke 2:25; 3:15). As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town (see Luke 2:27; Galatians 4:4). Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people. However, none of this means that Jesus’ ministry was limited exclusively to the Jews.

In Matthew 15, there is an incident that, at first, seems to confirm the idea that Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus was traveling through Tyre and Sidon, a Gentile region, and “a Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly’” (Matthew 15:22). This Gentile woman recognized Jesus as the Messiah (“Son of David”), but “Jesus did not answer a word” (verse 23). As the woman kept up her appeals, Jesus finally responded, but His words seemed to hold little hope: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (verse 24). However, the woman did not give up, and Jesus eventually granted her request, based on her “great faith” (verse 28).

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

It took a while for the early church to recognize that salvation was available to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled the persecution in Jerusalem went into the Gentile regions of Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, but they were “spreading the word only among Jews” (Acts 11:19). Peter was hesitant to bring the gospel to a Gentile household, but God made it plain that Cornelius was also one of the elect (Acts 10).

“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” (Romans 3:29). Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but He had come to offer salvation to everybody. The Messiah was to be a “light for the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6). So call on Jesus, because “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).

Recommended Resources: Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin Wilson and Logos Bible Software.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Jews-only.html

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
BY ANN NAFFZIGER DECEMBER 9, 2011

(CNS photo courtesy Catholic Communication Campaign)
If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.
In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

http://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-homosexuality

Jesus himself did not refuse sinners

Luke 15:1-2 ESV

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

https://www.openbible.info/topics/sinners

So, who are the hypocrites here?
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016