First amendment right to refuse services to...

@vivify said
Furthermore your thread is not a "spiritual" topic, it's a legal and political one.

Nonsense. Of course it's a spiritual topic and it's here on the Spirituality Forum rather than the Debates Forum.

The questions are [1] is this, as some claim, a victory for religious liberty? Or [2] has this ruling, as others claim, legitimized a poison in US society?

The "liberty" and "poison" here are in the context of spiritual discourse and professing / acting upon religious faith, clearly.

You should perhaps take your purely "legal and political" stuff to the Debates Forum. Just a suggestion.

@vivify said
No comparison.

You dodged the question. An analogy is a form of comparison. In your peculiar analogy, which matter is analogous to child molestation and which is analogous to antisemitism?

@vivify said
Your logic: people who discriminate against child molesters are hypocrites for criticizing discrimination against Jews.

Lol, what.

Suzianne is a hypocrite because she discriminates against republicans just because they are republicans. It’s not a question of relative morality, it’s a question of intellectual integrity.

@vivify said
You're not worth responding to.

Yes I am and here you are proving the point.

I think you’re just another bent-out-of-shape lefty, with a chip on your shoulder.

@fmf said
You dodged the question. An analogy is a form of comparison. In your peculiar analogy, which matter is analogous to child molestation and which is analogous to antisemitism?

"Dodged"? I addressed your question directly.

You're saying if you discriminate against something, regardless of the reason, it's "hypocrisy" to criticize others for any discrimination. That's illogical, regardless of Suzi's religious affiliation.

Discrimination against gays is bigotry. Criticism against a political party is not. Period.

You said that Christians denying gays rights "walk the walk". This is a "no true Christian" fallacy. Is Divegeester a "hypocrite" for discriminating against creationists? Because Kelly "walks the walk" by fighting against evolution.

@divegeester said
Yes I am and here you are proving the point.

I think you’re just another bent-out-of-shape lefty, with a chip on your shoulder.

You're right.

In all honesty I generally respect your posts. As FMF pointed out I've gotten too used to name calling on the Debates forum and I'm bringing that filth here.

I apologize. I won't drag Debate forum negativity here.

@divegeester said
Lol, what.

Suzianne is a hypocrite because she discriminates against republicans just because they are republicans. It’s not a question of relative morality, it’s a question of intellectual integrity.

Not all discrimination is invidious discrimination. There are valid reasons why some forms of discrimination are illegal and others are not.

Most importantly, Suzi isn't saying Republicans should be denied legal rights; if she was, then she'd be a hypocrite. She is not. Merely having a negative opinion of Republicans isn't the same as Republicans overturning civil liberties.

This is all just a semantic game.

@vivify said
"Dodged"? I addressed your question directly.

No you didn't.

Here it is again: In your peculiar analogy, which matter is analogous to child molestation, and which is analogous to antisemitism?

@vivify said
You're saying if you discriminate against something, regardless of the reason, it's "hypocrisy" to criticize others for any discrimination. That's illogical, regardless of Suzi's religious affiliation.

I am talking about prejudice and intolerance and how it is rooted in religious faith. I am doing so because this is the Spirituality Forum. If I wanted to talk to you about your purely "legal and political" angle, I'd go to the Debates Forum.

@vivify said
Discrimination against gays is bigotry. Criticism against a political party is not. Period.

You are still employing the same sleight of rhetorical hand. She demeans people's faith in Jesus on a spirituality forum rather than merely offering "criticism against a political party".

@vivify said
Discrimination against gays is bigotry.

You're preaching to the converted.

But I am more interested in the prejudice and intolerance ~ of self-identifying Christian people ~ that underpin stances, rather than the law itself.

@vivify said
You said that Christians denying gays rights "walk the walk".

No, I didn't.

This is what I said:

"The issues, on this forum, as I see it are prejudice and tolerance. The issue is whether the anti-gay Christians are walking the Christian walk, not whether SCOTUS has just given them a legal foundation for their prejudice-in-action."

@fmf said
You are still employing the same sleight of rhetorical hand. She demeans people's faith in Jesus on a spirituality forum rather than merely offering "criticism against a political party".

Turning your religion into politics is not "faith in Jesus". It is hypocrisy.

@suzianne said
Turning your religion into politics is not "faith in Jesus". It is hypocrisy.

I don't think you are using the word "hypocrisy" correctly. Unless in this case you are saying the Christians who don't want to do business with gays are actually gays themselves. That would be hypocrisy.

@vivify said
You're right.

In all honesty I generally respect your posts. As FMF pointed out I've gotten too used to name calling on the Debates forum and I'm bringing that filth here.

I apologize. I won't drag Debate forum negativity here.

I welcome this.