Sounds like it’s rising because certain people DON’T accept LGBT standpoints. Welcome, and good luck.
Sometimes it looks like one has to come up with extreme examples to show the opposing side as crazy.
Then, they just lob you this ball for the walk-off grand slam in Game 7.
At least us Catholics the stuff is very simple. Acts 15 does away with any limitation of the participation of non-Jews. Also, since Jewish priesthood was gone, all the powers that it carried were also gone. Gays have not been killed with the provisos of Levithicus since before Christ.
It’s always said, and it’s true, no one is as literalist as a non-Christian.
In case anyone missed the latest news from Canada, the progress of society against religious nuttery took another step forward with a Supreme Court ruling against a religious college that sought to discriminate against the LGBT community in a proposed new law school, by making students sign a “covenant” that prohibited anything except heterosexual sex, and only within marriage. The law societies of Ontario and BC stated that because of this discrimination, they would not accredit graduates of that law school, and the conflict between the law societies and the college made its way up to the Supreme Court.
Let the whining and whinging begin by those who feel that the law societies should “stick to their business” and not get involved in religious matters. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled (in a strong 7-2 majority ruling) that the law societies were within their rights because the harm of such discrimination justified reasonable limitations on the Christian college’s religious freedoms (last sentence emphasis mine). From what I understand from a news report I heard about this, it was also a notable ruling for being the first time the Court used the term “LGBT”, though it has made notable rulings before on matters like gay marriage rights.
A B.C. Christian university has lost its legal battle over accreditation for a planned new law school, with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling today saying it’s “proportionate and reasonable” to limit religious rights in order to ensure open access for LGBT students.
In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the majority of justices found the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario have the power to refuse accreditation based on Trinity Western University’s so-called community covenant. The mandatory covenant binds students to a strict code of conduct that includes abstinence from sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
The majority judgment said the covenant would deter LGBT students from attending the proposed law school, and those who did attend would be at risk of significant harm. ** It found the public interest of the law profession gives it the right to promote equality by ensuring equal access, support diversity within the bar and prevent harm to LGBT students.**
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trinity-western-supreme-court-decision-1.4707240
Except that people that use leviticus to justify their discrimination against homosexuals. So, which is it? Does it do away with the laws against homoseuxality, or does it not? You want to have it both ways.
So, you’re saying it’s very simple for Catholics, you just make up whatever you want and then say God told it to you? That the actual reason you’re against gay marriage is you personally don’t like it?
Actually, 1 Corinthians tells us that homosexuals are will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so we know they need to repent.
Does it mention anything about those that bake them cakes will not inherit the Kingdom of God by any chance?
So Republicans invented it, but Marxists picked up the torch and ran with it, wanting to create a new society based on identity politics instead of ending it. White men were unfairly privileged and Asians are too successful in school, so let’s build a world in which they are given disadvantages while others get pushed up. Let’s create a society in which only the most vocal groups get to decide what beliefs are acceptable and anyone who doesn’t heartily approve must be driven out of society. Let’s trade the idea of equality of opportunity for the ideal of equity with the fantasy that if there is equality of outcome for everyone, everyone will be equally happy.
As far as your perception of how ALL Christians treated all homosexuals. I can only pray that you will actually meet some real Christians.
Maybe we don’t WANT to inherit your imaginary kingdom.
Marxists?
There are prohibitions on participating in pagan religious activities in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Many Christians extrapolate that to modern life, and see a homosexual wedding as going against God’s word, so the prohibition applies.
And people can type it until eternity, but they can’t convince me that decorating a cake isn’t creating an artwork.
Socialists, Communists, whatever.
So you’re holding firm to the position that the group in question was one with no significant presence or political power in america during the time period in question, then.
The most interesting thing I’ve learned in this thread is that CelticKnot is some kind of Birchian revanchist. “Marxists”? Really? You actually believe the old canard that the civil rights movement was a Marxist plot to destroy democracy?
Fine. But we have been commanded to make disciples of all nations, and that means telling people the Gospel, even if others call it hate and try to stop us with lawsuits and legislation. And we have to live as the Holy Spirit leads us, even if that means we won’t participate in what the world calls good. Refusing to participate in someone else’s act of faith is not discrimination based on hatred.
Every last bit of that was “blahblahblah” nonsense to me.
Similarly, forcing Christians to comply with commerce law and not discriminate with respect to the customers they service is not discrimination based on hatred - so you shouldn’t mind complying.
Also I’ve never heard such a blatant get-out-of-jail-free card regarding being evil as “we have to live as the Holy Spirit leads us, even if that means we won’t participate in what the world calls good.” According to Christianity humans are fallible; thus they can be deceived, either by some devil or their own desires, meaning that no human is qualified to say whether they are hearing the Holy Spirit or some selfish, evil urge. Meaning that, by the terms of your own religion, you just said “I can do anything I damn well please and I don’t give a flying fuck about law or morality or what is right.”
No, I believe that when Socialists realized that class warfare wasn’t going to work to get them followers, they had to find another way to get a majority of people to side with them. They have two tactics now: Identity politics and environmentalism.
Destroy democracy? History shows us that people can vote for Socialism in a fair election once.
This will probably come as a great shock to the voters of Canada, Scandinavia, and much of western Europe.
I would never use that kind of language in a public forum.
Christians have the Holy Spirit, Scriptures, and other Christians to help them discern what is right and what is not. Society is not part of that list, even though they think they should be.
Christians who behave in violation of Scripture (the Holy Spirit will never tell us to do so) will have the Holy Spirit acting as a conscience, and if that person is in a good church, the church will also call them to account.
Someone will probably tell me that having a conscience is inadequate, but they don’t understand the relationship of a true believer to the Holy Spirit.