re: GA HB 757 - Should Deal sign it?

quote:

---

If you want private property rights to extend to private businesses

---

It's not about "wanting" them to. A private business IS private property. And the owner has the right to discriminate against whoever he wants. Be that by discriminating against customers who don't wear shoes or shirts......or by discriminating against gays or redheads or espn employees or white males or whoever he/she chooses.

quote:

---

you have to go all the way back and rework the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

---

Should have been done a looooooong time ago. Of course, morons will howl and think that this means making negros and sodomites sit on the back of public buses which is does not, but that's what they'll think. Because they have no fricking clue what PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS are or how they relate to a free society.

quote:

---

Suffice it to say, you don't have a full grasp on the current legal state regarding property law and how it pertains to this discussion.

---

Suffice it to say, you're a commie.

quote:

---

And get the state government out of the marriage license business altogether.

---

This I can agree with. If you want religion to dictate the definition of a marriage, remove the government from the equation...

As far as being a commie, far from it. I'm about as fiscally conservative as it gets. I also believe that in 2016, we're a long way past living in caves where we can shake sticks at people that we don't want sniffing our flowers. The idea of liberty and freedom that you are espousing simply doesn't work. If you run a business that allows customers to enter, you are inviting the public to *do* business with you. That includes all of the public, not just those that you agree with.

Are you stating that you believe employment discrimination should be allowed? That Chic-Fil-A should be allowed to only hire Christians if they wish, or that someone else could say "I don't hire black people, period."? Private property extends only so far as when you keep it private. By opening doors for business, yes you *own* the property, but by the very nature of operating that business, you're inviting individuals who have their own rights into it as customers, employees, etc. If you want to prevent people from entering your home for some prejudicial reason, that is your right... albeit bigoted, but it is your right. I don't believe that should blanket-ly be extend so far as to a business operation personally.

The bill should only reinforce the protection of clergymen and non profits, not the private sector. If that was the case, no problem. As a Christian, I would not refuse service to anyone in my business, regardless of any reason, but I do not believe anyone should be able to dictate to the churches or pastors to do anything they are opposed to.

quote:

---

First - let me say thank you for having a civil discussion about this. Typically emotions, rather than logic, runs these types of discussions.

---

I think most logical Christians (some would call that an oxymoron ) really would like more of this, civil discourse about these issues.

quote:

---

You are right about the verses you mentioned. They are pretty straightforward and can be taken literally but my question to you is - what makes those statements true? but other statements in the bible not true? For example - the same way you believe in the aforementioned verses, do you also believe in Timothy 2:11-12 ("Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet").

---

Without going back through it at the moment, it comes down to context. Many verses like this were written bearing the laws and customs of the time in mind. And I'm not saying it's the whole of it, but this is one of those questions best posed to a Biblical scholar. Many people try to prove Christians wrong by asking common believers things like this....and most won't have a good rebuttal. Frankly, it shouldn't be expected that many would. This is what pastors go to seminary for and I would always encourage people to bring questions like this to someone who is a theological scholar. If you treat it like a Kimmel "street quiz" segment, you'll get the same quality of answers.

quote:

---

To your last point. I was raised catholic, but I was also raised with an open mind. I derived a lot of my moral values from the church, but I also disagree with some of the catholic beliefs (e.g., abortion, burial rights, etc..).

---

Again, it's a case of what you already mentioned....picking and choosing. If you're choosing not to be Christian, that's your choice to make. I tend to run across many people "raised Catholic" who have fallen away for one reason or another. There's so much personal experience that factors in, so I won't pretend to understand everyone's reasoning. But I respect their right to believe (or not) as they wish. I will say that abortion, the way it is utilized primarily (convenience), is something I could never understand a human tolerance for. As a father of three, I view it as killing...intervening into the development of an innocent life. Plain and simple. However, I would never cast a political vote based (at least solely) on issues involving things like abortion.

quote:

---

I think the root of the issue is that I WILL NOT let a 2000 year old book dictate my life. I hate when people tell me 'you have to believe in XYZ' because the bible says that. If we all believed in the bible literally - then this world be a crappy place. It would probably look like the middle east now.

---

I understand the sentiment, but part of being a Christian is believing in the word. And if you take from it the most important pieces and apply them to your life...if everyone did...the world would be a MUCH better place. It's crappy right now for so many people because we do not treat others as Jesus asked us to. People do not exhibit the fruits of the spirit, they don't care for the least of these, etc. The Bible is a story...it has its darker parts and its ugly beginnings...but if you look at the full text and the story it tells you...it's a beautiful promise.

quote:

---

Here's the thing... there is *nothing* about baking a cake for someone that is against religious beliefs.

---

I agree. And, as I said...if a Christian would bake a cake for a lier, tax cheater, or any other sin, then why not someone who is gay? I understand the bakers feelings. He feels as if he is validating something that he feels is wrong. He might would not bake a cake for the KKK or any other organization he does not agree with. (Just guessing)

quote:

---

It's extending religious connotation to a non-religious act.

---

Yes and no. Marriage is considered a religious act, right? (To many...maybe not to all)

quote:

---

There are plenty of people that I don't like, but I don't get to treat them like shite just because I want to.

---

I would hardly say not baking someone a cake is treating them horribly. Especially since they could go to just about any other baker and get their cake. I don't necessarily agree with the baker, but I can also see his point. I mean really....if someone showed contempt for me, I wouldn't have wanted him to bake the cake.

quote:

---

The bill should only reinforce the protection of clergymen and non profits, not the private sector.

---

It started out that way. The bill was originally "The Pastor Protection Act", then when it was sent to the state senate from the house, they tacked stuff from the RFRA bill on to the PPA and we got the FADA bill we have today. Nobody had a problem with the PPA in it's original form.

quote:

---

but other statements in the bible not true? For example - the same way you believe in the aforementioned verses, do you also believe in Timothy 2:11-12 ("Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet").

---

I believe they are all true. But you have to look at context. If I am not mistaken, Timothy is addressing a very specific thing that was happening in a particular church. The women were taking over the church and teaching false teachings. he was addressing this by saying they should remain quiet and listen to those who were better versed in Christs teachings. ( I could be wrong, but I BELIEVE that is the context of that entire chapter of 2 Timothy)

quote:

---

I used to work for Chick-fil-A when I was in high school. I also knew a few gay people who worked for the company. There are definitely people who might have also worked there who would have treated them poorly, but that's people being people. What we have to do is be able to separate people from faith and God. People are going to do horrible, stupid, vindictive things to other people and many will do it thinking it's what God wants (Westboro Baptist comes to mind). We have to be able to know the difference between "religious people" being PEOPLE and religion itself.

Humans are gonna human, no matter what belief system they profess.

---

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more!

I don't know that it's so much trying to compel someone of the clergy to be forced to marry a same sex couple so much as it is to protect them from potential litigation for saying no.

I'm more of a free market guy who thinks that the couple in question should vote with their wallet and simply move on to someone who will work with them. Taking the first guy to court is asinine.