Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, I'm sure there will be some surprises the other way too. (Matt 7:22-23)

I see you have the judgement hammer all ready to go, by your own measure mate, by your own measure.

But this passage is not talking about what you think it is anyway.....................

It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it. ~Benjamin Franklin

I think your rep is in the bin mate.

Thanks Dan for blessing me.

Thank you for blessing me also.

Dan, you have rambled on about this gay issue with the poorest logic possible. And you've got all this time to relentlessly post on the issue, but don't have time to even watch short videos???!!! That has no credibility whatsoever. And now you're attacking Kurieuo's integrity. I can tell you that he is very conscientious and he tries hard to only attack VIEWS or actions he finds problematic or unScriptural, and not people. So lay off! As well, it's merely a dodge to take away from the fact that your assertions lack merit and your support for them fail basic logic. The other thing I notice, is you like to latch onto these fringe issues.

Dan,

By not watching the videos, you're missing the real pov from those directly involved.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Mrs K wrote:According to these definitions of persecuting... I do not consider the Christian business owners in the cases I have listed as having persecuted their customers. Do you?

Absolutely it does, lets take the first definition.

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:to treat someone unfairly or cruelly over a long period of time because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, or to annoy someone by refusing to leave them alone

They are being treated unfairly and cruelly and this has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years. It actually fits quite well with that definition.

I don't think we need to go through the whole list as they are all fairly similar.

Dan, lets keep focused to the actual cases and not talk about the persecution that homosexuals have faced for hundreds if not thousands of years.

My question was whether the Christian business owners in the cases I have listed have persecuted their customers.

Lets unpack that a bit.

Did the Christian business owners, in the case I have listed, treat the homosexual couples in question unfairly and cruelly over a long period of time because of their sexual orientation?

Taking just Jack's case:

1) Was Jack unfair to them because of their sexual orientation?

• He declined to make a celebratory wedding cake for a same-sex wedding as it goes against his religious beliefs.
• The sexual orientation of the customers was irrelevant.
• He would not sell a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding to a homosexual customer, a heterosexual customer, a bisexual customer, an asexual customer

So he is applying the same rule (not making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding) to all customers no matter their sexual orientation. This is treating all customers the same, thus fairly, no matter their sexual orientation.

2) Was Jack cruel to them because of their sexual orientation?

• Jack respectfully declined to make the cake.
• He apparently said: "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:cruel = extremely unkind and unpleasant and causing pain to people or animals intentionally

What Jack did doesn't sound very cruel to me at all.

3) Did Jack do all this over a long period of time?

• In this case, immediately after Jack declined, the couple left the store.
• Their discussion lasted a few minutes.

About 2 months later the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for sexual-orientation discrimination.

To me it is clear that this is not "persecution". Using that word to describe what is happening in these cases is insulting to people facing real persecution.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:... But I have quickly watched the first one, just to keep you happy.

But it didn't add anything I didn't already know, he won't make wedding cakes for gay marriages, that is discrimination against people who happen to be gay and who want to exercise their lawful right to marry, it's pretty simple, he doesn't have to agree with it, he is not giving it his blessing, he is making a cake. Just because he uses the same line of reasoning in different situations does not mean every case is the same, each should be evaluated on it's merits separately and in accordance with the law and agreed upon human rights.

Dan apparently watched one video, as he mentions above.

Note: I also linked to the case details on Alliance Defending Freedom's website so you could have read the information there if you had no time to watch the videos.
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/c ... p-v.-craig
http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/ca ... e-stutzman
There is heaps more information on there including the actual court documents the lawyers put forward to the court. Worth checking out to get a better idea of the cases they are putting forward.

Regarding exercising "their lawful right to marry" - you should know that Jack operates in Colorado.
This incident happened in July 2012 so at that time same-sex marriage was not lawful in Colorado. It became legal Oct 2014. The couple were apparently married in Massachusetts and were having their wedding reception in Colorado.

NOTE also: a wedding cake is not an essential element to a legal marriage.
Jack not providing cake in no way inhibits their ability to be lawfully married.
Cake is simply a wedding tradition and had nothing to do with marriage.

This is my last post on this discussion with you Daniel.
I think I have explained my position enough. And I get yours.
My position is not as dangerous as you want to paint it though.
I see your position as the real harmful one as it is the only one taking away real freedoms.

RickD wrote:Dan,

By not watching the videos, you're missing the real pov from those directly involved.

I watched one, I have seen similar in the past also, there is no need for me to see everyone of them.

Mrs K wrote:1) Was Jack unfair to them because of their sexual orientation?

Yes absolutely

He declined to make a celebratory wedding cake for a same-sex wedding as it goes against his religious beliefs.

True

The sexual orientation of the customers was irrelevant.

Also true

He would not sell a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding to a homosexual customer, a heterosexual customer, a bisexual customer, an asexual customer

Also true but irrelevant, as it is still discriminating against the person who is getting married orientation

So he is applying the same rule (not making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding) to all customers no matter their sexual orientation. This is treating all customers the same, thus fairly, no matter their sexual orientation.

True he is applying his discrimination against gay people across the board, it is not fair or just, and it is absolutely discriminating against sexual orientation. It matters not who is buying the cake!

Was Jack cruel to them because of their sexual orientation?

Yes absolutely, here is the definition.

adjective, crueler, cruelest.
1.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2.
enjoying the pain or distress of others:
the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3.
causing or marked by great pain or distress:
a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
4.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.

respectfully declined to make the cake.

Discriminating against someones sexual orientation is not respectful.

What Jack did doesn't sound very cruel to me at all.

Very subjective opinion, if it was me being denied based on my sexual orientation I would say yes it is cruel.

In this case, immediately after Jack declined, the couple left the store.
Their discussion lasted a few minutes.

Ok.

About 2 months later the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for sexual-orientation discrimination.

I don't see the relevance, is 2 months significant somehow?

To me it is clear that this is not "persecution". Using that word to describe what is happening in these cases is insulting to people facing real persecution.

To me it is clear that it is persecution. I think not using the word is an insult to persecuted people, just ask Neo and I am sure as a persecuted person he would agree.

Mrs K wrote:
Dan apparently watched one video, as he mentions above.

Untrue, I watched one of your videos that you posted, over the years I have seen quite a few.

Lying lips sink ships.

Regarding exercising "their lawful right to marry" - you should know that Jack operates in Colorado.
This incident happened in July 2012 so at that time same-sex marriage was not lawful in Colorado. It became legal Oct 2014. The couple were apparently married in Massachusetts and were having their wedding reception in Colorado.

Irrelevant, it is still unlawful to discriminate based on orientation of ones sexuality, but still irrelevant if it was lawful as it is also a moral and rights issue.

NOTE also: a wedding cake is not an essential element to a legal marriage.
Jack not providing cake in no way inhibits their ability to be lawfully married.
Cake is simply a wedding tradition and had nothing to do with marriage.

Irrelevant of the issue of discrimination

This is my last post on this discussion with you Daniel.
I think I have explained my position enough. And I get yours.
My position is not as dangerous as you want to paint it though.
I see your position as the real harmful one as it is the only one taking away real freedoms.

Good because I have had enough of pointing out things that are irrelevant. I see a real problem with your position as it promotes discrimination, legalism, violations of human rights and a distinct lack in grace, mercy and love.

I have had enough of pointing out things that are irrelevant. I see a real problem with your position as it promotes discrimination, legalism, violations of human rights and a distinct lack in grace, mercy and love.

Yeah, YOUR version of those. But if I am forced to put a message on cake that I find morally repugnant, that is also discrimination against ME! It violates my right to free speech - that is, to express myself ONLY AS I SEE FIT. Taking Christians to court over messages they won't write on cakes - yep, not much grace, mercy or love in THAT, eh? Especially when the persons A) can easily find other merchants happy to accommodate them, and B) that being deprived of the message on the cake isn't a seriously damaging thing. Because we have to decide WHICH is the more serious discrimination and harmful thing - people not being allowed to follow their consciences upon something that doesn't significantly hurt or impact others, or having only certain people of certain views allowed to have their views expressed? The problem is, many are not concerned about the rights of individuals to their own conscience, AS LONG AS, their view do not harm people in some dangerous or significant way. So, Dan is concerned about the silly thing, at the expense of a dangerous thing - that people aren't allowed to follow their consciences. And that goes against one of the strongest and longest-held values in America!

Philip,

Please be careful. I think you're encroaching on Dan's safe space.

RickD wrote:Philip,

Please be careful. I think you're encroaching on Dan's safe space.

I don't consider Philip a person who is rational or someone who can be reasoned with, I also don't like the accusatory way he writes. I don't even read what he writes anyhow, so he is not encroaching on anything.

I see the revolving star and I keep on scrolling.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Philip,

Please be careful. I think you're encroaching on Dan's safe space.

I don't consider Philip a person who is rational or someone who can be reasoned with, I also don't like the accusatory way he writes. I don't even read what he writes anyhow, so he is not encroaching on anything.

I see the revolving star and I keep on scrolling.

Irrational delusions are a sign of Aspergers.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Philip,

Please be careful. I think you're encroaching on Dan's safe space.

I don't consider Philip a person who is rational or someone who can be reasoned with, I also don't like the accusatory way he writes. I don't even read what he writes anyhow, so he is not encroaching on anything.

I see the revolving star and I keep on scrolling.

Irrational delusions are a sign of Aspergers.

You mention one personal thing about yourself and low and behold people will use it as a weapon against you, but that is human nature I suppose, we cannot help from letting out the darkness that resides within us.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Philip,

Please be careful. I think you're encroaching on Dan's safe space.

I don't consider Philip a person who is rational or someone who can be reasoned with, I also don't like the accusatory way he writes. I don't even read what he writes anyhow, so he is not encroaching on anything.

I see the revolving star and I keep on scrolling.

Irrational delusions are a sign of Aspergers.

You mention one personal thing about yourself and low and behold people will use it as a weapon against you, but that is human nature I suppose, we cannot help from letting out the darkness that resides within us.

Isn't paranoia a sign of Aspergers?

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Philip,

Please be careful. I think you're encroaching on Dan's safe space.

I don't consider Philip a person who is rational or someone who can be reasoned with, I also don't like the accusatory way he writes. I don't even read what he writes anyhow, so he is not encroaching on anything.

I see the revolving star and I keep on scrolling.

Irrational delusions are a sign of Aspergers.

You mention one personal thing about yourself and low and behold people will use it as a weapon against you, but that is human nature I suppose, we cannot help from letting out the darkness that resides within us.

Isn't paranoia a sign of Aspergers?

Please explain how I am being paranoid.