bullets13

Not sure who gets to make that decision. But I'm confident that if all of a sudden privileged white males were no longer allowed to be members of high end country clubs the republicans would get to the bottom of it and determine exactly who gets to make that decision.

do you not see a difference between the two?

If i didn't know better, it would seem that you feel it's okay for businesses to deny service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

i don't have a problem with that if you're teaching them to be a good person, and not a homophone, islamahobe, sexist, or bigot.

I honestly don't have a problem with a baker who won't bake a cake for a gay person's wedding. But if that baker is going to use their religion as a reason not to do so, they should also refuse to bake a cake for a divorcee's second wedding, or a couple who already has a child's wedding, etc. etc. because if the baker is trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage, divorce and out of wedlock sex are a much more prevalent problem.

If it was just one guy, i wouldn't be labeling all Christians. Truth be told, i've seen hundreds of Christians drunk, hundreds of Christians hating gays, dozens of Christians cheating... and those are just the ones that make it into the public eye. But if you show me the Christian who doesn't sin, i'll be happy to amend my remarks. as to the second highlighted point, sure you can recognize others' sins. but if you're devoting more energy to damning others for their sin than correcting your own, you dang sure are a hypocrite (and by you i'm talking about any Christian, not necessarily yourself). On another note, i attended church 2-3 times a week from the age of 12 until i graduated college (and still do occasionally). I graduated from a conservative Baptist college, and 24 of my college hours were earned taking Christian/Bible courses. I also went to chapel while i was there twice a week for 4.5 years on top of regular church services. So it's safe to say I'm well-versed in conservative Christianity and it's beliefs and teachings.

kinda funny how they can stand idly by as others around them drink, but have a coronary and start boycotting businesses when two dudes hold hands.

My biggest issue with it is the lack of criticism on the other sinful issues that are more comfortable to conservatives. If you're going to live a puritan lifestyle and denounce all sin, take the steps necessary to avoid all of it, discriminate against all of it... then by all means use your religion to do so. but as is often the case, their own lives and lifestyles leave them no room to talk when it comes to the sinful lifestyles of others. The best example is the "Good Christian Woman" that garnered support of conservatives all over the country for refusing to issue marriage licences to homosexuals. It's against her religion, and i could respect that, except... she's on her fourth marriage. So what right does she have to make any effort at all to protect the sanctity of marriage, or determine whether or not somebody else should be allowed to do or not do something based on the will of God?

eating cake isn't a sin, but we're defending Christians' rights to not make it for certain sinners. Drinking alcohol isn't a sin, but drunkenness is, and as you point out, drunkenness also often leads to more sins. It only makes sense that Christians would not be selling/buying/drinking alcohol with all of the sinning that is associated it. I'm not sure what i'm making up. As for my "agenda", if you can't see the irony and hypocrisy of a person who's in the process of sinning (drunkenness), at a party celebrating the result of sin (a child born out of wedlock), by his step-daughter who's only part of his family due to his and his wife's sin, (divorceX2) trashing others who commit a sin he doesn't agree with... I'd say you're being deliberately obtuse, or your comprehension skills are as poor as you accuse mine of being.

Anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or argumentative. Did i comprehend that correctly. As for the rest of your post, it's very telling. The GROSS factor is the main issue that most good Christians have with homosexuality vs. all other sins. It has nothing to do with anything else.

on both cases i happen to agree with you. there are plenty of legitimate rights that have been trampled on throughout the years, however.

Yup, people are just lining up to take abuse and discrimination and outrage from our good Christian country so that they can be a "protected class". That's much more appealing than just staying straight and not needing intervention to gain basic rights. Makes total sense. Definitely worth taking it from behind for. But lets say that you your hypothesis is correct, and that's why 100% of homosexuals are currently homosexual. if so, what made them make the "choice" back when it was still okay to deny them all service, beat the crap out of them, or even kill them because they were gay, with minimal fear of reprisal?

I like how Christians use Christianity to justify discrimination and outrage at certain groups of sinners, but don't use it to discriminate against the ones they like to partake in.

How come you don't feel as strongly about out of wedlock sexual activity? That one's not as bad as the others because you did it, right?

I assure you my "interpretation skills" are more than adequate, especially when no interpretation is needed. However, i must ask, since you say that Christians would not assist sin to take place: are there not millions of Christians across the country involved in the selling of alcohol? Lots of sin is derived from alcohol, but Christians aren't boycotting stores that sell it. Why is that? That's a sin that most Christians like to partake in themselves. And yes, i understand that alcohol can be used without getting drunk, but what percentage of drinkers never get drunk? The number is going to be tiny. I know plenty of "good Christians" who drink as hard on Friday and Saturday as they pray on Sunday. And sure, they were just celebrating life. But my "liberal agenda" has nothing to do with a DIVORCED man having a party for the birth of his grandchild that was CONCEIVED OUT OF WEDLOCK, getting DRUNK, and then going on a tirade about how "queers are ruining the country" and "throwing their sin in our face". Which yes, they are putting their sin out there for everyone to see, but no more than the long litany of sins that my buddy was shoving in my face. The irony wasn't lost on me, even if you choose to ignore it.

This is why Christianity is losing credibility and popularity. I was at a crawfish boil recently for a buddy's second wife's daughter. They were celebrating the out of wedlock birth of her second child. After 8 or 9 beers he went off on a tangent about "queers" and all the rights they're getting. You see where i'm going with this? After divorcing and remarrying, while celebrating the results of his step-daughter's premarital sex, this guy got drunk and then railed against homosexuality and how it was ruining the country. I've asked many conservative Christians, but very few of them can come up with even a bad explanation as to why homosexuality is a worse sin that the ones they are committing every day. They certainly can't do it with scripture.

No, the beauty of hypocrisy is that you get to CHOOSE which sinners are okay and which sinners should be shunned.

He's not comparing them as sin, he's comparing them as acts that hurt nobody else, but people have tried to make them illegal simply because they made them uncomfortable. I dated a black girl briefly back in the good old days of 1999 and took crap for it. not 1969. 1999. So when I see what homosexuals deal with, I understand, and take no offense at all when people compare interracial relationships to homosexuality, because they're not comparing the actions, they're comparing other people's reactions.

I don't at all see why any straight white or black person would be offended by his comments. I doubt people in interracial relationships would either. Anyone who's been in that type of relationship, especially back in the day, has dealt with discrimination simply because of who they dated. it's a fair comparison in my opinion, considering that interracial marriage wasn't legalized until 1967, many decades later than it should've been.

NASA? Are you kidding me? I think i'll stick to westernjournalism, thank you very much.

I'm very pro-gay rights, as most of you know, but I do have a problem with this. I don't want someone with a penis in a public restroom with my wife, and if I had a daughter I'd have an even bigger problem with that. It also opens up the very real opportunity for sex offenders to exploit the rule and gain access to women's restrooms.

If this is in fact the case, I'm a lot more okay with my tax dollars going towards this program than I am most tax-funded programs.

Johnny Manziel is rooming with Josh Gordon. Glad to see he's learned from his mistakes.

this is true. based on the book that everyone loves to quote so much, it is an absolute fact that Jesus would serve a gay person food or let them into his house. Now I can certainly see the argument about an actual wedding in the church, and among more conservative denominations, especially, and i don't have a problem with it. That being said, apart from actual services related to a wedding, no Christian should be refusing service to a homosexual in the name of Christ. That is as un-Christlike as you can be. Jesus loved the sinners. He did not refuse them, and there is no interpretation that you can find me in the New Testament that will ever convince me that what Christ wants is for Christians to discriminate against any sect of people, sinners or not. You'll also have a tough time providing me with the scripture that says that homosexuality is worse than adultery, out of wedlock sex, pornography, divorce, drunkenness, (insert your sin here), etc. etc. etc.. I guess maybe Christians have latched onto this major movement against homosexuality because it makes them feel like their sins aren't as bad? or maybe it's because this sin just feels grosser and makes them uncomfortable?

they have everything to do with one another.