Most importantly Welcome Back Zeta-Flux!

Drive-by posting. Nothing to see here. :leaving:

Thanks for the interesting exchange, Zeta Flux and RDS. It has been thought-provoking, so far.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367523]Perhaps a better interpretation of the article is that the ideal of human equality, espoused by Jesus, is the principle behind social reform and moves toward legal equality, as well as being a major principle of Christianity.

One could also look at the idea that when Jesus declared that his new principles superceded some of the Old Testament, among what was superceded were the Old Testament prescriptions of punishment for homosexuality and other sins. (casting stones, etc.)[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

Just speaking as a thoughtful Quaker: Much of what is claimed by present-day fundamentalists seems to me to be diametrically opposed to the original teachings of Jesus. The idea that God is judgmental is certainly expressed to a degree in Jesus' teachings, but this is also reframed and mitigated in a major way by Jesus' expression of God's fundamentally forgiving nature. To me, Jesus' central message is not just that God is forgiving, but that we also are transformed by adopting a forgiving and non-judgmental attitude towards our fellow humans.

Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: [url]http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf[/url]

It is only two pages long, so it should be a quick read.

And Philmore, I completely agree, although I would probably phrase it as "God is forgiving of the penitent". Jesus had some harsh words for those who didn't sincerely try to change, or for those who tried to hide behind the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367591]I don't agree with the idea that our society has determined that the right to equal treatment takes precedence over the right of conscience, especially outside the workplace.



[/QUOTE]

This shows ignorance of our government.

Look up the 14th amendment and the EQual Protection Clause of the
consitution.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367585][QUOTE=cheesehead;367579]If one has been taught since childhood, and genuinely thinks, that (ones) religion should be supreme over secular law, then one could genuinely view it as a matter of religious freedom. This would not be the only such conflict existing, so the same person would have been viewing many other conflicts of secular law vs. religion as matters of religious freedom, though not currently a focus of public attention.

The freedom to practice ones religion wherever that is superior to secular law.[/QUOTE]This so called justification is horseshit,[/QUOTE]You do recognize that I was explaining the view of the person with that religious belief, not myself, don't you?

[quote]because it can justify anything in the name of religious freedom.[/quote]... which, if one believes that religion is supreme over secular law, as I specified was the case in the hypothetical example, makes sense. Of course, if the person were lying about the thing's being done in the name of religious freedom, that's different, but my example presumed that the person was honest.

[quote]The above argument says that religious rights triumph all others.[/quote]That was one of the specified conditions about the person's belief in the example, not a conclusion of an argument.

I wasn't justifying that sort of belief; I was [U]explaining[/U] it to someone who asked.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367621]You do recognize that I was explaining the view of the person with that religious belief, not myself, don't you?[/QUOTE]

It was crystal clear that the words were not your own.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;367583]A marriage planner believes gay relations are sinful, and that by planning for a gay wedding they would be explicitly supporting such a union. So they refuse. This laws allows them to refuse without legal repercussions.[/QUOTE]But what about (if you don't know what the Arizona law specifies, what is your view) a grocery store owner refusing to sell food to a gay soon-to-be-wedded couple (that status being known to the owner) because of the owner's religious opposition to gay weddings?
Cases:
1) the food is to be served at their wedding reception and the owner knows that?
2) the owner has no direct knowledge of where the food is to be served but strongly suspects, from circumstances, that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
3) the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
What if the customers are known to the owner to be an already-wedded-for-years gay couple and the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at somebody else's gay wedding reception (but in fact it is so intended by the purchasers)?

Unlike your first example, these do not involve the taking of any part in the action of the wedding itself (or is that debatable in any of the cases?). Are any of them more like your later example of refusing to serve soup to an albino?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;367618]This shows ignorance of our government.

Look up the 14th amendment and the EQual Protection Clause of the
consitution.[/QUOTE]

I imagine the part you are taking about is: "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

My comment was concerning the private actions of individuals outside the workplace. In such a context, the 14th amendment does not (and I would add, *should not*) apply. Sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;367624]But what about (if you don't know what the Arizona law specifies, what is your view) a grocery store owner refusing to sell food to a gay soon-to-be-wedded couple (that status being known to the owner) because of the owner's religious opposition to gay weddings?
Cases:
1) the food is to be served at their wedding reception and the owner knows that?
2) the owner has no direct knowledge of where the food is to be served but strongly suspects, from circumstances, that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
3) the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at their wedding reception?
What if the customers are known to the owner to be an already-wedded-for-years gay couple and the owner has neither direct knowledge nor suspicion that the food is to be served at somebody else's gay wedding reception (but in fact it is so intended by the purchasers)?

Unlike your first example, these do not involve the taking of any part in the action of the wedding itself (or is that debatable in any of the cases?). Are any of them more like your later example of refusing to serve soup to an albino?[/QUOTE]If the service being provided is "I sell food", and in no previous cases have they inquired of other customers how their food is being used, then they have no business (pun intended) worrying about whether the food will be served at a gay wedding.

On the other hand, if they are a catering service that historically has inquired about the type of venue being serviced, then they should be allowed to set the restrictions of what types of venues they will serve.

Similarly, if someone sells goats and doesn't inquire how they are being used, then they shouldn't worry about selling a goat for a satanic ritual. On the other hand, if they have historically inquired about how the goat is going to be used (thinking of themselves not as a seller of goats, but as finding good homes for said goats) then they have a legitimate reason for not selling to a satanist.