Posted on 10/21/2006 2:30:15 PM PDT by GOP_Thug_Mom
Well, I think they view it as participating in their "setting up housekeeping," so to speak. They should have the right to freedom of association. And frankly I cannot identify with the "what about all sinners" argument. Okay. What about NAMBLA members? See, no one would think they should be forced to do landscaping for known NAMBLA members even though apparently the group can legally exist. So the "What about all other sinners" argument is really a statement about the person making the argument. They don't find homosexuality repulsive enough to warrant that response. Fine. They don't have to. But give this couple their right to differ.
They do have the freedom to refuse to do business with anyone they choose, do they not? That's what they chose. Obviously they feel strongly about it, or Paul's words re marriage would not be posted front and center on their website.
I personally believe the gay guys chose them BECAUSE of those words, so they could be 'discriminated against' and make a big deal about it, possibly bring a lawsuit against them for DARING to stand with their beliefs.
My sister quit the floral business rather than take the chance that she would have a gay couple come in wanting wedding flowers. As a Christian.
Why should you be forced to do business with people whose lifestyle is totally against what you believe is right? Where does it end? And WHO gets to make you?
There is still freedom in this country.
Their position about marriage is very evident on their website. That is why this gay couple chose them -- they want money, or fame, or to slander them, or something.
The gays set themselves up to be victims in this, and they would take it to the Supreme Court if they could, I'll bet.
Standing for what you believe is a freedom we have here in America.
The homos want their lawn landscaped. The landscaper doesn't want to landscape a homo's lawn. If the homos have to call a homo landscaper, then they get their lawn landscaped and the landscaper doesn't have to work for homos.
The homos get what they want. The landscaper doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. I don't see anything "stupid and self-defeating" about that result.
Maybe so. But that is the wonderful thing about freedom. What strikes you as "stupid and silly" may strike someone else as a demonstration of principle. I would take your example one step further and refuse to get into a cab with a raghead driver.
Of course, he lied when he said this. But that very obvious fact will be completely passed over in all the righteous huffing and puffing the MSM will put out over yet another attempt to make Christians look bad.
The "stupid and self-defeating" part in my view, as I already made clear, is the part where they refuse to take money. It's one thing to boycott by refusing to part with your money; it's quite another to 'boycott' someone by refusing to take someone's money. I realize that it's worth it to them; I simply think their priorities are stupid and self-defeating, for the reason I've made clear.
I'm not sure how that constitutes "stupid, silly, and self-defeating," but you're entitled to your opinion. To me, it seems principled, valid, and self-affirming.
Maybe the packers wanted lewd or suggestive trimmings.
You suspect wrong. My principles are not even remotely confused.
I'm not sure how that constitutes "stupid, silly, and self-defeating," but you're entitled to your opinion. To me, it seems principled, valid, and self-affirming.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion as well, so it doesn't seem there's much more to debate about this. I understood both the landscaper's position and your position to begin with.
I don't think so, you're not my type.
PS. My principles are those of a rational utilitarian atheist, so whatever their merit, or lack thereof, they are anything but "confused"..
They would do that anyway.
There is no point worrying about how the MSM will react.
Reformed or Orthodox?
so whatever their merit, or lack thereof, they are anything but "confused"..
HAHAHA! An absence of morality begets few such troubling conundrums, eh? All acts must be measured against the Benthamite Calculus, with none of that pesky absolutist baggage.
A lot of people think that being principled means turning off their brain at the door.
Rest assured that I am absolutely absolutist. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
All the proclaimers of "sin is sin" never seem to be able to extend that to the ones who offend their own sensibilities.
And I am not saying I would do the same in their shoes. I just think that if "sin is sin" and we overlook everything these days, then why is it such a big deal that these people are overly cautious about appearing to support something that is truly immoral. Their motive is good even if it might be misapplied.
Ah...but there lies the problem. Gays are not the only ones who expect society to accept them as is.
As others have said, I support their right to refuse service and even explain the reasons why they did so. I just don't find it a worthy excuse and probably wouldn't hire or recommend them. They sound like whackos.
As for the rest of your post...I'm pleased to say that I don't come across people of your ilk very often. I thought they had all died out years ago.
You know what they say about those that protest too much. Your freaking me out with your obsession about gay sex. Really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.