• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Honestly, I think the only time you should be able to refuse service is if the customer is being an irate asshat who is causing problems or otherwise breaking the law (IE coming in naked). The right to refuse service for any reason doesn’t make sense unless being used to discriminate against something.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a tough one to actually articulate properly. I am strongly against most discrimination. E.g. not serving blacks, or women.

      At the same time there are situations where it’s justifiable. E.g. a bar not being willing to serve someone they think might cause trouble.

      There are also grey areas. Selling a cake, Vs decorating a cake falls into that one. Selling a cake should not be used to discriminate. At the same time, I fully support a decorator’s right not to make a particular cake. E.g. a neo nazi group wanting a cake praising Hitler with extremely crude language. However, that same line would also allow a baker to refuse to sell a custom calendar to a gay couple.

      Even limiting to goods could be grey. Selling eggs should be uncontroversial. But how about selling eggs and spray paint to a gaggle of giggling teens on Halloween?

      In short, there are times it is completely acceptable to discriminate. Unfortunately, I am completely unable to actually articulate a good line, that doesn’t also protect bigoted arseholes.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    God wants the gay to suffer, because god is absolutely a sadist, almost all of old testament is about how god hurts people, often for no reason.
    He also tortured his son or himself IDK, depends on what lunacy people subscribe to. So he is absolutely a sadist, with the possibility of also being a masochist.
    Apart from that he is a flaming narcissist, just consider the 10 commandments, the first ones are all about him.

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Unfortunately, many Christians interpret this other people should keep on dying so they can keep doing their sins, and gays are the chosen victim at the moment.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Homophobia is a core Christian concept backed up by multiple passages in the Bible.

      Stop being Christian. It makes being a good person so much easier.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ironically, too, as multiple passages of the Bible make reference to Jesus kissing his male apostles and the idea that the love one feels for a sibling, parent, stranger or lover should be the same.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          if anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

          Luke 14:26

          The kissing dudes stuff is really only found in John so yeah of the five big cannon sources about this fable only one author mentions it.

      • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah it’s almost like a 2000+ year old book written by unverifiable authors isn’t the best guide for how to act in a society this far in the future.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        As Biblical Scholar Dan McClellan notes, the mores of the era are always changing, and so Christians of any era have to negotiate with scripture to recognize the mores of their time. Slavery is the common example, and slavery (yes, the lifelong forced-breeding and free sale slavery) is not just condoned but established in the old and new testaments, and so modern Christians have to find a justification to condemn it today.

        But then they also have to find a justification why they don’t sell all their things and walk the earth preaching the gospel without concern for their own meals and shelter from the elements, as Jesus commanded. A big one, which comes not just from Christianity but from time immemorial and is consistent with ancient mores is the provision of hospitality to strangers and immigrants (on which the early United States was based). In fact, this was a principal sin against God that warranted the firebombing of Sodom and Gomorrah (The threat of rapine, of sexual assault as a means of public torture was the sin of sodomites against the angels. Buggery or Sodomy was actually a lesser wrongdoing, like an assassin parking in a disabled parking zone)

        There are dozens of different commandments which disagree with modern interpretations of Christianity, with the ministry of James W. Fifield Jr. creating a lot of the interpretations that inform US conservatism and Christian Nationalism today, eventually steering so many ministries away from elevating the poor and hungry towards open judgement of undesirables and loud women, that even the Vatican focuses more effort today on restricting abortions and condemning LGBT+ folk than they do on feeding the hungry and enriching the poor. As one tweeter noted, Christianity now is all about licensed fucking.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Just because they find ways to adjust the texts to the times doesn’t mean the texts don’t say what they say. Yes I have heard that episode where Dan tries to contextualize the homophobic stuff away. Greco-Roman world had gay marriage and we are supposed to believe that Paul only understood gay sex in terms of dude raping his slave, when Paul specifically calls out lesbianism?

          Stop apologizing, you know what the text says. The faster you can see what is literally on the page the faster you can leave religion

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Religion isn’t an issue for me.

            But sex was understood differently (as was gay marriage) in the classic age then as it is today. For instance consent wasn’t a thing.

            And no, we can’t agree on what biblical text says, whether that’s about how it should be translated, which passages take priority over which others, what is parable versus what is literal and so on.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah yeah consent wasn’t a thing. Which is why they had criminal and civil penalties for rape written on paper for over a thousand years prior. And which is why Cicero argued a rape case defense 8 decades prior to Paul. Stop making up stuff, you know they knew what rape was.

              But sex was understood differently (as was gay marriage) in the classic age then as it is today.

              Doesn’t matter. A slight difference in understanding doesn’t mean there are no laws.

              And no, we can’t agree on what biblical text says,

              I didn’t ask for your agreement.

              whether that’s about how it should be translated, which passages take priority over which others, what is parable versus what is literal and so on.

              All the games in the world won’t change what those passages say. Go ahead and try to square the circle

  • ohlaph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Ahh yes, the Klein’s who moved from Oregon to Montana and operate a bakery there now? Those bigots?

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      The notorious one was Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado. The case made it to the US Supreme Court and was ruled narrowly in favor of the cake shop, but with opinions from the Federalist Society jurists that sincere religious beliefs by principal owning-class members of a company trumped equal-accommodations laws of a state (such as the state of California).

      That was the Gorsuch court, before Kavanaugh replaced Ted Kennedy.