Right, I understand the notion that some people find parts of the Bible hateful. I'm trying to square that with your view that being religious, which I take in this context to mean being Chrsitian, as not being hateful. Is it only if they agree with the parts you find acceptable?
There's a lot of violence and hate in the bible, particularly if we go Old Testament. There's no need to play games, some of the scripture is pretty unambiguous. Most people don't find talk of discrimination and stoning people to death acceptable.
Also, of course interpretations vary widely, however, a large majority of Christians, and Muslims, agree with interpretation that the Bible sees homosexual behavior as sinful. This is the most reasonable interpretation of the texts, and anyone familiar with the arguments can see that those suggesting otherwise are way out on a limb.
But not all religious people have a problem with homosexuals, some not at all. Whether it's going out on a limb to not be bigoted is irrelevant. Religion is a personal belief and should be treated as such. People use religion to justify good and bad behavior. I won't even bother listing examples.
A homosexual wedding isn't a person either, it is a form of celebration, much like Halloween. It is a good analog. The facts in play demonstrate that the baker does not have a problem doing business with people who are homosexual, but he will not participate even obliquely in certain events, include homosexual weddings and Halloween.
A homosexual wedding is a legally recognized union between two people exactly the same as a heterosexual wedding. It's not a holiday.
To your knowledge. So based on your knowledge, we should use the apparatus of the state to crush businesses that don't comply with your view? That is what is being attempted here.
You are literally making the same argument that racists made against desegregation.
I am happy you have the right to disagree with Christians. I'd be even happier if you were willing to extend that right to Christians. Not long ago, tolerance was considered an important civic virtue.
That framing. They're being asked to treat people different than them as humans and their privilege has eroded. They are not and never have been a marginalized group in the US.
No it wasn't. All through US history tolerance was never a civic virtue. Not if you were black, brown, gay, a woman, Irish (for a time), indigenous, an immigrant (despite... ya know), etc. This country was literally founded in white supremacy, patriarchy, slavery, theft, and genocide. Women have only had the right to vote for about a century, dark skinned people have only been considered equal to white people in the eyes of the law for a few decades (within our parents' lifetimes - that ain't that long), gay people couldn't get married until five years ago (not to mention in times past they could be killed simply for existing), and there's still stigma around people who don't believe in god. They all had to fight for generations to be treated as humans. Where the hell has all this tolerance and civic virtue been hiding? That is some powerful ignorance. I don't mean ignorance as a pejorative either, I mean that is literally ignorant.
There's some great things about the US, but it has been
very intolerant.
