"being informed of what the Bible actually says is not being "thumped upon"."

You're wrong. I'm not alone in finding such expressions impolite, offensive and inappropriate in a public setting.

If you find me sitting next to you in your church or at a church function, say whatever faith-based comment you want. In public, you're entitled to your opinions same as anyone else, but better to keep any religious sources out of it. Believe, me, doing so diminishes the interest and attention others may have for what you say.

belittling someone who holds a different opinion from you (even if it's religious), may also diminish the interest and attention others may have for what you say.

Thought we had freedom of speech in America?

I have quite a few people that are family and friends that are very Christian in their beliefs and I have no doubt that they are mortified by the court's ruling. I do see where they are coming from and I can appreciate their right to feel that it is against God's teachings. It is their right to believe this, that's their American right to religion. But it does not give them the right to expect others to do as they do. They should do what they believe is "right" and let others live their own lives.

Snidely's not saying "you" don't have freedom of speech. Everyone is free to use biblical references in their argument. The point is that when you do, many people choose not to listen to what you have to say. It's better to have an argument for something that doesn't include religion. As an atheist, I'm just not going to get into a discussion with someone who wants to argue their point using using biblical references. It's not that I'm not familiar with the bible. I am quite familiar with it, having been raise in a very Christian household where we also had to do bible study as a family on top of going to church. I don't get involved in the back and forth because I don't see the bible as a valid argument. To me that would be like pulling out a Stephen King novel and saying, "ya well, Stephen King wrote on page 82 in the novel Carrie..... so that's how it should be." Unless the discussion revolves around Stephen King or the novel Carrie, it's just not a valid argument.

As one of those "impolite" religious people who deeply regrets the Supreme Court's decision I will certainly exercise my right to free speech based on my religion or any other values I hold in any public venue I choose.

Slow day at work, rob?

Na, I'm happy to hear wide ranging opinions. I don't live in the Bible Belt (as perhaps you and others may) and outward public expressions of religious belief are odd and not well received. I live in a very diverse place from all perspectives - religious, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, geopolitically, gender sexual identity and preferences, etc., and how everyone gets along is by keeping personal things to themselves. A good start is to assume others you're speaking to are different from you, so better to find common things to explore.

I have no interest in hearing religious-based opinions and that is true of most people I know.

I find myself agreeing completely with the last comments of arka girl and little monkey.

I agree with Snidely in this one. I've read bits and pieces of the Bible and even if I had read the whole thing I would never preach what it says to anyone unlike others.

The Bible was written centuries ago and over who knows how long (I sure don't know) and by whom (I sure don't know). It was written in a different time and I for one would never take that word and try to interpret it and apply it to today. As far as I'm concerned there is no definitive interpretation of the Bible. Those who want to take passages that were written centuries ago out of context and apply it to current situations and call those situations wrong are, for me, in fact being judgmental.

All those wars fought and being fought in the name of religion should tell you something.

As an aside - I want to greet those people who are going to escape to Canada as a result of this ruling at the border. I want to see their heads explode (metaphorically) when they find out that they can't bring their guns into Canada and that religion plays no part in our politics.

I think the best comment that I have seen is... a church does not perform a "Marriage." A church performs a "wedding." There are non denominational or non-religious weddings that happen in courthouses, parks, by the ocean, etc. The concept of a "marriage" is not solely christian, ceremonies are performed in all religions, and pre-date christianity. If you do not feel that same sex couples should be able to have a religious "wedding," that is your perogative and you have the right to that opinion. But to deny a "marriage," everything after the wedding, because a book tells you that its a sin is treating someone as less than you because of how they were born. This same argument was used in the 60s as justification for why interracial marriage was a sin. People are entitled to their beliefs, and if you dont want to go to a same sex wedding, you dont have to, you can respectfully decline if invited. But a civil union in the eyes of the law is not the same and doesnt have the same rights and protections as a marriage. When you have to get a license from the State for your Marriage to be recognized, it is not a religious institution, it is a civil and state one, and equal protection and equal opportunity should be given to each consenting adult.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So how does all men are created equal with rights such as life liberty and pursuit of happiness mean that some can't seek happiness because they are different or your religion (maybe not theirs) doesn't approve?

LOL! Blfenton. And Canada's international reputation is "nice". I hope anyone fleeing from the U.S. remembers that they should adopt the national character of their new homeland and be nice.

People fleeing the US because of the same sex ruling should be aware that same sex marriages were legalized in 2005 in Canada, we are behind the times

As far as the "choice" argument goes, I've always said "The only choice I made was to finally accept who I was".

No one can really understand how difficult it is to trying living your life to fit into a mold that others are convinced you belong in. It's not easy and darn near lead me to a nervous breakdown. Once I fully accepted who I was I became a happier, healthier person.

Lastly, as eterprincess pointed out, a church performs a wedding. They also act as an AGENT of the state, not of the church. At the end of a religious ceremony the words are "by the power vested in me by the State of..." not by the Power of the Catholic Church, Episcopal Church etc.

I was very proud to have worked on first getting Civil Unions passed and then Marriage Equality.

As one of our Senators said at the equality hearing "If my marrying the woman I love is such a threat to you, then you have a problem in your marriage".

plllog "LOL! Blfenton. And Canada's international reputation is "nice". I hope anyone fleeing from the U.S. remembers that they should adopt the national character of their new homeland and be nice."

We are nice.... sometimes.

I'd love to see the escapees faces at the Gay Pride Parade in Toronto.

Oh, I'm not saying one should or shouldn't talk about the bible. It's the shutting down I'm talking about. We're told to tolerate, tolerate, tolerate, unless it's a religious view. That's what I am talking about.

Steve, I appreciate you chiming in, your viewpoint is important. I don't think it's fair anyone tell you how or who to love. Or any of us for that matter. I think that's the distinction I make.

For me, the state isn't God, nor is God the state. If the state wants to pass laws for all its citizens, it should be free to do so without any religious intervention. Religious views should have a seat at the table, but to have all of the say is tyranny of the majority.

Rob, I tolerate people's reglious views on the daily, until it infringes on my rights or someone elses.

snidely, I missed what you wrote. I work in a highly diverse place and my son attends school in a highly diverse place. Our friends from both of those places are highly diverse. Some are religious, some aren't. I have friends who are Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, atheists, now what? I admit I don't know any wiccans, for example, but every nationality, and many religions. I have black, Asian, and white people in my family. So? Does that mean I get a pass?

be thankful, people, that we can have this discussion, whether polite or not. In some parts of the world, either a frank discussion about religious views, or being homosexual, will get you KILLED, not just dissed on a website.

Regardless of varying opinions on the Constitution or Supreme Court, I am thankful, every. single. day. for being born in the US/the West.

“It takes no compromise to give
people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no
political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.”

― Harvey Milk

I am really surprised that this thread is still here! LOL

"...What's next a man and his dog......"

I tried but can't resist. After seeing some of the couples at a certain store even before the court decision... it's apparently already happened and WOOF! To quote Lady & The Tramp "Whaaaat a DOG!"

I am really surprised that this thread is still here! LOL

That's because Gardenweb is owned by grown-ups now. :-)

We each have the right to express our opinion as we are fortunate to be guaranteed freedom of speech and religion. I try not to find it offensive when someone quotes a Bible passage as I realize it is their right (okay, sometimes it annoys me) regardless of whether I agree or not. I can simply skip reading the opinion if I wish.

I think it's important to note ( as stated several times above) that the SCOTUS decision redefined CIVIL marriage and granted equal rights to ALL. Each religion / church is free to perform or not perform a wedding of gay (and for that matter straight) couples.

I saw this very welcome commercial last night. "Family isn't defined by who you love, but how."

Tylenol TV commercial

Made me proud my husband used to make acetaminophen for McNeil.

oh, Texas. (shakes head sadly)

Why Texas? My Texan cousin is marrying his fiancé this Saturday, after 14 years of being together. Finally! The law of the land cannot be denied, not even in Texas.

edited: So he's not?

Dang.

yeah, he still can. You just have to find a clerk who is not religious and who believes in the rule of law.

While it is nice to see inclusion in commercials, you know the companies have checked the percentage that are already on the bandwagon and then decided it would be a popular move to jump on. Then there are the others that are out in front of issues, but only because the buzz adds value, negative overall maybe, but it will still appeal to their targets. Very few companies are at the front of issues because it is something they believe in, to heck with the consequences. It is all calculated. But I will still welcome them onto my bandwagons, even though the didn't do the work building them.

Of course it's calculated; they're selling a product. And doing it rather effectively, since I actually remembered the name of the product (unusual for me with commercials). Ditto your last sentence. GyrFalcon.

"Very few companies are at the front of issues because it is something they believe in"

Companies aren't monolithic but most are similar in at least one respect - their missions don't involve being agents of social change. You won't find many, or any, who act with reckless abandon and with a "to heck with the consequences" attitude. That would be irresponsible to shareholders.

An exception would be a small or otherwise private company whose owner makes any such decisions and is personally affected by the consequences.

Re: Texas: Those government employees being told they don't have to issue marriage licenses to gay people if their religious beliefs counter doing so whine and gripes about the government interfering with their religious beliefs. But what about their religious beliefs interfering with government?

Keep Church and State separate. IMO, those employees should be fired for imposing their personal religious values on the State.

Goes both ways, religious whackos. Keep your religious out of our government, and our government won't tell your church it has to be sane.

On the other side, companies that had loudly spoken out against LBGT issues, such as Chik-Fil-A, have come around. That's good, no matter what market research helped with the change of heart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

See, and herein lies the problem...

You don't want people to have civil, and public religious discussions because some are offended, and yet people are called 'whackos' and 'insane' when they think a little different from you!

If you don't want intolerance toward some groups, why would you not speak up when you hear and read it towards others???!!!

Again, I'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong for holding a certain belief and acting on their conscious, but intolerance is intolerance!

And whether anyone takes offense, as I'm certainly not offering it, but here's a scripture meant to teach Christians how to act towards anyone, including LGTB's... 1 Pet. 2: 17

If a Christian is NOT doing that, then they are not reflecting the image of the Christ. -- Col. 3: 10

Sigh (as I hope to ensure things remain calm here, but have a bit of fear I won't be successful).

Ref: whackos: there are many types. When you use your religion to not carry your duties as a governmental clerk, then you qualify. Resign if you can't do it. Or, request an immediate transfer, and take a leave until it happens.

Appropriately disagreeing doesn't earn the whacko label.

I think in several countries, the government only recognized government officiated marriages; for a religious marriage ceremony, a separate ceremony is held.

rgreen, 1) They're whackos; 2) Where did you see me say they shouldn't be allowed to get married? I believe gay people should be allowed to marry. I also believe religious whackos should be allowed to marry.

What intolerance? I think they're nuts. Just like I think members of the KKK are nuts. But they too should be allowed to get married. You're confusing intolerance with a personal view of the rhetoric and demonstrably inconsistent values of a group. But nowhere do I say they should not have the same rights that I have. Of course they should. I just wish they weren't so nutty.

Chik-Fil-A didn't come around, they buckled under pressure. Pure damage control IMO. Now taking Bill Gates as an example, who used to donate almost none of his fortune to charity, and see how he began to not just donate money, but time and hard work. That shows a true change of heart.

When have the Gates not donated, gyr? Was it a long time ago? Because, seriously, I can't remember when he/they didn't. Didn't donate to gay causes? I don't know about that, so you could mean that?

It was prior to his marriage to Melinda. He was raked in the press of public opinion when it came out the truly paltry sum of his income he donated to charity. I cannot safely recall the detailed amount, as that was some decades ago. But I do know it was shocking to hear at the time.

edit: Not split to causes--it was the total vs. income that gave people pause.

Oh, in that case, I'm glad he's changed his ways :)

tibbrix... 1) Name calling? Really? 2) Huh? I haven't said a word about anyone either being allowed, or not allowed to get married.

Using the term 'whackos' is an example of a person who metaphorically places themselves in the middle of a crowd, and points at others and says... "look at them. they are different, and crazy. We should not have anything to do with them or their ideas."

It is not an exercise of discernment. It is crass and immature. It is intolerance and judging at its worst. It's one step away from being the enemy you claim to stand against. You've already judged them, the next step is acting on that judgement.

Tolerance is not only accepting that people act and think differently from yourself, but also making allowances for those differences.

Following through with the reasoning found in your comment, people who have a religious reason to not perform same-sex marriages should be barred from serving in such Government, and civil service positions that are given authority to perform marriages.

So, a religious litmus test for who gets to work in Government!!!??? Wow... talk about a slippery slope?

humans are all about "us versus them" - and I'm tired of it, and sad for humanity. We are all on this stupid spinning rock together.

Chik-Fil-A had nothing they had to come around to or buckle to under any pressure. They never discriminated against gays. They have always had gay employees and to my knowledge not a single LGBT person has ever been refused service by them . A single statement by their CEO expressing his personal beliefs was jumped upon by the extreme radicals like a bunch of rabid dogs. As far as their donations went. If one truly researched how every dollar of donations to various groups is used no one would donate to anyone including the churches you may attend.

"it was the total vs. income that gave people pause"

falcon, i think you may have the story wrong. Gates never had much salary from Microsoft - as an example, it was about $1 million when he retired in 2006. That's a lot of money to most people, but that was very low for top exec of a big company at that time, all the more so today, That was at a time he was worth tens of billions.

Maybe in the early days, he didn't have time for charitable activities. But to talk about his donations as a percentage of his income can't hardly be what the story was about.

Chik-Fill-A and In-N-Out are each privately owned, by different families with similar views. In both cases, the owners' extreme fundamentalist views have crept into the persona of each company that the public can view.

markb - Exactly.

For over 15 years a local Reverend performed civil ceremonies on Fridays. If a same-sex couple wanted to be married, she handed over that particular duty to another minister as her church doesn't allow her to perform same-sex marriages.

She had to resign her post with the city, as they didn't want to be paying 2 officiators when one would do.

rgreen:

"2) Huh? I haven't said a word about anyone either being allowed, or not allowed to get married."

Actually, you have.

"Using the term 'whackos' is an example of a person who metaphorically places themselves in the middle of a crowd, and points at others and says... "look at them. they are different, and crazy. We should not have anything to do with them or their ideas."

No, it is not that at all. Using the term 'whackos' is done when one identifies that such a person is being irrational in their thought process, i.e.: "whacko".

"t is intolerance and judging at its worst. It's one step away from being the enemy you claim to stand against."

No, it is not. Wrong again. and "enemy"????? Good grief.

"Tolerance is not only accepting that people act and think differently from yourself, but also making allowances for those differences."

No, it's not. "Tolerance" is offensive. It's putting up with something you don't like. So I have tolerance for right wing religious loons. I put up with them, but I don't like them. What you are trying to refer to is acceptance and embracement. Totally different things than tolerance. A gay friend of mine once told me that he is so offended when people talk about "tolerating" gay people.

"Following through with the reasoning found in your comment, people who have a religious reason to not perform same-sex marriages should be barred from serving in such Government, and civil service positions that are given authority to perform marriages."

Correct. Fire those guys in Texas. They're imposing their personal whackadoodle religious views on the government. That is not supposed to be done in the US.

"So, a religious litmus test for who gets to work in Government!!!??? Wow... talk about a slippery slope?"

No, of course not. You're a Christian/Muslim/Hassidic/ Hindu…fundamentalist and you want to work for the government? Sure. Go ahead. But leave your religion at home when you do. If you can't, then no, you can't work for the government.

tibbrix, there is a difference between a person is acting in an irrational manner, and a person who is irrational. Name calling and labeling is immature and in this case, in fact, irrational.

I have no desire to carry on a conversation with someone who labels and uses derogatory remarks toward others. Here is the Biblical verse that teaches me the wisdom of walking away... Prov. 26: 4

Cool.

Btw, if you would be interested in my deeper view of religious fundamentalists, I actually think they are victims of shysters. I think the Falwells and Roberstsons, et al, are sleaze bags who exploit among the most weak people in our society, the poor, destitute, traumatized…to enrich themselves, and they do it by filling their heads with that whackadoodle fundie nonsense. Frankly, it is not Christianity at all, to me (my father is a minister, btw). It is in fact exploitation of the sacred for the profane. Use fear an loathing and Us. v. Them, etc., and you'll have them donating the electric bill money to the plate!

However, once again, you tried to liken my dislike of religious fundamentalists (sorry, I really do NOT like ISIS and al Qaeda and Rev. Phelps, among many others) with that of the fundamentalists' refusal to recognize a new LAW and continue to discriminate against an entire group of people. Nowhere have I said they must LIKE gay people. They don't have to like them anymore than I have to like religious fundamentalism. But THEY want to deny those people a fundamental right. I do NOT wish to do the same to the group I dislike.

Get it?

What Irritates me about those who quote scriptures as a part of their conversation is that they are letting someone else speak for them instead of speaking for themselves using their own words and interpretation. Not being familiar with the Bible except in a very general way, it's also tough to carry on a conversation with them because they are, for me, speaking in terms that are foreign to me.

If one wants to quote scripture as part of ones conversation go for it but the polite thing to do would be to write out the passage (including the passage before and after) and the story in which it is from - context is everything. The quotes could be from a Stephen King novel for all I know.

Well, at least with chapter and verse we can be pretty sure it's not Shakespeare. :)

The problem with quoting scripture is that even people who think they're speaking of the same book, aren't necessarily speaking of the same source material (no matter how Divine one might assert the writings to be, there's no denying that human copyists have made errors in duplicating the texts over time. In Hebrew, the word for "no" or "not" sounds the same as the word for "to him", so a tired scribe would have inverted the entire meaning of a sentence by writing down the wrong spelling--a there, their, they're issue with greater consequences. When they compare ancient scrolls they find these differences.). Add translations, some of which passed through a couple of languages to get to ours, and lack of remembrance of very common things in the ancient world that certain passages refer to (which we've more recently learned about again from other sources), and the many many centuries of interpretation that are passed down by different religious authorities, and there's no way that we can even agree completely on what the text says.

Add to that that freedom of religion is for all religions (and I would argue that it applies to freedom to have no religion as well), not just different branches of the same religion. Forcing a Shinto, a Muslim, a Sikh, a Zoroastrian, a Jew, a Buddhist and an Animist to abide by Christian scripture, let alone by a single particular Christian sect's scripture, is a violation of their First Amendment rights. Many many many gays had valid religious marriages sanctified by their own religions long before this ruling.

you all made me so proud.