Makes the site useable for LGBTQ Christians without interfering with its use by straight Christians -- arguably a net gain for Christians, if you can acknowledge the existence of Christians whose principled views on sexuality and gender differ from yours or your denomination's.
Makes the site useable for LGBTQ Christians without interfering with its use by straight Christians
Yes, it does interfere with its use, since part of its use is promoting a particular view of sexuality. Which is just one of the reasons why the lawsuit took place at all.
'LGBTBBQGRPAF' people - Christians or not - who require constant "inclusion" on pain of throwing a fit do a disservice to society and Christianity alike.
Future Headline: "Lawsuit Forces Christian Mingle to Include a 'Polyamouous' Dating Option"
AdamHazzard: "Makes the site useable for ['polyamorous'] Christians without interfering with its use by [sexually moral] Christians -- arguably a net gain for Christians, if you can acknowledge the existence of Christians whose principled views on sexuality and gender differ from yours or your denomination's."
Future Headline: "Lawsuit Forces Christian Mingle to Include a Pedophile Dating Option"
AdamHazzard: "Makes the site useable for [pedophilic] Christians without interfering with its use by [sexually moral] Christians -- arguably a net gain for Christians, if you can acknowledge the existence of Christians whose principled views on sexuality and gender differ from yours or your denomination's."
In the interest of irenic discourse, I'm trying not to make the mistake of identifying Christianity with particular sectarian views not shared by all Christians. (In other words, I want to avoid speaking as if all Christians were creationists, or fundamentalists, or Protestants -- or opponents of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.). Where I live, many Christians were opposed to marriage equality -- but some Christians were at the vanguard in that struggle; others have experienced a sincere change of heart on the subject, and many are still struggling with it. There is, as far as I can tell, no single pan-Christian position on LGBTQ equality, and no way to create or enforce one.
Good. I for one thought it was really absurd how they excluded Homosexual but allowed to someone to say the Drink frequently, verses condemning Alcohol far outnumber those accused of addressing Homosexuality.
PL: "I wonder the result of a lawsuit forcing Christian bookstores to stock pornography would be?"
Probably quite different from a lawsuit to force pornographers to stock -- and prominently display -- Bibles.
========== some petty anti-Christ: "Good. I for one thought it was really absurd how they excluded Homosexual but allowed to someone to say the Drink frequently, verses condemning Alcohol far outnumber those accused of addressing Homosexuality."
1) the Bible doesn't condemn alcohol, it condemns drunkenness; 2) the Bible doesn't "address" homosexuality; it condemns homosexual acts; 3) the sinfulness of a sin isn't amplified by the number of Biblical condemnations -- "Well, you know God, it's really unfair of you to "send me to Hell" for teaching others that [Sin X] isn't really a sin, given that you condemned it as sin only the once."
Putting aside the law, I don't see the point in this lawsuit- The barriers to entry to creating websites are low, gay christians(or someone who wants their $) could create gaychristiansdate.com etc if that's what they're after. In my mind it's not comparable to a restaurant refusing service, or even a large website like amazon refusing service. There's a plethora of dating sites and apps and many are tailored to small communities.
I see Adam's point, about no one 'owning' the issue, but in this case competition seems to me to be the better course to take.
Satta M. The point is the same as with every other instance of using the threat of state violence to compel people to violate their consciences with respect to homosexual activity.
And Adam's "point" is intellectual dishonesty -- he is posing as disinterested and neutral, but: 1) there is no such thing as neutrality with respect to moral issues; 2) to be "disinterested" about threats of state violence to compel people to violate their moral understanding is precisely to be in favor of such violence.
As an example of 2) -- As of [TODAY] polygamy is illegal in the USA -- which is to say, there [CURRENTLY] exists the threat of state violence to censure polygamists so as to suppress the practice of polygamy. I myself am as "disinterested" about this particular threat of violence as Adam is about the threat of violence against Christian Mingle (and Christians in general) precisely because I approve of the suppression of polygamy, much as Adam approves the suppression of Christian belief and practice.
When I was in college -- back in the late 1970s, in the Midwest -- the school newspaper would not accept a classified from people specifying that they were seeking a Christian roommate; you had to say that you were looking for a "non-partier".
"I approve of the suppression of polygamy, much as Adam approves the suppression of Christian beliefs and practices."
No, let me hasten to reassure you, I don't want Christianity to be made illegal, as polygamy currently is.
But if you want to take some polyamory dating site to court for systematically excluding Christians, you might have a case under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Reminds me of the recent court case involving pharmacies and the abortion drugs. As a pharmacist you used to be able to choose what drugs you wanted to stock in your pharmacy because you could never possibly carry them all. Not anymore.
SteveK: "Reminds me of the recent court case involving pharmacies and the abortion drugs. As a pharmacist you used to be able to choose what drugs you wanted to stock in your pharmacy because you could never possibly carry them all. Not anymore."
There is no such thing as "moral neutrality", and there is always a "god of the system". The god of our rulers (and of far too many of us) is the Great Goddess Orgasm: she demands that all bow before her, and she demands blood sacrifice.
A business should be able to choose the products it sells. This business was selling dating related services for Christians. Will women's only clothing websites now have to sell men's clothing? This tyranny has to stop.
Wasn't the same thing done years ago to eHarmony?
ReplyDeleteMakes the site useable for LGBTQ Christians without interfering with its use by straight Christians -- arguably a net gain for Christians, if you can acknowledge the existence of Christians whose principled views on sexuality and gender differ from yours or your denomination's.
ReplyDeleteMakes the site useable for LGBTQ Christians without interfering with its use by straight Christians
ReplyDeleteYes, it does interfere with its use, since part of its use is promoting a particular view of sexuality. Which is just one of the reasons why the lawsuit took place at all.
'LGBTBBQGRPAF' people - Christians or not - who require constant "inclusion" on pain of throwing a fit do a disservice to society and Christianity alike.
Future Headline: "Lawsuit Forces Christian Mingle to Include a 'Polyamouous' Dating Option"
ReplyDeleteAdamHazzard: "Makes the site useable for ['polyamorous'] Christians without interfering with its use by [sexually moral] Christians -- arguably a net gain for Christians, if you can acknowledge the existence of Christians whose principled views on sexuality and gender differ from yours or your denomination's."
Future Headline: "Lawsuit Forces Christian Mingle to Include a Pedophile Dating Option"
AdamHazzard: "Makes the site useable for [pedophilic] Christians without interfering with its use by [sexually moral] Christians -- arguably a net gain for Christians, if you can acknowledge the existence of Christians whose principled views on sexuality and gender differ from yours or your denomination's."
In the interest of irenic discourse, I'm trying not to make the mistake of identifying Christianity with particular sectarian views not shared by all Christians. (In other words, I want to avoid speaking as if all Christians were creationists, or fundamentalists, or Protestants -- or opponents of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.). Where I live, many Christians were opposed to marriage equality -- but some Christians were at the vanguard in that struggle; others have experienced a sincere change of heart on the subject, and many are still struggling with it. There is, as far as I can tell, no single pan-Christian position on LGBTQ equality, and no way to create or enforce one.
ReplyDeletePlease!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious. I wonder the result of a lawsuit forcing Christian bookstores to stock pornography would be?
ReplyDeleteGood. I for one thought it was really absurd how they excluded Homosexual but allowed to someone to say the Drink frequently, verses condemning Alcohol far outnumber those accused of addressing Homosexuality.
ReplyDeletePL: "I wonder the result of a lawsuit forcing Christian bookstores to stock pornography would be?"
ReplyDeleteProbably quite different from a lawsuit to force pornographers to stock -- and prominently display -- Bibles.
==========
some petty anti-Christ: "Good. I for one thought it was really absurd how they excluded Homosexual but allowed to someone to say the Drink frequently, verses condemning Alcohol far outnumber those accused of addressing Homosexuality."
1) the Bible doesn't condemn alcohol, it condemns drunkenness;
2) the Bible doesn't "address" homosexuality; it condemns homosexual acts;
3) the sinfulness of a sin isn't amplified by the number of Biblical condemnations -- "Well, you know God, it's really unfair of you to "send me to Hell" for teaching others that [Sin X] isn't really a sin, given that you condemned it as sin only the once."
Aarggh! I forgot the "what". I meant to write:
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the result of a lawsuit forcing Christian bookstores to stock pornography would be?
Putting aside the law, I don't see the point in this lawsuit-
ReplyDeleteThe barriers to entry to creating websites are low, gay christians(or someone who wants their $) could create gaychristiansdate.com etc if that's what they're after. In my mind it's not comparable to a restaurant refusing service, or even a large website like amazon refusing service. There's a plethora of dating sites and apps and many are tailored to small communities.
I see Adam's point, about no one 'owning' the issue, but in this case competition seems to me to be the better course to take.
Satta M.
ReplyDeleteThe point is the same as with every other instance of using the threat of state violence to compel people to violate their consciences with respect to homosexual activity.
And Adam's "point" is intellectual dishonesty -- he is posing as disinterested and neutral, but:
1) there is no such thing as neutrality with respect to moral issues;
2) to be "disinterested" about threats of state violence to compel people to violate their moral understanding is precisely to be in favor of such violence.
As an example of 2) --
As of [TODAY] polygamy is illegal in the USA -- which is to say, there [CURRENTLY] exists the threat of state violence to censure polygamists so as to suppress the practice of polygamy. I myself am as "disinterested" about this particular threat of violence as Adam is about the threat of violence against Christian Mingle (and Christians in general) precisely because I approve of the suppression of polygamy, much as Adam approves the suppression of Christian belief and practice.
Hmm..
ReplyDeleteWhenever I drive through the Midwest, I see billboards advertising dating sites "for farmers only". I wonder if these are illegal businesses, too?
^ They are if they don't include a section for bestiality aficionados.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in college -- back in the late 1970s, in the Midwest -- the school newspaper would not accept a classified from people specifying that they were seeking a Christian roommate; you had to say that you were looking for a "non-partier".
ReplyDelete"I approve of the suppression of polygamy, much as Adam approves the suppression of Christian beliefs and practices."
ReplyDeleteNo, let me hasten to reassure you, I don't want Christianity to be made illegal, as polygamy currently is.
But if you want to take some polyamory dating site to court for systematically excluding Christians, you might have a case under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Please!!
ReplyDelete"I'm all about the First Amendment, so long as you don't say/teach/believe anything I don't want anyone to hear/consider"
Reminds me of the recent court case involving pharmacies and the abortion drugs. As a pharmacist you used to be able to choose what drugs you wanted to stock in your pharmacy because you could never possibly carry them all. Not anymore.
ReplyDeletethat is outrageous. I admire anyone who sticks to conscience even I disagree with the stand. That is wrong. I would shut it down before that.
ReplyDeletetreating themn as human beings and showing them God's love is fine but let them finds their own dates
ReplyDeleteSteveK: "Reminds me of the recent court case involving pharmacies and the abortion drugs. As a pharmacist you used to be able to choose what drugs you wanted to stock in your pharmacy because you could never possibly carry them all. Not anymore."
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "moral neutrality", and there is always a "god of the system". The god of our rulers (and of far too many of us) is the Great Goddess Orgasm: she demands that all bow before her, and she demands blood sacrifice.
A business should be able to choose the products it sells. This business was selling dating related services for Christians. Will women's only clothing websites now have to sell men's clothing? This tyranny has to stop.
ReplyDelete"Will women's only clothing websites now have to sell men's clothing?"
ReplyDeleteEXCELLENT point. Even better than the example of demanding that kosher delis sell ham sandwiches.
Yes, this insane tyranny has to stop.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it cannot stop ... the insane-and-irrational logic behind it compels its proponents and enforcers to continuously expand the tyranny.
The Bible only condemns certain Homosexual acts, it no where condemns all Homosexuality.
ReplyDeletehttp://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
The idea of condemning all Sex outside Marriage comes from Plato.