|
JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/11/2017 4:27:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
you cant really---its putting words into the scripture that simply are not there. yes "second death" or "spiritual death" or "eternal separation" from god is mentioned repeatedly throughout the bible. however, that theme is not yet developed by Leviticus, and even if it were, the language and context are wholly and only consistent with death by stoning. theres no question over what the words mean.
what youre wanting to do in a sense is say that people wrote things down other than what god intended for them to write down. that's a view, that on the whole isn't accepted by most of the church, and is ultimately dangerous.
you can indeed carry on the spiritual exposition of what happens, or what might happen to people who are "put to death" for breaking the law, but you cant take away the literal, physical death sentence when you do it.
Right. Because everyone who ever interpreted the Bible was correct; even when it conflicted with the interpretation of someone else was correct.
Have you read the original Hebrew text? If not, you're reading a translation that may or may not have been correct (personally, I like the King James Version, though I can't exactly explain why). Every translation comes down to the interpretation by the translator, doesn't it? As I pointed out to JVoV regarding the passages used to rationalize slavery as acceptable, some things twisted upon interpretation.
I think the most pressing matter of this case is can the State show compelling interest in protecting gays and gay marriage.
It has already been decided by previous courts that government may interfere with religious practices if it has a compelling interest to do so. Human sacrifice is not tolerated by our law. Parents can be charged with murder (or manslaughter, depending on the state & situation) if they fail to provide medical treatment due to religious beliefs and it results in the death of their child.
I believe that just two years ago, the Supreme Court mandated that States take a compelling interest in allowing and protecting gay marriage. Colorado had already done so, being ahead of that curve.
There is no religious belief or practice being interfered with by Colorado law. No one is being forced to suddenly believe that gay marriage has been accepted by God, only to acknowledge that it is accepted by the State.
The Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association arguments should be equally dismissed. Public businesses must treat all customers equally. So the choice for them is all or nothing. Don't sell wedding cakes at all if you can't bake them for people of a protected class. Don't professionally photograph weddings at all, if you aren't available for people of all religions, races, and sexual orientations. Don't provide any sort of service for anyone that you cannot, in good faith, do for every customer that comes along.
The free market often backfires in many cases such as this. White people certainly enjoyed their segregated movie theaters and restaurants, whereas they may not have returned to a place that welcomed all races before the law made it mandatory.
|
|
|
|
