Look, it's real simple. Should people speak out against violence? Absolutely. Does anyone have an obligation to do it? Morally, yes. Legally, no. You speak regularly on your viewpoints. These people speak to their viewpoints as well. They are no more obligated to believe the way you believe than you are to believe the way they believe, and it's nobody's job to persuade the other. We are allowed to maintain separate fields of thought.
Standing up for human rights is not proselytizing. However, arguing about theology does border on it. The verbiage really doesn't matter. You want to argue with a church about its core tenets. Love, homosexuality, it really doesn't matter. Every sect interprets scripture in their own way. Hell, every church interprets scripture in their way. Just one more problem in a long line of problems, if you ask me.
I never said anything at all about whether or not discriminating is morally okay...or ethical. I did say that here, in this country, private organizations have the right to discriminate for a variety of reasons. Just like 7-11s and bars and restaurants and any establishment anywhere announcing that they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason.
I know that probably upsets people--that discrimination is legal, or worse, could be okay, but it's the way it is. These are our laws. What you're talking about is moral regulation. And the problem with morality police is that it goes both ways, especially when there's no firmament for the beliefs. Who decides what the social substrate is going to be for ethics? Nobody is ever going to agree on a single source.
To be clear I think you did a good thing, I think you stood up for your beliefs, and it's a rare person who is willing to stand against avarice and disparagement in the name of what they believe. I was only trying to say that the church has the right to dislike, and yes, even refuse the use of their facilities to certain people, just the way you have the right to dislike people and refuse access to your publication if you so desire. I also remarked on the minimal utility of arguing with a church about its own doctrine. And anti-homosexuality is a part of church doctrine. It's a part of Christian doctrine. It's a part of biblical doctrine. I didn't make this stuff up. This is just the way it is. Again, notice I'm not talking about what should be; I'm talking about what is. I'm not defending or reproaching.
People around here act like I'm defending churches because I'm pointing out facts about their theology. I don't give a shit one way or the other. But people should probably read passages from doctrine before trying to explain to people what the doctrine is about.
