tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post2130742144980385855..comments2023-03-25T02:42:27.644-05:00Comments on Erik Reed: Conscience, Religious Liberty, and DiscriminationErik Reedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09386746092284995691noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-81780210519471879702014-02-26T17:47:16.688-06:002014-02-26T17:47:16.688-06:00So Matt McPeak has resurfaced! First it was Facebo...So Matt McPeak has resurfaced! First it was Facebook talking and now your blog. Matt, just agree to disagree and stop trying to pick a fight. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-31596219724661353782014-02-26T15:15:15.259-06:002014-02-26T15:15:15.259-06:00Ahh, so you're a pick and choose Christian. G...Ahh, so you're a pick and choose Christian. Gotcha. Typical of your kind. Hypocritical, bigoted, and intolerant. Yeah, you're not bigoted just like all those southern gentlemen 50 years ago weren't bigoted. It's just the way it was, right? I'll take solace in knowing that you're on the wrong side of history.<br /><br />By the way, I revert to name calling because that all your kind deserves. You are not arguing from a rational position. There is no intellectual conversation going on. There is you rambling about your belief structure based on a work of fiction that contradicts itself at almost every turn being used to support your intolerance. And then there are people like me who can't comprehend how anybody could be so gullible as to base one's life and world view on a work of fiction written over 2,000 years ago. Based on that, why should I give your argument any credence or credibility? It's a joke, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-20218714901947991552014-02-26T13:02:45.925-06:002014-02-26T13:02:45.925-06:00Dear "Anonymous" -- go read some more on...Dear "Anonymous" -- go read some more on how to understand Scripture, particularly on how to make sense of OT commands on food and dress. These are old, outdated, and uneducated remarks. <br /><br />In addition, I'm not worried about defending myself to you. I'm not a bigot, nor are those I know who hold my position. This is the classic case of name-calling in order to silence people. You have yet to engage my argument or intellectually answer the questions I raised. You have name called and demagogued. <br /><br />Your responses on here show you probably have not even read what I wrote carefully, nor took the time to follow any of the links I posted that addresses some of your questions of other things Christian business owners should refuse. This is not surprising though. In our country now, instead of engaging in discussion and intellectual exchange of ideas and debate, folks like you revert to name-calling and appeals to emotion.<br /><br />Btw, I love your insistent posture of how I would have been against interracial marriage. You must have Doc Brown's time-machine to be so wise about what I would have believed. I have several interracial marriages in my family, I'll pass the word on to them about how lucky they are they didn't run into the 1960's Erik.Erik Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09386746092284995691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-56789560127390176152014-02-26T11:31:22.128-06:002014-02-26T11:31:22.128-06:00Why should I be willing to identify myself when yo...Why should I be willing to identify myself when your side is made of people with a tenuous grasp on reality? Why would I want to take a chance angering the lunatics?<br /><br />Ah yes, the 'ol pointing out your intolerance is ACTUALLY intolerance on my part. Get real. Anybody who is intolerant, as you and your followers clearly are, should have no tolerance directed towards them for their irrational beliefs. You are a deeply religious individual. You clearly would have been against interracial marriage 50+ years ago as most deeply religious individuals were. Times may change and circumstances may shift, but once a bigot always a bigot.<br /><br />Should a business be allowed to decline business with divorced people? An unwed mother? How about people who are wearing clothing of mixed fibers? Men without beards and/or short hair? People with tattoos? Women who wear jewelry? How about the whole thing about not uncovering your head? Should I go on or do we just ignore those things from the bible because they are inconvenient in this day and age? Are you "enlightened" enough to let those things slide from your holy book? If so, why those and not homosexuality? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-37172562059775178792014-02-26T11:14:51.817-06:002014-02-26T11:14:51.817-06:00Except science doesn't agree with you.
Also, ...Except science doesn't agree with you.<br /><br />Also, please tell us what day you chose to be heterosexual? A decision of that magnitude should be memorable. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-47362948022975731182014-02-26T10:23:16.532-06:002014-02-26T10:23:16.532-06:00Dear, "Anonymous"
You should be willing...Dear, "Anonymous"<br /><br />You should be willing to identify yourself since you are posting your opinions.<br /><br />For someone who wants to appear so tolerant, you have demonstrated the most intolerance. You don't know me at all, yet you want to tell me what era I would fit in with and what I would have done or been for. How arrogant. <br /><br />You also demonstrate an unwillingness to engage with what I wrote. I find it terribly convenient that you choose to dismiss my scenarios as "would never happen." Says who? You? Are you the authority and lord of what happens and how people would act. Christians business owners being asked to provide services for a gay wedding are violating their conscience. They are not being asked to make a birthday cake. They are being asked to support a wedding. It should be their right to decline based on religious conviction. Just like everyone in my scenarios should be in their right to decline services as well. <br /><br />Btw, the Amish community is not forced to pay social security in America. Did you know that? You know why? Because it is a violation of their religious conscience and conviction and they choose to live separate from society. Guess what? The government doesn't make them. Nobody seems up in arms about this. But if a Christian voices their opposition to something, the hate abounds. And it is not the Christian doing the hate.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to write a comment. Next time be willing to identify yourself.<br /><br /> Erik Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09386746092284995691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-70771299709344669902014-02-26T10:14:20.784-06:002014-02-26T10:14:20.784-06:00I am confused, by the above logic. Since when is b...I am confused, by the above logic. Since when is behavior, personal choice and equivalent comparison to intrinsic qualities such as skin color, ethnicity, being male or female, etc...? There is no right to a behavior. Sexual activity is not an uncontrollable compulsion, it is a behavior, a choice, a conscious decision. Your argument makes no sense at all.<br /><br />Try again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132219789253130273.post-19578346781827269102014-02-26T07:53:13.478-06:002014-02-26T07:53:13.478-06:00Nailed it.Nailed it.ElderJamesnoreply@blogger.com