Christian Persecution Complex

File: copts learning about islam first hand.jpg (99KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 780x438px

More like Protestant Persecution Complex

>>2097538
To these people most Christians are not real Christians. Only those who adhere to theirs or similar sects are Christian.

That said there are elements of Christianity that are considered incompatible or distasteful by most of the population today , like anti-homosexuality and birth control, and there are those who want to outlaw or put limitations on Christians practicing these aspects of their faith

>>2097538
Happy holidays :^)

>>2097570
>copts destroy and pillage pagan and jewish temples
>cry when it happens to them

>>2097538
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xqD9-9RA0 lol

>>2097570
This

>>2097615
pretty standard human behavior

>>2097538
I'm not a Christian, but tell me why it's okay for employers to fire people for offensive tweets but it's not okay for a Christian bakery to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

>>2097772
*to not bake a cake

Christfags just can't handle the bantz as well as everyone else.

>>2097772
Because we're taking crazy pills anon. Try to apply logic unilaterally and you'll see the world is built upon hypocrisy

>>2097538
So they admit that their myth is on the same level as Santa Claus?

>>2097772
well the first one is never okay and I'll never justify it (talking about PC on 4chan is preaching to the choir)

as for the cake it probably depends on the context if they are just trying to be supportive denying them is rude but if they are trying to troll the couple I don't think it would be.

>>2098164
Well we're talking legally. It's perfectly legal for employers to fire their employees for what are basically opinions - yet the people who refused to bake the cake were hammered with hefty fines, just because their religion doesn't accept the idea of gay marriage.

This is what I'd call a persecution of Christians (althoug the same would apply if they were muslim or Jew or whatever).

>>2097772
>I'm not a Christian, but tell me why it's okay for employers to fire people for offensive tweets but it's not okay for a Christian bakery to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Because you live in America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

>>2098174
One causes trouble for the companies brand image and it is within a businesses reasonable interest to protect their brand
On the other hand, a bakers opinion on religion and same sex marriage were irrelevant to the business and makes the refusal of buissiness unjustified. Imagine if the Christian Baker declined making a Jewish person a cake because of their religious views, or if a hotel refused to let black people rent a room

>>2098236
That's kind of a false equivalency because Christianity isn't against Jewish weddings or against blacks.

>>2098236
>Baker declined making a Jewish person a cake because of their religious views, or if a hotel refused to let black people rent a room

Yes, that's called freedom of association. On of the less pleasant things about living in a free country is sometimes people choose to do nasty things.

>>2098249
>That's kind of a false equivalency because Christianity isn't against blacks.

they were at a time
though only for mixed race weddings

>>2098287
No, they were racists who happened to be Christians. They weren't racist because they were Christian.

That's like saying people eat ice cream because they are Christians.

>>2098292
you yourself said that Christianity is against homosexuality what's stopping those racist from saying it's against a certain race or mixed-race marriage.

It's not hard to find a passage or two in the bible that would support their claims.

>>2098201
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Why are libertarians ok with this? Free speech should not be conditioned by what is palatable to billionaires and CEOs.

Should we allow employers to fire anyone for supporting tax raises or increasing the minimum wage? Because that honestly seems like an incentive that gives the rich an infinite amount of power as to what the poor are allowed to say.

>>2098306
There's no biblical basis for kicking blacks out of hotels, but there is a biblical basis for homophobia.

>>2097772
One is a breach of the code of conduct set by your employer and agreed to when you were hired and the other is discrimination against a citizen and customer because of something that they cannot help and that in no way disrupts your business.

>>2098329
>no way disrupts your business
But this is a problem of religious ethic, not just profit. I mean I'm sure many people would refuse to sell their products to known pedophiles or murderers even if it hurts their profit. And Christians view gay marriage as a sin against God, so they participating in the ceremony by baking a cake would make them pretty much complicit in the sin.

>>2098329
>One is a breach of the code of conduct set by your employer and agreed to when you were hired
So, according to libertarians, it's perfectly acceptable for CEOs to reserve the right to fire people for political views expressed completely outside of the boundaries of work? If employers expect employees to maintain a code of conduct 24/7, why aren't they paying them 24/7? Why should the rich be granted with vastly disproportionate power over speech in a country that allegedly promotes free speech as an ideal?

>>2098348
Libertarians are imbeciles and literally corporate slaves. They view the concept of private property with even more reverence than monarchists view the king, I mean at least monarchists can admit some kings were bad.

>>2098310
>Because that honestly seems like an incentive that gives the rich an infinite amount of power as to what the poor are allowed to say.
Welcome to America enjoy your stay!

>>2098344
Two of those are serious crimes while homosexuality isn't. You broke the social contract and there are consequences of that. Personally, it's iffy but it's understandable.

What is a crime is discrimination against a citizen based on their gender, race, sexuality, or religious affiliation, regardless of religious justification. I guess this is what happens when secular law meets religious freedom.

Out of curiousity has the government actually taken action against a bakery for not making cakes for fag weddings?

>>2098348
That kind of thing already happens m8. Regardless "freedom of speech" is only applicable to the government and what they are capable of doing. It doesn't extend to how a person wants to run their business.

I don't personally like it but that's how it is. If a company sets rules you have to follow both on the job and in social media, you have to follow those rules if you agree to work for them.

If you don't like it, don't work for that company.

>>2098310
>Why are libertarians ok with this?
Because they think that oppression caused by private enterprises is somehow more "voluntary" and thus acceptable than the same oppression caused by a state. It's literally just "it's ok when we do it".

>>2098392
>while homosexuality isn't
According to the Bible it's a crime of the highest level, really on par with murder.

The analogy with blacks and hotel rooms is fucking stupid. Christianity doesn't view letting blacks into a hotel as a sin but participating in homosexuality is a sin.

>has the government actually taken action against a bakery for not making cakes for fag weddings?

The court decided that bakery has to pay a 150k fine.

>>2098392
>"freedom of speech" is only applicable to the government and what they are capable of doing
You're thinking of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is a concept which is capable of being applied to every level of society you defeatist faggot.

>If you don't like it, don't work for that company.
This isn't a feasible choice to anyone with a shred of dignity or self-respect. Companies have vastly more power than their employees when it comes to negotiating terms, which is why governments exist and are in charge of limiting companies. And unless companies intend to start paying their employees for every moment of their lives, they have no business dictating what their employees do with every moment of their lives.

>>2098403
Once again libertarians are idiots and their refusal of positive rights and recognizing only the NAP would lead to a complete catastrophe if actually applied to a society.

Let's say your kid is buying heroin from a dealer:

>normal response
You ground the kid for being a druggie or send him to rehab and call the cops on the drug dealer who gets arrested.

>lolbertarian response
The purchase of drugs is a voluntary transaction, therefore you cannot take any action against the dealer. You also cannot ground your kid, because that's a violation of his property rights. You also can't send him into rehab against his will, because that would violate the NAP too. So what exactly can you do? Well, you own the house, you are within your rights to kick your kid off your property, so the kids would die in a week homeless from drug overdose, cold, or hunger. Everyone should be happy because NAP wasn't violated.

Friendly reminder that if you don't include the Bible in your daily life and every word that was penned by God and his only Son, you aren't a real Christian!
>inb4 muh open to interpretation
God's word is not to be "interpreted" by some pretender, if His word was open to interpretation, He would have stated so.

>>2098419
I didn't make the black people analogy mate. You're confusing me with somebody else.

Secondly, religious beliefs doesn't supercede federal law regardless of whatever they may be. If that were the case, when Jihadi John murders his wife because of whatever reason, he can't say but muh religion.

My religion doesn't like that isn't a valid argument for breaking the law.

>>2098426
Freedom of speech as a concept isn't the law of the land. Why so hostile? I'm just answering your question fag.

Yes companies have vast power over their employees. Thank Reagan for busting up the unions. As it stands, yes companies can fire you for conduct on social media.

Again, I didn't say I supported it. I'm merely stating that's the way it currently is.

>>2097538
Christians probably wonder why they are ridiculed so frequently from people around them for practicing their religion. While Islam murders people across the world on a regular basis, and yet people (majority) don't criticize it, and actively protect them. In some cases even try to justify the Islamic terrorists actions.

>>2098455
>islamic terrorists don't face criticism for their actions

What world do you live in? Unless you're one of those "Islam is inherently evil" fags

>>2098452
So according to you homosexuality isn't on par with murder, which is fine and I agree (a Christian wouldn't), yet refusing to bake a cake IS on par with murder?

>>2098461
They do not suffer backlash from a majority of people.

Recently, the Ohio State stabbing where college students claimed the attacker was the hero.

Europe where every damn attack gets met with "This isn't Islam, it was someone who isn't a real follower! We need to show Muslims we love them more! We aren't the tolerant ones! and etc..."

Islam is defended tooth and nail by mainstream leftists.

The culture of the West has been fundamentally anti-Christian for centuries now. It's been this way since Descartes. The Modern project is incompatible with a thoroughly Christian way of life.

>>2098464
When did I imply that refusing to bake a cake was on par with murder?

They're both crimes, sure, but that doesn't mean they're the same magnitude of crime.

>>2098489
Well I was talking about the cake and you started pulling analogies about jihadis murdering their wives.

>>2098493
That was just to make the point what your religion deems is okay and not okay has zero bearing on the laws of the country that you have to follow.

You can't give exception and say well some religious beliefs can be excused but others can't.

Discrimination isn't protected just because a religion says it's bad.

>>2098499
But really in this case who is discriminating who? The Christian bakery who refuses service or the gay couple who are trying to force the bakery into something they think it's immoral?

There's been cases of businesses refusing service to Trump supporters, for example. They weren't hammered with fines. How is this case any different?

>>2098506
>i didnt CHOOSE to be a Trump supporter I was BORN this way

>>2098605
Being gay might or might not be a choice. But getting a gay marriage definitely is a choice - the same as voting for Trump.

>>2098605
People don't choose their political conscience anymore than they choose their sexuality. They might choose how they express it, but the same can be said for gays getting married.

>>2097570
This
>Angry_Pastor_Yells_At_Mall_Santa_Claus.jpg

>>2098738
>People don't choose their political conscience anymore than they choose their sexuality.
Anon.

>>2098814
He's right. You can be attracted to men which you have no control over but actually having sex with men is a choice.

>>2097980
Never point out logical fallacies to a Christian. It is offensive. You should respect their stupidity.

>>2098829
but lust is adultery according to Jesus

>>2098848
I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about the choice vs no choice thing.

>>2098419
>According to the Bible it's a crime of the highest level, really on par with murder.

Yes and we're probably not talking about a Christian theocracy governed by scripture, so the laws of the state are what sets the standard.

>>2098433
no ability to think with nuance huh?

Being persecuted is considered a virtue in USA and since no real persecution happens there, it ends up with nearly everyone percieving some sort of persecution.

>>2098329
WRONG.

Baking a cake was based on the message not on the fact the couple themselves was gay.

>>2097772

Because according to later ancillary laws applied to the Civil Rights Act, sexual orientation counts as a protected minority and discrimination against them on the basis of said sexuality is tortious, whereas discrimination along other lines (such as religious) is not.

>>2100103
You stupid fucking nigger. The question is why the laws are like that.

>>2100103
You can't discriminate against customers just because of their religion though?

>>2102350
Free market doesn't work if the market ain't free.

>>2102359
>free market
>good

>>2098313
>There's no biblical basis for kicking blacks out of hotels,
The Mormons used Ham as biblical justification to discriminate against blacks for years.

>>2102444
There is nothing in the Bible that says not being hospitable to Ham's descendants is a sin.

>>2102444
>Mormons
>Christians
heh..

>>2098313

Also its the same biblical basis for not wearing mixed threads and not eating shell fish.