Exactly the reason why I do not like Tim Tebow.
I wouldn't try to judge an individual's heart
You make it seem like it could possibly be considered discrimination. How so?
In areas with very high Christian populations where the vast majority want public prayer, I think its a little bit discriminatory that people far away are going to tell them they can't.
Why not? If my school teachers had us collectively pray at the beginning of class I would be incredibly uncomfortable. It's possible it should be said that leaving it to the states is unconstitutional, but I'm be surprised if you didn't know that.
Its not unconstitutional, in fact, the Constitution would support this being a state issue. The Supreme Court banned it, but what SCOTUS says doesn't change what the constitution actually says.
Really? People always surprise me. I think I speak for everyone when I say homophobes deserve to be teased and made fun of.
I think people should stop using "Homophobe" as a buzz word when using an "Aggressive" style of debate.
Why should that bother you? Times change, so do faiths.
In all seriousness, there are plenty of things in the Bible you would rightfully be ridiculed for saying nowadays. As I recall, the Bible (granted, it's the OT) tells you to stone all sorts of people, including blasphemers, adulterers, and women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights. Modern people accept that these are simply nonsensical things to do. Why would proscriptions against homosexuality be different? Especially since, last I checked, the Bible was never really overly clear on the topic.
Which is not to say that you should be prevented from saying 'I think we should stone adulterers.' IMO, it's a stupid thing to say, but there's no harm in saying it. Off course, if you should form a mob and start shouting 'stone all the adulterers!' from a bullhorn, that's a different story.
Well, the first part is all laws that discuss Israel in the OT specifically, whereas the prohibition against homosexuality is universal both in the Old Testament and the New.
As for adulterers, I'd agree with you that we shouldn't stone them, but I think the idea that its a "Victimless action" is laughable.
Fixed that for ya
I chose that example specifically because of the unmistakable parallels. People who hold your views are increasingly rare, relegated now to the dying fringes of modern society: the elderly and the fundamentalist religious.
Regarding freedom of speech, ibfind it precious that one the one hand you'll claim the right to express your opinion about how someone lives their life while getting all persecution-complexy when the criticism goes in the other direction. I'm not claiming that you, GhostWriter16, do this, just that many public Christians appear to.
There's no parallel's whatsoever with racism and homosexuality, particularly since choosing to sleep with other men is a choice and the color of your skin is not.
As your link states (and I haven't done any other investigation, I am assuming this link is factually correct), the arrests were due to confrontations with the police and not their Christianity, and the charges were dismissed in court. So we didn't tolerate it then.
The charges were dismissed, and they were arrested because they preached at a gay pride event when they "Weren't supposed to." Nevermind that any law against doing that is discriminatory in the first place.
Sure, there might be the occasional liberal who is intolerant towards evangelists and the like. But it is hardly a large group, much less anything approaching a majority of such a tiny minority. So how exactly are they going to convince everybody else to institute any sort of widespread discriminatory practices against the group which is the overwhelming majority in the US today?
There are a lot of them. In fact, the number of "Liberals" who are actually willing to tolerate Evangelical Christianity are a real minority. Of course, they don't want to stone them to death, but we don't want to stone anyone to death either
