Gyroscopic Investing

Xan wrote: Muslim bakeries are declining to participate in homosexual weddings:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-m ... m-bakeries

Where is CNN?  Where is MSNBC?  Where is the Facebook outrage?  Where is Tim Cook?

Which direction does the "tolerance train" run this time?  Suppose I want a Jewish or Muslim caterer to work a luncheon, and I want to serve BLTs and pork tenderloin.  Do they have to do it, or can they decline?

I'm reminded of eHarmony: started and run by Dr Neil Clark Warren, it's a site to match people by personality into long-term, monogamous, Christian marriages.  (The site doesn't exclude non-Christians, but Dr Warren is an evangelical, and the site's formulas are based on that worldview.)

Somebody asked whether they'd do homosexual matching, and the quite reasonable response was, "that's not what we do, and we wouldn't know how to do it".  But the court disagreed!  It is now illegal in the United States of America to offer a matchmaking service without simultaneously promoting manly buttsex.

The solution here is clearly the revolutionary idea that customers and service providers be allowed to freely negotiate between each other.

As an aside: I have no understanding why somebody would desire to hire a wedding baker, or photographer, or matchmaking service which didn't want to provide the service!  Do you get better service by pointing a gun at somebody and saying "or else"?

Let's not forget, there's two sides to this... Conservatives would never defend Muslim business owners if this were a different issue of discrimination. The only reason Faux is covering this is because of the poor, persecuted Christian business owners. This isn't just a liberal bias issue (though they asked for it with ridiculous limitations on associations).

But that's what is so annoying about this topic. Both sides in this debate, as it is currently posed by the media, have ridiculous arguments.

One side wants to dictate business associations.

The other side is ok with that, as long as it doesn't violate their subjective religious beliefs.

If we are going to have laws, and a general rule to obey them, one of the most convenient and subjective excuses to disobeying them will be religious exceptions.

From now it, it might not be "Sorry officer, I was speeding because my wife is giving birth," to "sorry officer, I was speeding because I have a religious exception to speed limits."

Speed limits might be a bad idea.  Giving exceptions to speed limit offenses might also be a bad idea. But the worst possible combo is having speed limits, but having such ridiculous, subjective exceptions given to certain folks.

moda0306 wrote: If we are going to have laws, and a general rule to obey them, one of the most convenient and subjective excuses to disobeying them will be religious exceptions.

From now it, it might not be "Sorry officer, I was speeding because my wife is giving birth," to "sorry officer, I was speeding because I have a religious exception to speed limits."

Speed limits might be a bad idea.  Giving exceptions to speed limit offenses might also be a bad idea. But the worst possible combo is having speed limits, but having such ridiculous, subjective exceptions given to certain folks.

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming to understand and sympathize with Xan and others' positions. You phrase this so as to make fun of hypothetical people whose religions disapprove of speed limits, to highlight them as regressive imbeciles, and to subtly imply that their religion may be simply a front for lawlessness, but that's really dancing around the greater issue of religious freedom itself. Do we have it or not? When someone's religious beliefs conflict with the state's laws, you seem to be implying that the state should always prevail. Is that really the right approach? I'm not sure it is. I'm not in the least bit religious myself but it seems all too easy to just declare that religion is a stupid retrograde excuse to be excepted from the norms of society when in fact these things are fantastically important to an enormous amount of people (including the overwhelming majority of Americans) and in fact comprise and underpin those norms more often than not.

It seems to me that the laws in question here promote a kind of case-by-case situation-specific interest-balancing test of the sort that conservatives generally frown on, but they actually seem to be working. If some members of a religion (coughmuslimscough) claim that their religion requires the murder of unbelievers, that's something where the state's interest in discouraging inter-society private violence should probably prevail. But stopping religiously-motivated murder is one thing... prohibiting a religiously-motivated decision not to provide services to certain customers when there are a zillion other options is quite another IMHO.

PS,

I agree that there is always a balance happening, but the main way government respects religion is by not establishing or forcing one upon folks. If government were to be forced to cease some activity upon someone based in a religious exception, I hope I don't have to go into the ridiculous implications of that precedent.

We all have our subjective preferences about what the government should and should not be able to do. I don't think there should be unique amount of respect given to something as nebulous as a religious exception.

However, I agree with Xan's opinion on freedom of association. I could try to dive into the philosophy of it all but I think the individualist and even societal benefits of respecting that principle are relatively obvious and agreeable in most instances. 

But if people should be able to refuse service to someone, we should do it as a respect for the autonomy one earns by developing their own property (as flawed as that concept can be in some areas of analysis, freedom of association isn't one of them in any sort of consistency-seeking analysis). Not because the God I believe in says it's ok.

I will say, though, having discussions about what people should or should not be allowed to do, or what government should or should not be allowed to do, based on religious beliefs, is a very pertinent area of discussion and debate.  Hell, most of the laws we have to abide by are based on SOME sort of moral code. I think it's ridiculous to try to expel religion from that conversation.

But to the degree it comes in the form of people thinking they have some unique and automatic exception to laws they don't like without even a discussion taking place as to the foundations of that (or the implications of that), I'll have to disagree. I don't think that's what Xan is saying... But it certainly seems to be the automated shutdown to actually discussing this like adults by the right.

And let's remember, I agree with the libertarians on this. I'm not trying to defend the liberals here.

Mountaineer wrote: Perhaps the underlying issue is people do not like being forced to do something they do not want to do for whatever reason.  Would we have a better "society" if, instead of a homosexual wanting laws that force someone to bake a cake for their same-sex wedding, they instead just came up with a better case?  The principle being, if you don't like the situation, make a better case so people will want to change their behavior.  I think in the long term, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Suppressed feelings lead to resentment - resentment that often expresses itself in very ugly ways.  However, the odds of this "make a better case" happening are pretty slim for the same reason Desert's "No sinners allowed" bar will always be empty. 

... Mountaineer

I could not agree more.  Do-gooders, as my dad used to call them, think there are no unforeseen negative consequences to forcing people to do things that they strongly object to.

We have a nation of widely diverse cultures and beliefs, yet some people think they can all be crammed into the same small box without it exploding. 

I Shrugged wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Perhaps the underlying issue is people do not like being forced to do something they do not want to do for whatever reason.  Would we have a better "society" if, instead of a homosexual wanting laws that force someone to bake a cake for their same-sex wedding, they instead just came up with a better case?  The principle being, if you don't like the situation, make a better case so people will want to change their behavior.  I think in the long term, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Suppressed feelings lead to resentment - resentment that often expresses itself in very ugly ways.  However, the odds of this "make a better case" happening are pretty slim for the same reason Desert's "No sinners allowed" bar will always be empty. 

... Mountaineer

I could not agree more.  Do-gooders, as my dad used to call them, think there are no unforeseen negative consequences to forcing people to do things that they strongly object to.

We have a nation of widely diverse cultures and beliefs, yet some people think they can all be crammed into the same small box without it exploding.

Although I am in complete agreement with the Libertarian point of view being expressed here I must say it is kind of funny to hear Christians complaining about "Do-gooders" who want to force them to accept their values. Christians have a long history of being themselves the "Do-gooders" in this country, do they not? Take prohibition and Sunday Blue Laws, just for starters, still enforced in many places. Where I live you still can't buy alcohol before a certain hour on Sundays and in my travels throughout the U.S. I have found that there are some places you can't buy it at all on Sunday and even some places where you can't buy it any day of the week.

My comments have zero to do with Christianity.  I'm just saying the more people are coerced into doing something they oppose, the more bitter they will become.  At some point it explodes.  The point under discussion is just one of many such disagreements.  They keep coming, and keep getting more pointless.

I Shrugged wrote: My comments have zero to do with Christianity.  I'm just saying the more people are coerced into doing something they oppose, the more bitter they will become.  At some point it explodes.  The point under discussion is just one of many such disagreements.  They keep coming, and keep getting more pointless.

+1

This thread has been most refreshing, compared to the media coverage of the Indiana law!

I Shrugged your comment is right on.  It's highly unlikely that large companies like Apple are going to be affected by the law, it's mainly small business owners like the hypothetical bakery.  Forcing people to enter contracts that they don't want to be involved with is indeed a contradiction in terms.  A contract is supposed to be voluntary.  The gay couple in question will already know to avoid a the described bakery because even if they got the service, it'll be unpleasant for both parties...why do that when there are easier options?

Also, there are very few situations where a gay person's identity is obvious on a routine transaction, unless they're trying to flaunt it.  I know a number of gay people in prominent positions in my field, including a transgender woman.  Their patients either don't care, or have no idea.  It might be that some patients figured it out and switched physicians, but no harm done on either side. That's how it should be.

WiseOne wrote:   Forcing people to enter contracts that they don't want...

Like Obamacare?

If you know what is best for all....

Benko wrote:

WiseOne wrote:   Forcing people to enter contracts that they don't want...

Like Obamacare?

If you know what is best for all....

Or any government that requires a tax or regulation of any kind...

The government is going to force us to do stuff if it exists at all. Unless you're an anarchist, one would do better developing a logical framework of when government should be able to force us, and why fundamentally they should be able to do that, and apply it consistently (or try to), rather than moralizing to your political opponents that they are trying to force their will upon you, when you're doing the same thing to a pacifist in Oregon or a survivalist in Michigan that don't approve of what you want the government to do.

Note: I'm not advocating government dictate to business owners who they can and can't serve.  I'm just saying that forcing people to do something that they didn't contract to do is exactly what the government does, in some measure, in all circumstances.  So unless we are advocating for anarchy, simply offering snarkastic anti-force responses to those who think government should do (insert government function here) isn't going to work very well.  You're probably going to want to come up with a better line of reasoning than that, unless you want to only get the support of anarchists and republicans who think they're consistent on the topic of force, but are clearly not.

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote:

WiseOne wrote:   Forcing people to enter contracts that they don't want...

Like Obamacare?

If you know what is best for all....

Or any government that requires a tax or regulation of any kind...

The government is going to force us to do stuff if it exists at all. Unless you're an anarchist, one would do better developing a logical framework of when government should be able to force us, and why fundamentally they should be able to do that, and apply it consistently (or try to), rather than moralizing to your political opponents that they are trying to force their will upon you, when you're doing the same thing to a pacifist in Oregon or a survivalist in Michigan that don't approve of what you want the government to do.

Note: I'm not advocating government dictate to business owners who they can and can't serve.  I'm just saying that forcing people to do something that they didn't contract to do is exactly what the government does, in some measure, in all circumstances.  So unless we are advocating for anarchy, simply offering snarkastic anti-force responses to those who think government should do (insert government function here) isn't going to work very well.  You're probably going to want to come up with a better line of reasoning than that, unless you want to only get the support of anarchists and republicans who think they're consistent on the topic of force, but are clearly not.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.  I do not feel forced against my will to pay some taxes (or equivalent if privately supplied) as I perceive benefits that are useful (e.g. highways, military, police, postal service).  The rub comes when I see all the waste and inefficiency by a system that feeds itself off the sweat of others - then I get peeved because the government has not made a better case for higher taxes, then I feel forced and pissed.  So, it is not the fact that I pay taxes, it is more along the lines of being anti corruption and anti waste and anti self serving.  Whether the government or a private entity provides the service, I really don't much care; I just want them to do it effectively and efficiently and it does not have to be exactly my way - anything inside a 1 sigma standard deviation would likely be acceptable.  What I see now is a government that is trying to force us all into a 6 sigma standard deviation so the extreme outliers are mushed into the mix.  Think of the 80-20 rule.  It seems that we would get 80% of the benefit for only 20% of the cost and I don't think the current apparent government thrust of, pick a number, 90% of the benefit (say an extra 10%) for ,pick a number, 5 or 10 times the original cost is good business, or good politics.  The law of diminishing returns.  Make sense?

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote:
Or any government that requires a tax or regulation of any kind...

Obamacare ain't a tax and Roberts is a turkey. 

EDIT:
A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.

"Don't believe the hype that the other side is selling," Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.

"This is a penalty," Patrick said. "It's about dealing with the freeloaders."
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 27721.html

Moda,

I'd like to try to explain the idea of the religious exemption, at least from my perspective.

Christianity was born and grew up under an arbitrary and brutal dictatorship: Imperial Rome.  And despite this, it's considered a principle (that is, not an expediency, but a principle) that secular rulers are put in place by God, that their aims are largely good, and for the benefit of everyone (that is, lawful order), and that Christians are bound as Christians to obey the civil authorities.

It was believed that the Jewish Messiah would free the Jews from the shackles of Rome, which is one of the reasons that those trying to trap Jesus asked him whether it was okay to pay taxes.  This reminds me very much of your objection (or at least example) of taxpayer money going to things you don't support.  "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" means that we aren't responsible for what the government does: we pay the taxes we're made to pay, in order to live in civil society.

This principle of obedience to even brutal governments is so strong that it can be difficult to justify the American Revolution (as Ad O would certainly point out) or resistance within Nazi Germany.  I'm not taking sides on either of those for purposes of this argument, just pointing out that Christians really are willing to submit to their government.

BUT: that submission stops when the government requires something that God has forbidden, or forbids something that God has commanded.  Paul, who most clearly articulated the principle of submission to government, spent his life in and out of jail, because he wouldn't stop preaching the Gospel.  Christians were fed to the lions, not because Christianity was illegal per se, but because it was required by law that everyone go to the temple at least once a year and worship the emperor as a god.  The Christians felt that they couldn't do that, so they refused.  Paul along with many other Christians were martyred.  If you go to the Colosseum today, you'll see that there's a cross that's been put up; it's been sanctified as a shrine to the Christians who died there for their faith.

My point is this: this is how some wedding bakers in the hypothetical situation see working homosexual weddings.  You might disagree that Christianity forbids homosexuality, or you might disagree (and I might agree with you) that working a "wedding" is not the same as worshiping the Emperor as a god.  But that isn't particularly relevant.  Take it as a given that there are some people who feel just that way about it.  Given that, is it in society's best interests to unleash the lions, or is it better to have a religious exemption?

Xan wrote: This principle of obedience to even brutal governments is so strong that it can be difficult to justify the American Revolution (as Ad O would certainly point out) or resistance within Nazi Germany.  I'm not taking sides on either of those for purposes of this argument, just pointing out that Christians really are willing to submit to their government.

BUT: that submission stops when the government requires something that God has forbidden, or forbids something that God has commanded.

It sounds like you are saying that true Christians are faith-bound to oppose war ("Thou shalt not murder") taxes ("Thou shalt not steal"), etc.

Pointedstick wrote:

Xan wrote: This principle of obedience to even brutal governments is so strong that it can be difficult to justify the American Revolution (as Ad O would certainly point out) or resistance within Nazi Germany.  I'm not taking sides on either of those for purposes of this argument, just pointing out that Christians really are willing to submit to their government.

BUT: that submission stops when the government requires something that God has forbidden, or forbids something that God has commanded.

It sounds like you are saying that true Christians are faith-bound to oppose war ("Thou shalt not murder") taxes ("Thou shalt not steal"), etc.

I think that the Christian perspective on government is similar in many ways to the PP perspective.  The government is going to do whatever the government is going to do, and nobody really has much control over the "system".  We just have to worry about our own responses to it.

But a tax is force applied by those who think they know better than you.

A penalty by government is force applied by those that think they know better than you.

A regulation is force applied by those who think they know better than you.

Same shit.  Different pile.

moda0306 wrote: But a tax is force applied by those who think they know better than you.

A penalty by government is force applied by those that think they know better than you.

A regulation is force applied by those who think they know better than you.

Same shit.  Different pile.

A regulation that forces you to do something abhorrent is in a different category.  Taxation is one thing: who's face is on that money?  Some president's.  Who's note is it anyway?  Federal Reserve.  Is it possible for money itself to be immoral DIRECTLY or does immorality require some human being who received the money to do something bad with it?

Very different from forcing somebody to do something against his own conscience.

So what's your position on forced worship of the Emperor?  Is it just words that everybody has to say?  And then what do you do with people who simply can't say them, even (especially?) if you think their reasoning is bad?  Is it time for the lions?

Xan,

I was responding to Benko's post, FWIW... not yours.  I'll go back and read yours and pose a perhaps more fitting response... though they do seem to be related.

Xan,

I'm not advocating that people just accept government.  Although I have some heavy HB influence on my personal philosophies, I think having well-thought-out opinions on what government should or shouldn't do has tangential personal benefits and is useful on a utilitarian basis to ask of the public.

Regarding bowing to an emperor as a God, I think that IS qualitatively worse than a tax, but that doesn't mean that they aren't both, at their core, as a result of someone else thinking they know what is best for you and trying to control you.

And I suppose each person can decide based on their moral philosophy which laws to obey and which not to obey, but I flat out reject the idea that the government simply ignore or make exceptions to laws based on nothing more than because someone who otherwise would have had to obey a law be exempted from that based on their religious exceptions to it.  The reason is is that because you can't prove religion, it's all subjective to the eyes of a hopefully-objective judiciary.  How are we supposed to respect something so nebulous?

If I have a religious opposition to theft and murder, but believe in self-defense, I could very easily justify shooting tax-collectors and cops in "self-defense."  Now in some historical governments, that wouldn't have been an unreasonable thing to do, perhaps, but it's a bit ridiculous to ask a government, however self-deprecating, to recognize murders of their own enforcement arm as "reasonable due to religious exception" is a little bit too weak to even have a reliable governing body.

Now if we want to dig deep into the nature of the intrusion of a given law, let's do that.  But let's do that on the basis of how intrusive laws truly are.  Or come up with some workable standard that doesn't implode on its own subjective flexibility.  Or if it does, perhaps we just acknowledge it's subjective and fatally flawed and move on.

Xan wrote: I think that the Christian perspective on government is similar in many ways to the PP perspective.  The government is going to do whatever the government is going to do, and nobody really has much control over the "system".  We just have to worry about our own responses to it.

That seems like a cop-out. You said that Christians accept the government's dictates until the government has you do something forbidden by god. Well, murdering is forbidden by god, and killing in wartime is murder, so Christians should not join the military and murder foreigners, and if they are conscripted, they should object and be jailed instead, right? And stealing is forbidden by God, and taxation is stealing, so no Christian should take a job with the IRS, right? So everyone in the military and in the IRS should be Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Confucians, right?

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Or any government that requires a tax or regulation of any kind...

The government is going to force us to do stuff if it exists at all. Unless you're an anarchist, one would do better developing a logical framework of when government should be able to force us, and why fundamentally they should be able to do that, and apply it consistently (or try to), rather than moralizing to your political opponents that they are trying to force their will upon you, when you're doing the same thing to a pacifist in Oregon or a survivalist in Michigan that don't approve of what you want the government to do.

Note: I'm not advocating government dictate to business owners who they can and can't serve.  I'm just saying that forcing people to do something that they didn't contract to do is exactly what the government does, in some measure, in all circumstances.  So unless we are advocating for anarchy, simply offering snarkastic anti-force responses to those who think government should do (insert government function here) isn't going to work very well.  You're probably going to want to come up with a better line of reasoning than that, unless you want to only get the support of anarchists and republicans who think they're consistent on the topic of force, but are clearly not.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.  I do not feel forced against my will to pay some taxes (or equivalent if privately supplied) as I perceive benefits that are useful (e.g. highways, military, police, postal service).  The rub comes when I see all the waste and inefficiency by a system that feeds itself off the sweat of others - then I get peeved because the government has not made a better case for higher taxes, then I feel forced and pissed.  So, it is not the fact that I pay taxes, it is more along the lines of being anti corruption and anti waste and anti self serving.  Whether the government or a private entity provides the service, I really don't much care; I just want them to do it effectively and efficiently and it does not have to be exactly my way - anything inside a 1 sigma standard deviation would likely be acceptable.  What I see now is a government that is trying to force us all into a 6 sigma standard deviation so the extreme outliers are mushed into the mix.  Think of the 80-20 rule.  It seems that we would get 80% of the benefit for only 20% of the cost and I don't think the current apparent government thrust of, pick a number, 90% of the benefit (say an extra 10%) for ,pick a number, 5 or 10 times the original cost is good business, or good politics.  The law of diminishing returns.  Make sense?

... Mountaineer

This makes sense to me.  But this is not the position moda was arguing against.

It really wasn't.

Mountaineer,

You're saying that YOU don't have such a problem with some forms of taxes because you think you're getting your money's worth.  That's fine and all (there are lots of things government does that I think are worth it, too), but that doesn't give you the right to (gasp) force that service on everyone else, does it?

I say that sorta tongue-in-cheek.  Not trying to moralize for real.  But unless we truly think that all forms of government should disband and anarchy is the ideal, then we are, by definition, arguing that our subjective preferences for what the government does be FORCED upon everyone else.

We don't just say "oh well these roads are ok... I suppose I won't advocate for an armed revolt against the government."  We say, "hey there are too many pot-holes come spring time.  You should raise the gas tax, so we can pay to fix them sooner."

Gas taxes and genocides are decidedly different, to be sure.  But they have the same fundamental governmental foundation that Benko loves to toss out only in use against liberal agendas:

The use of force.

TennPaGa wrote: Should Businesses that Quietly Oppose Gay Marriage Be Destroyed?

-- Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic

I would agree with Friedersdorf and say "Hell, no."

He excerpts a story from Matt Welch at reason.com, which sounds awful to me:

1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.

2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O'Connor responds, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment." O'Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.

3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O'Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets "Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.

4) In the face of the backlash, the O'Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. "I don't know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it's safe to reopen," Crystal O'Connor tells The Blaze. "I'm just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don't have anymore," Kevin O'Connor tells the L.A. Times.

Man... liberals are just wrong on this one.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It sounds like you are saying that true Christians are faith-bound to oppose war ("Thou shalt not murder") taxes ("Thou shalt not steal"), etc.

I don't think most Christians believe that taxes are stealing or that killing in the process of a just war is murder.

That's convenient. Could a Christian ogle his neighbor's wife and still be good with God if he didn't believe that ogling counted as "coveting"? Seems like you could interpret your way out of anything if you're willing to twist logic far enough.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It sounds like you are saying that true Christians are faith-bound to oppose war ("Thou shalt not murder") taxes ("Thou shalt not steal"), etc.

I don't think most Christians believe that taxes are stealing or that killing in the process of a just war is murder.

Most don't. Mostly because nobody has called out the inconsistency of their political preferences.

But even if most don't, the implications of having "religious exceptions" honored without any sort of debate is that those that do don't have to pay taxes (and potentially even have the right to defend themselves against police/military).

Or, put another way, ANYONE who takes religious exception to ANY aspect of government could very well have a cogent case for armed defense of their property from that government when property taxes come due or speed limits start getting enforced.

Even if we want a limited government, do we really wan't to go down that rabbit hole of logic?

Desert wrote: No, it's not twisted logic to differentiate between justifiable killing and murder, from the Bible.  The word "kill" in "thou shalt not kill" is better translated as "murder."  See this link:
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what ... -mean.html

I agree, the correct translation is "murder", not "kill".

My definition of murder: killing that's is pre-meditated and not done in self-defense.

Ergo, to me, killing in wartime, for capital punishment, and by a police officer to prevent a suspect from fleeing are actually murder and Christians should not participate in those activities. Right?

A looser definition of murder that includes things like killing in war and executing convicted criminals seems to me to be a totally hollow definition that allows the government to label any killing as "justifiable," putting us in the silly situation where God is prohibiting something that gets to be defined by man. There must be a Godly definition of murder that we should follow, right?

Besides, why bother to even follow the ten commandments anyway? We're all sinners and can't possibly hope to live up to God's standard of perfection, right? Isn't the only thing that really matters that we admit our sinfulness, accept Jesus as our lord and savior, and then breathe easy and stop wasting our lives trying to stop sinning? Given this "accept jesus and everything's fine" explanation that I very frequently hear, I don't really get what's so bad about sinning anyway. Go ahead and do that gay wedding. Jesus died for your sins. God doesn't mind.

Right?