(03-31-2015 10:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:30 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The n***** can go down the street and get a n***** cake from one of ten other bakers in the city.

Oh right. I've seen this before.

If there are ten other bakers willing to do the cake, how is the buyer harmed? And even if there's only one baker in town, why does the baker have to forfeit their rights? Like I said in a previous post, I'm a little overweight. If a baker told me he doesn't sell cakes to overweight people, I don't file a lawsuit. I move on to the next baker and he gets my money. That's the adult way to handle this.

Libs have society divided into groups and they take their position on issues based on where these groups are on the totem pole. Muslims > gays > blacks > women > atheists, etc. Christians and Jews (unfortunately for them) are always at the very bottom of the pole.

Man, this victim complex you have is getting out of control. You might want to see a professional about it, and I'm only slightly joking.

I don't feel like a victim and I've never claimed to be a victim. But if you're a keen observer, you will notice that libs have a set hierarchy. For example, in any dispute between Muslims and gays, Muslims win. In any dispute between gays and blacks, gays win. And so it goes down the line.

Conservatives see people. Liberals see groups. It goes back to the individualist vs. collectivist way of viewing society.

(03-31-2015 09:30 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The n***** can go down the street and get a n***** cake from one of ten other bakers in the city.

Oh right. I've seen this before.

Being black is not a moral choice. Serving a black person does not contradict ANY scripture of which I am aware. 2 different things.

(03-31-2015 10:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:30 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The n***** can go down the street and get a n***** cake from one of ten other bakers in the city.

Oh right. I've seen this before.

If there are ten other bakers willing to do the cake, how is the buyer harmed? And even if there's only one baker in town, why does the baker have to forfeit their rights? Like I said in a previous post, I'm a little overweight. If a baker told me he doesn't sell cakes to overweight people, I don't file a lawsuit. I move on to the next baker and he gets my money. That's the adult way to handle this.

Libs have society divided into groups and they take their position on issues based on where these groups are on the totem pole. Muslims > gays > blacks > women > atheists, etc. Christians and Jews (unfortunately for them) are always at the very bottom of the pole.

Man, this victim complex you have is getting out of control. You might want to see a professional about it, and I'm only slightly joking.

I don't feel like a victim and I've never claimed to be a victim. But if you're a keen observer, you will notice that libs have a set hierarchy. For example, in any dispute between Muslims and gays, Muslims win. In any dispute between gays and blacks, gays win. And so it goes down the line.

Conservatives see people. Liberals see groups. It goes back to the individualist vs. collectivist way of viewing society.

You...you just grouped people up. The previous two comments you've made were LITERALLY you describing different groups you notice. The irony is just too much.

(03-31-2015 10:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:30 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The n***** can go down the street and get a n***** cake from one of ten other bakers in the city.

Oh right. I've seen this before.

Being black is not a moral choice. Serving a black person does not contradict ANY scripture of which I am aware. 2 different things.

Exactly where in the Bible does it direct people to discriminate against LGBT persons in employment, housing, or public accommodations?

I remember hearing about the 'curse of Ham' from the fundies trying to justify discrimination. That was wrong from a theological standpoint. And the 'argument' that since some interpretations of the Bible don't condone or celebrate being Gay, that makes serving Gays a sin is just as bad of a theological argument.

---

This thing isn't ramping down. Its got legs.

(03-31-2015 10:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:30 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Oh right. I've seen this before.

If there are ten other bakers willing to do the cake, how is the buyer harmed? And even if there's only one baker in town, why does the baker have to forfeit their rights? Like I said in a previous post, I'm a little overweight. If a baker told me he doesn't sell cakes to overweight people, I don't file a lawsuit. I move on to the next baker and he gets my money. That's the adult way to handle this.

Libs have society divided into groups and they take their position on issues based on where these groups are on the totem pole. Muslims > gays > blacks > women > atheists, etc. Christians and Jews (unfortunately for them) are always at the very bottom of the pole.

Man, this victim complex you have is getting out of control. You might want to see a professional about it, and I'm only slightly joking.

I don't feel like a victim and I've never claimed to be a victim. But if you're a keen observer, you will notice that libs have a set hierarchy. For example, in any dispute between Muslims and gays, Muslims win. In any dispute between gays and blacks, gays win. And so it goes down the line.

Conservatives see people. Liberals see groups. It goes back to the individualist vs. collectivist way of viewing society.

You...you just grouped people up. The previous two comments you've made were LITERALLY you describing different groups you notice. The irony is just too much.

It's ok to draw conclusions and use generalizations if they're based on observable and accurate information. Have a little common sense, man.

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:30 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The n***** can go down the street and get a n***** cake from one of ten other bakers in the city.

Oh right. I've seen this before.

Being black is not a moral choice. Serving a black person does not contradict ANY scripture of which I am aware. 2 different things.

Exactly where in the Bible does it direct people to discriminate against LGBT persons in employment, housing, or public accommodations?

I remember hearing about the 'curse of Ham' from the fundies trying to justify discrimination. That was wrong from a theological standpoint. And the 'argument' that since some interpretations of the Bible don't condone or celebrate being Gay, that makes serving Gays a sin is just as bad of a theological argument.

---

This thing isn't ramping down. Its got legs.

On the 2 bolded, I don't disagree.

(03-31-2015 10:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If there are ten other bakers willing to do the cake, how is the buyer harmed? And even if there's only one baker in town, why does the baker have to forfeit their rights? Like I said in a previous post, I'm a little overweight. If a baker told me he doesn't sell cakes to overweight people, I don't file a lawsuit. I move on to the next baker and he gets my money. That's the adult way to handle this.

Libs have society divided into groups and they take their position on issues based on where these groups are on the totem pole. Muslims > gays > blacks > women > atheists, etc. Christians and Jews (unfortunately for them) are always at the very bottom of the pole.

Man, this victim complex you have is getting out of control. You might want to see a professional about it, and I'm only slightly joking.

I don't feel like a victim and I've never claimed to be a victim. But if you're a keen observer, you will notice that libs have a set hierarchy. For example, in any dispute between Muslims and gays, Muslims win. In any dispute between gays and blacks, gays win. And so it goes down the line.

Conservatives see people. Liberals see groups. It goes back to the individualist vs. collectivist way of viewing society.

You...you just grouped people up. The previous two comments you've made were LITERALLY you describing different groups you notice. The irony is just too much.

It's ok to draw conclusions and use generalizations if they're based on observable and accurate information. Have a little common sense, man.

Have some introspection, man. You're the only person grouping people here, and you're blaming others for doing it. It's like a disease with you.

(03-31-2015 05:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:29 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:21 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

Yes

Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

Tom you keep ignoring something here..

1) Divorce is past sin like all sin it can be covered by the Blood of Christ after repentance.
2) Gay Sex is *ongoing sin*

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 05:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:29 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yes

Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

Tom you keep ignoring something here..

1) Divorce is past sin like all sin it can be overed by the Blood of Christ after repentance.
2) Gay Sex is *ongoing sin*

Both can be forgiven after repentance, you're just assuming the divorced person has repented. If you were to question those divorced, or those not married, about their sexual habits/repentance, then you'd have a comparison. It's inconsistent, because there is an undue focus by many in the religious right on homosexuality as a whole, when in reality it is just another sin.

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 05:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:29 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yes

Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

Tom you keep ignoring something here..

1) Divorce is past sin like all sin it can be covered by the Blood of Christ after repentance.
2) Gay Sex is *ongoing sin*

Not unless you divorce that second wife. Otherwise, two seconds after the Gay marriage happens. I'm reborn. Two seconds after Gay sex... I'm reborn. How is this any different from a theological perspective than a divorced and remarried person continuing to maintain that relationship and to have sex?

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, this victim complex you have is getting out of control. You might want to see a professional about it, and I'm only slightly joking.

I don't feel like a victim and I've never claimed to be a victim. But if you're a keen observer, you will notice that libs have a set hierarchy. For example, in any dispute between Muslims and gays, Muslims win. In any dispute between gays and blacks, gays win. And so it goes down the line.

Conservatives see people. Liberals see groups. It goes back to the individualist vs. collectivist way of viewing society.

You...you just grouped people up. The previous two comments you've made were LITERALLY you describing different groups you notice. The irony is just too much.

It's ok to draw conclusions and use generalizations if they're based on observable and accurate information. Have a little common sense, man.

Have some introspection, man. You're the only person grouping people here, and you're blaming others for doing it. It's like a disease with you.

Which political philosophy is obsessed with groups and group rights? It's the left. Republicans never talk about group rights. We don't segment the population. But Democrats are constantly talking about races, classes, genders, etc.

I STILL can't get anyone claiming 'you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate' to tell me that they think a gay baker should be forced to bake an 'anti-gay' cake for the Westboro Baptist Church members.

(03-31-2015 11:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I don't feel like a victim and I've never claimed to be a victim. But if you're a keen observer, you will notice that libs have a set hierarchy. For example, in any dispute between Muslims and gays, Muslims win. In any dispute between gays and blacks, gays win. And so it goes down the line.

Conservatives see people. Liberals see groups. It goes back to the individualist vs. collectivist way of viewing society.

You...you just grouped people up. The previous two comments you've made were LITERALLY you describing different groups you notice. The irony is just too much.

It's ok to draw conclusions and use generalizations if they're based on observable and accurate information. Have a little common sense, man.

Have some introspection, man. You're the only person grouping people here, and you're blaming others for doing it. It's like a disease with you.

Which political philosophy is obsessed with groups and group rights? It's the left. Republicans never talk about group rights. We don't segment the population. But Democrats are constantly talking about races, classes, genders, etc.

You're still doing it.

(03-31-2015 11:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You...you just grouped people up. The previous two comments you've made were LITERALLY you describing different groups you notice. The irony is just too much.

It's ok to draw conclusions and use generalizations if they're based on observable and accurate information. Have a little common sense, man.

Have some introspection, man. You're the only person grouping people here, and you're blaming others for doing it. It's like a disease with you.

Which political philosophy is obsessed with groups and group rights? It's the left. Republicans never talk about group rights. We don't segment the population. But Democrats are constantly talking about races, classes, genders, etc.

You're still doing it.

Talking about political parties and what they do is far different than constantly breaking American society into groups like the Dems do.

Dems are incapable of talking about Americans without first breaking them down into demographic groups.

(03-31-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:10 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  Well Arkansas has joined the fun now.

And they will pay dearly for it. Arkansas explicitly nullified existing non-discrimination protections in Eureka Springs and made it illegal for municipalities to enact them. They're going to have an even bigger problem walking it back. But Arkansas doesn't currently have any high profile events (and won't have them), have any business conventions, or much of a new economy corporate culture so there's really little we can do other than point out that Jane Crow is alive and well in Arkansas.

We will probably lose in Texas as well. As we have already lost in Mississippi.

But we appear to have won in MT, and look to win in NC and GA.

Ed Schultz: “I Don’t Care” I Slandered Mike Pence By Calling Him A “Homophobe”…

Shulltz is a poster boy for the libs...

Al Sharpton: Fox News Deliberately Made Me Look Like I Was Calling Indiana Religious Freedom Law Racist…

Sharpton’s complete lack of self-awareness in painful to watch.





Here’s Sharpton’s quote from Monday he is claiming falsely makes it look like he called the law racist:

Quote:“This is a key moment for the country. Too often in our history, we’ve seen religion used to justify attacks on other people’s rights, from slavery, to Jim Crow, to women’s right to vote. That same fight is with us today, and we can’t let it stand.”

VA Gov. McAuliffe Invites Indiana Firms To Move To Virginia To Escape “Discriminatory” RFRA Law. Chaser: Virginia Has A RFRA Law…



You can’t make this stuff up.

Quote:Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is putting out the welcome mat for Indiana business leaders who might be troubled by that state’s new “religious freedom” law, which opponents say in effect legalizes anti-gay discrimination.

In a letter submitted Monday to the editor of the Indianapolis Star, McAuliffe (D) makes a pitch for relocating to “open and welcoming” Virginia. He ticks off the commonwealth’s traditional business-friendly assets — ranging from low taxes to the “deepest seaport on the East Coast” — and suggests that the Old Dominion’s gay rights climate should be part of the draw.

“In Virginia, we do not discriminate against our friends and neighbors, particularly those who are supporting local businesses and generating economic activity,” he writes.[…]

McAuliffe has made economic development a priority for his administration, and he has often cast his efforts to expand gay rights and abortion rights as part of that broader job-creation goal. But his sales pitch to Hoosiers is interesting in part because Virginia is not widely considered to be gay-friendly territory, despite McAuliffe’s efforts to push the state in that direction. […]

McAuliffe’s letter to the Star drew objections from Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, a group with sizeable sway in the Capitol. She sought to use his rosy portrayal of Virginia’s gay rights status as proof that there is no need to enshrine special protections in state law.

“It’s good to see that the Governor has conceded that Virginia does not need to elevate sexual behavior to a protected class in order to be an inclusive state, but it’s unfortunate that he has joined the parade of those who are distorting the true effect of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts,” she said in an e-mail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virg...=rss_local

In 20 years, which position will be the one that won't draw ire?

Arkansas Legislators Approve Their Own Religious Freedom Bill…



Good for Arkansas

Quote:On Tuesday, Arkansas legislators, ignoring the deafening cry from LGBT supporters against Indiana’s religious freedom law, finished approving their own version of a similar bill. Gov. Asa Hutchinson has already indicated that he would sign the bill once it was sent to him, and with the 67-21 vote approving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Arkansas House, Hutchinson will get his chance. The Arkansas Senate already has approved the bill.

Hutchinson told KARK that the bill represents an effort to balance religious freedom and equal protection of the law, saying bluntly, “This bill tries to do that, and it’s not that complicated.”

The hue and cry over the religious freedom bill in Indiana prompted the governors of New York, Connecticut and Washington to curtail some government travel to Indiana. Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy blustered, “They knew what they were doing. They were going to make it legal to refuse to serve gay men and women. Somebody has to call them on it.” Resorting to typical Democrat name calling, he said of Indiana Governor Mike Pence on MSNBC, “When you see a bigot, you have to call him on it.”

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/arkansas...eedom-bill