Where to start: actually it hasn't been 'clear', at least not in the way you'd prefer, for 200 years; more like less than 40 since Kentucky passed a gun control law in 1813. Um, how can one take away rights and give them to others...when we're all guaranteed the same ones? Or, do you mean those not worthy of them? Next, you do realize that there are gay Christians, right? In summation, it is difficult for an entitled majority to come to grips with a more even playing field; causes all kinds of vertigo and such. You'll get over it, or you won't. The world will continue to evolve regardless. Meantime, perhaps reflection on why you chose your particular flavor or religion in the first place in, I imagine, the face of immense familial and societal pressure to conform to the beliefs of your ancestors, is called for.
FYI and PSA, baked ham for our country based only by visiting the MB
- Thread starter kdsdawg
- Start date
A SERIOUS "reset" is coming. May not be many survivors but there is little doubt that tis coming and it shall be world wide for the most part. The USA is coming apart and the people who can see it are being ridiculed by the ignorant. It's really not that sad since it is merely the nature of things. No person, business or group including a country can stand prosperity and freedom for an extended period. Never have, never will.
Well, I am assuming since Kentucky (and Louisianas') concealed carry gun control laws were overturned there has pretty much been a consensus. Certainly we have retained the right to at least own arms as private citizens since the founding of the country. The statements of the forefathers made it pretty clear what their intent was, but we digress from the topic at hand. It seems to me when you take away the rights of one group to practice their religion in order to allow another group the right to force anyone to participate in their wedding ceremony, you have effectively taken away one right to provide a right to another. As far as your smarmy statement about "or do you mean those not worthy of them," nope, not what I am saying (or have said at all). What I have said is that as long as they have other options available, one should not force someone to violate those religious principals to provide a service that is readily available elsewhere. Yes, certainly I realize their are gay christians. I have some in my family. Is there a point in there somewhere? There are also all types of Christian denominations from very progressive to quite fundamental. They all have varying belief systems. However, it is not up to you or the government to determine whose religion is more appropriate. I don't agree with their point of view any more than I do with snake handlers, but I don't get to choose their religion for them. I just know they are supposed to have the freedom to worship as they see fit.
You make the argument about the majority and an even playing field, but the real argument is about Gay rights versus religious rights. And in this case not just service, but active participation. That's problematic. I appreciate the lecture on my religious preferences (again smarmy), but the real question is are we going to let the government continue to run roughshod over religious liberty. We have seen this in the Hobby Lobby case and now in this case.
Do I think its lousy to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation? of course. Would I do it, no. it's bad business for one. However, there are other methods of redress. You can boycott, protest, start a PR campaign, etc. I don't feel that this is the most effective or best manner to address this grievance.
And the bakery owner could've said 'Jeez, it's just a friggin' cake. I'm not giving the bride away'.....but they didn't. They, and the usual litany of theocracy-liners, decided this was a line in the sand moment, when god-fearing folks will refuse to be pushed around anymore...denying, of course, the entire history of this country. Remind me again what group is leading the charge, very publicly, in opposition to gay marriage, gay adoption, anti- bullying statutes (a VERY Christian stand that!), and the banning of so-called reparative therapy? Not about a cake, pal, it's about a death cult deciding who's worthy of equal protection.
Hydro, you seem fairly intelligent, but also in love with your own IQ, or what you perceive it to be.
You've been tarring Christians all day using a broad brush, making generalizations that are just plain ignorant.
I've got gay friends, but also realize that not everyone, myself included, always understands that lifestyle. And some people have different, and not necessarily hateful, ideas about gay marriage.
I try to take a live and let live approach when it comes to religious beliefs. From what I've read, you take a very prejudicial and condescending approach.
You've been tarring Christians all day using a broad brush, making generalizations that are just plain ignorant.
I've got gay friends, but also realize that not everyone, myself included, always understands that lifestyle. And some people have different, and not necessarily hateful, ideas about gay marriage.
I try to take a live and let live approach when it comes to religious beliefs. From what I've read, you take a very prejudicial and condescending approach.
It's not just about a cake. The same applies to wedding planners, photographers, etc. A gay couple could just as easily decide to respect someone's religious beliefs and call the next baker. But no, this is about punishing people who don't think a certain way. That's a very chilling concept. There's no doubt from which end of the political spectrum the fascists in the 21st century come from.
You are simply looking at it from only one vantage point. It may not be an important stand for you, but you are not a member of their religion. What's next? Do all preachers have to marry them now because Uncle Sam says so? You have to remember for the religious these are sacred beliefs. That might not mean much to you, but for them it is a higher calling than country (law). I think you are the ones denying the history of the country which has been one of religious liberty and separation of church and state. Not state making the church conform to the wishes of the state.
Death cult? Come again. The court will decide all the above issues which may or may not go along with religious principals, but that doesn't mean the state should force religious people to actively engage in activities that go against their religious teachings. You are lumping all Christians together with your list of issues. Some agree with those, some don't. However, they have every right to voice and vote their convictions. You are right about one thing. It's not about a cake. What's next? Do we force all doctors to form abortions? Do all preachers have to wed gay people? It's about not losing your right to practice your faith in your own business. Just because you are secular, you don't have the right to take away people's religious liberty. That is, obviously, one of the reasons this country was formed.
A bakery (photo shop, printer, et al) is not a church. The government isn't forcing the church to do anything. It is, however, applying the same standard of equal protection to a business regardless of the owner's religious belief. Or, are you asking for special treatment under the law? And, yes, death cult; harsh but fitting.
Hobby Lobby is not a church, either, but SCOTUS said that it could opt out of paying for abortifacients on religious grounds. So it shouldn't matter that a bakery isn't a church. What should matter is that a person can't force someone to involve himself in a private ceremony if there is a clear conflict with a religious belief.
It's not a church, but the owner has a religion and should be allowed to follow those tenants. He doesn't become less religious just because he/she is at work especially in a business that he/she owns. No one is saying that they can't get married or that they can't do anything.
At any rate, I respect your opinion, but I just find government forced participation troublesome. I see a country founded on religious freedom continuously taking those freedoms away. I am just more of a libertarian and believe that people should be free to do as they choose for the most part. Gays should be able to live as they choose as should Christians, etc.
Are you a religious scholar learned in their religion? If they feel strongly based on their religious teachings that life starts at conception, as many Catholics do, therefore abortifacients would be considered murder. These employees can still purchase them privately. They can change employers. They are not being denied these drugs. The owner is just not required to provide them against their religious teachings.
Hydro I guess Baltimore is a great example of what we can expect in your new world - what happened to the young man was very wrong but is this your answer to the problem?
What's the difference? In the end, HL was able to withhold a benefit to a protected class (women) on the basis of a religious belief. Likewise, a bakery should be able to deny a service if it violates a religious belief.
Hydro,
you obviously think religion especially Christianity is exclusive and teaches hate. That could not be further from the truth. I think if you were in charge it would be like the reign of Nero when Christians were persecuted.
We are in the times when our religion is under attack from all sides (government, islam, homosexuals, even false prophets who claim to be Christian). Christianity teaches us to love one another which I do, but I will fight like hell to preserve what i and other Christians believe to be the way to Heaven. I feel sorry for you and your false pride and your arrogance aimed at us. I will pray for you (I know you will say you don't need our prayers,but you do).
you obviously think religion especially Christianity is exclusive and teaches hate. That could not be further from the truth. I think if you were in charge it would be like the reign of Nero when Christians were persecuted.
We are in the times when our religion is under attack from all sides (government, islam, homosexuals, even false prophets who claim to be Christian). Christianity teaches us to love one another which I do, but I will fight like hell to preserve what i and other Christians believe to be the way to Heaven. I feel sorry for you and your false pride and your arrogance aimed at us. I will pray for you (I know you will say you don't need our prayers,but you do).
Not hate per se but exclusion....as well as just basic nonsense though all flavors do that. It's fire insurance for the fearful but if it gets you out of bed In the am, have at it. Again, keep it out of my kids' schools and my government and we have no problem.
Reasonable, but likewise, you have to keep government out of the affairs of the church as well. Separation of church and state goes both ways.
I understand your point, but I think a national security interests approved by a judge is a different thing all together. The same could be said that you can't stand behind a church to murder people. There are exceptions to every rule and serving in a gay marriage may be one. We'll see.
Hydro,
I agree with you on those points. I would never force my beliefs upon others Each person has to choose to accept God or not , A very personal matter. If the pledge is recited in school no one has to recite it unless they want, but it should not be taken from the majority who believe. If a muslim wants to pray their prayer they should have their space and I will pray my own prayer. It is fire insurance as you say, the fires of eternal damnation.
Enjoyed debating with you!
I agree with you on those points. I would never force my beliefs upon others Each person has to choose to accept God or not , A very personal matter. If the pledge is recited in school no one has to recite it unless they want, but it should not be taken from the majority who believe. If a muslim wants to pray their prayer they should have their space and I will pray my own prayer. It is fire insurance as you say, the fires of eternal damnation.
Enjoyed debating with you!
Last edited:
Right, because prior to that, religion had never been used as a reason to oppose abortion, even the indirect funding of it.
He said that "HE" wouldn't. I don't think he was talking about all Christians. However, if they (Christians) feel strongly that abortion is murder and is morally wrong, shouldn't they be able to vote and legislate their convictions? Liberals do it all the time. Gun rights, death penalty, etc. The only difference is that one group is religious.
As abhorrent abortion is, it's simply not practical to outlaw it. That and the fact that there are about 20 million fewer democrat voters thanks to it.
POSOTUS. anyone named Clinton, the current and last AG, Al Sharpton (close advisor to POSOTUS) Nancy Pelosi....any one claiming to be a liberal
Funny you point that out. The amount of constitutional hypocrisies on both sides is astounding but I find the comment especially perplexing that you think the "libs" are the one espousing the "founding father" ideal.
You have to see the quote I was responding to to understand. "The only thing that appears new is that the majority (U.S. Hit male heterosexual and you, I assume, Christians, are being asked to actually live up to the principles espoused at our founding instead of just using them as empty slogans when arguing Exceptionalism. Now a POTUs that admits the mistakes of our past and apologizes for them, THAT is new. Nice we elected a grownup."
I saw that.
Generally speaking, which "side" do see more "founding father" references coming from?
Last edited:
Difficult not to be condescending when your political opinions are based entirely on a dogma you didn't even critically choose. And, not even all of it, only the parts that appeal to the baser instincts of man, the dominance and suppression aspects. Try observing and thinking for yourself.
You are so ridiculously wrong as to be humorous. I am not even particularly religious. I am more or less a conservative libertarian. I would rather government stay out of all of our lives as much as possible. I just know a little about the founding of the country and the need for religious protections. For me its more an exercise in constitutional law. We have two competing constitutional issues (possibly). A civil rights for gays issue that may or may not exists and the protection of religious liberty. I don't even think it would be an issue if not for the fact that government is forcing them (Christians) to actually participate in these ceremonies. I do have an issue with you progressives attacking Christians continuously for their religious beliefs. I don't know why you can't disagree without being vile. But you guys have to demonize your opponents. There is no such thing as civil discourse or even open and honest debate. That does not win me over to your side.
Its perfectly acceptable for you to force your secular beliefs down peoples throats, but it is not okay for religious people to vote their conscience. There is a certain hypocrisy there.
And thanks for proving my point about your arrogance. You are sticking to liberal progressive dogma and telling me think for myself? There is not an original thought in there that I couldn't get from reading HUFFPO.
