Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are you talking about? There are laws that stop discrimination and the issue is philosophical in nature, not religious. Some religious people are in the same boat as the homosexual crusaders and some non-religious people oppose them and want to decide for themselves.No law stops people from discriminating not even most of the time.
But to NOT have the law that fights discrimination that is 100% based on religious intolerance is worse.
What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?
Yes, but only if they claim a religious belief.
No, if they just claimed they didn't want to serve blacks.
>>>>>
Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.
Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.
It's not that complicated.
Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.
Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.
It's not that complicated.
If you cannot choose who you do business with, then you are on the path to a tyrannical state under the guise of secularism. There is no difference between theocratic tyranny and secular tyranny. That's why we have freedom of association.
If a homosexuals walks into a restaurant they should be served like anyone else. If the homosexual wants that restaurant to cater an event, the primary purpose of which is to advance homosexuality, the restaurant owner should have the freedom to refuse, not because of the status of the person, but because of the nature of the event.
I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.
Most all of them I know professionally are hard working and good people.
My opinion is someone has to be crazy to use religious reasons to turn down working for them.
Jesus would not do that. He would accept them as he did everyone.
You gay Bammy boi?
Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.
Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?
As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...
As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...
Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.
Correct, which is why the argument fails subjective religious doctrine and dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully and appropriately so.
You gay Bammy boi?
Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.
Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?
Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.
You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.
Hold on there friend.
It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.
Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?
Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.
Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. Fuck are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.
And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.
The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.
Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.
Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?
A REAL Christian would never have made the statement Jake just did, because he would know it for the mortal sin it is.
The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.
No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".
Hold on there friend.
It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.
Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?
Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.
Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. Fuck are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.
And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.
Damn, you're stupid. You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?
Are you brain-damaged?
The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.
No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".
Sorry, but religious reasons have to be excluded, Jesus would never discriminate against gays. Got anything else?The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.
No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".
Do people of religious conscience have to participate in same sex weddings? Yes. That was the point of this law in the first place. It was to afford protections to businesses like Sweet Cakes and Elaine's Photography. It was to protect business people who say "No I will not attend your wedding".
Damn, you're stupid. You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?
Are you brain-damaged?
Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.
Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.
It's not that complicated.
If you cannot choose who you do business with, then you are on the path to a tyrannical state under the guise of secularism. There is no difference between theocratic tyranny and secular tyranny. That's why we have freedom of association.
If a homosexuals walks into a restaurant they should be served like anyone else. If the homosexual wants that restaurant to cater an event, the primary purpose of which is to advance homosexuality, the restaurant owner should have the freedom to refuse, not because of the status of the person, but because of the nature of the event.
