Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[bodecea]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Muslim taxi-drivers don't have to pick up drinkers? I may never get a cab again!

No you stupid shit head. That would be like a pizza shop that refused to serve gays pizza. Not the same thing. This is what is wrong with the OP and the article. A person should not be forced to be a part of something that violates their religion. The taxi driver should not be forced to drink with the fare. Get it yet? I hope so because I can't dumb it down any further.

Why is it that RWrs always suck so badly when it comes to analogies. Seriously.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

Now, as expected, the Rabbit moves his goalposts.

I showed how that was the case. You are merely butthurt because you arent smart enough to have figured out I was correct. Congress creates laws by voting on them.

So why doesn't Congress write a law repealing Obamacare?

I mean, that should be easy, right? They have the majority in both Houses, right?

They have written laws repealing Obamacare. They currently lack the 2/3 necessary to over ride the expected veto. But if they did have the 2/3 they could vote to implement the law repealing Obamacare. Something you seem to have missed in your studies of School House Rock videos.

 

[Conservative65]

Still going on over some damn cake, flowers and pizza. I mean my GAWD.

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

People like you claim you're tolerant of all beliefs unless it's a belief expressed by a Christian and you don't agree. In other words, you expect others to tolerate what you believe yet refuse to do the same. Hypocrite.

Big difference between the homo examples and the "others" example. If a homo comes in and expresses they are a homo wanting something for a homo wedding, they are letting people know what they do in private. If the "others" don't come in advertising what they do privately, one can only speculate.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still going on over some damn cake, flowers and pizza. I mean my GAWD.

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

 

[PredFan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

 

[Conservative65]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Muslim taxi-drivers don't have to pick up drinkers? I may never get a cab again!

No you stupid shit head. That would be like a pizza shop that refused to serve gays pizza. Not the same thing. This is what is wrong with the OP and the article. A person should not be forced to be a part of something that violates their religion. The taxi driver should not be forced to drink with the fare. Get it yet? I hope so because I can't dumb it down any further.

Why is it that RWrs always suck so badly when it comes to analogies. Seriously.

You mean like one I saw today from a Liberal who says that thinking about doing something although no action has been or may never take place related to it means the person is whatever they thought about.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game

It’s firmly in the Christian ethos to identify as being persecuted. Jesus stood up to the establishment and was tortured and murdered for it. To be a Christian is to worship a martyr.


So it’s been easy for America’s religious leaders/politicians to convince the devout they too are under assault. That in a country of 300 million, where the vast majority identify as Christian, where there’s never been a non-Christian president, where crosses are as ubiquitous as trees—Christians are being victimized for their convictions. That the almost entirely unanimously self-identified Christian government is going to suddenly go all ancient Rome on the followers of Jesus Christ.


It’s a way believers get manipulated. It makes them malleable and willing to go along with any hysteria that flares up. This week it’s religious freedom. If you listen to those sending out emails asking for donations—it’s under attack!!


How are Christians being attacked? How are their rights being diminished? Apparently if they own a business they’re being forced by Big Government to serve homosexuals. This is what oppression looks like: owning a business and making money off people your religion condemns. GASP! [...]

Apparently, American Christians are now being told liberty is a zero-sum game. That if LGBTs have more rights, Christians then have fewer; if homosexuals are equal, then Christians are second-class citizens; the more for a minority, the less for the majority. They’re being told the most important part of their faith isn’t charity to all—it’s ostracization for some.

Slavery is in the Bible. There are even instructions on how to treat one’s slaves. Slavery is not legal—and even the most devout can’t own any human beings. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Segregation was fueled by the belief that black people had the mark of Cain. Segregation is not legal. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Mutilations for punishments are abundant in the Bible for various crimes including theft and being a prostitute. This has been a practice of the Christian World for ages. The Eighth Amendment barred them; they are illegal. Are Christians less free?

No, and no one would dare to make that argument. Those battles have been won. American Christians live with a secular government that “forces” them to not live biblically every day and largely they’re fine with it.


But homosexuality is an abomination—an affront to god—according to the Bible, you say?


Usury is condemned as an abomination in the Bible. Charging interest is legal—even egregious amounts to poor people. These moneychangers are on every corner. Are Christians being threatened by this offense to god?

There are plenty of other abominations which are suspiciously glossed over by the modern faithful, like obesity, not covering your head, wearing wool blends, eating shellfish, being rich—all condemned and punished severely in the Christian Bible. None of them are against the law. Christians don’t claim their freedom is being impeded by these facts or that it’s so offensive to their faith they can’t run a business. [...]

Freedom really means others will be tolerated whom you don’t regard, understand or agree with. That’s the downside of having freedom in a free county—Americans you don’t like have it too.​

Gays being treated equally and having the same protections in a few states that Christians have in all 50 states, does not equate to "Christian Persecution".

I disagree. I definitely think that minorities should be given an advantage over whites. I know they are not better than me but why not. I don't mind playing second fiddle by some arbitrary decision of those in power. After all, they may pick there friends or people they like. Doesn't obama support affirmative action and isn't he black?

 

[bodecea]

3? 4? - No.


Delaware – Legislatively - 2013

District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009

Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013

Illinois – Legislatively - 2013

Maine – Ballot – 2012

Maryland – Ballot - 2012

Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012

New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009

New York – Legislatively - 2011

Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013

Vermont – Legislatively - 2009

Washington – Ballot - 2012


>>>>

"Legislatively" means not by popular vote, and what the fuck does "Legislatively/Ballot" mean?

The point that started the response was the ideal that Federal courts would be imposing SSCM in all 50 states. That is false. A number of states passed SSCM on their own with out Federal Court action.

"Legislatively" means by the legislature elected by the people.

If you were familiar with the issue you would understand that Minnesota passed SSCM in two steps. First there was a ballot initiative to ban SSCM, that measure failed. As a result of that failing ballot initiative the legislature passed the law for the governor to sign which made SSCM legal in that state.



>>>>

I know what "legislatively means. I asked you what "Ballot/Legislatively" mean?

Being approved by the state legislature doesn't mean it's supported by the voters. Politicians are all sleazy weasels who will sell out their constituents for almost any consideration. A lot of state legislatures approved so-called "gay marriage" legislation and then were overruled by a referendum.

So you want mob rule.

How is people voting "mob rule"? I'd swear you sit around 24./7 thinking up stupid things to say.

You don't know about all this "Constitutional Law" stuff, do you? It's a pure democracy to you, isn't it?

 

[Conservative65]

Still going on over some damn cake, flowers and pizza. I mean my GAWD.

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

 

[The Rabbi]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

What I dont get is why gays are fixated on giving money to people who fundamentally disagree with their values? Is it masochism? I always said homosexuality was a mental illness. I think we see that now.

 

[bodecea]

So the government can't force you to pay taxes? lol

True. Not ethically.

How do collect taxes ethically? A sternly worded note? What's your enforcement tactic or would taxes just be suggestions?

They tried that with the Articles of Confederation....the national government could tax, but had no means of enforcing it......didn't work out very well at all.

 

[PredFan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

What I dont get is why gays are fixated on giving money to people who fundamentally disagree with their values? Is it masochism? I always said homosexuality was a mental illness. I think we see that now.

They do it knowing that a controversy will ensue. It's their activism. Most gays I know would just go elsewhere. I mean what gay person doesn't know someone who can arrange flowers, or bake a cake? I mean pizza? At a wedding? It's bull shit.

 

[bodecea]

Still going on over some damn cake, flowers and pizza. I mean my GAWD.

Yes, the "Christians" are still refusing to serve gays based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" about cake, flowers and pizza...that they have no problem serving to other "sinners".

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

 

[paperview]

"Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

Now, as expected, the Rabbit moves his goalposts.

I showed how that was the case. You are merely butthurt because you arent smart enough to have figured out I was correct. Congress creates laws by voting on them.

So why doesn't Congress write a law repealing Obamacare?

I mean, that should be easy, right? They have the majority in both Houses, right?

They have written laws repealing Obamacare. They currently lack the 2/3 necessary to over ride the expected veto. But if they did have the 2/3 they could vote to implement the law repealing Obamacare. Something you seem to have missed in your studies of School House Rock videos.

IF my aunt had wheels, she'd be a tea cart.

If, if if... Awe...

You were wrong when you said this unqualified statement:
""Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

You lost this one, give it up.

 

[The Rabbi]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

What I dont get is why gays are fixated on giving money to people who fundamentally disagree with their values? Is it masochism? I always said homosexuality was a mental illness. I think we see that now.

They do it knowing that a controversy will ensue. It's their activism. Most gays I know would just go elsewhere. I mean what gay person doesn't know someone who can arrange flowers, or bake a cake? I mean pizza? At a wedding? It's bull shit.

Anybody with an ounce of sense would want to spend their money with someone who wanted their business. That's why I think gays are mentally disturbed.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

Now, as expected, the Rabbit moves his goalposts.

I showed how that was the case. You are merely butthurt because you arent smart enough to have figured out I was correct. Congress creates laws by voting on them.

So why doesn't Congress write a law repealing Obamacare?

I mean, that should be easy, right? They have the majority in both Houses, right?

They have written laws repealing Obamacare. They currently lack the 2/3 necessary to over ride the expected veto. But if they did have the 2/3 they could vote to implement the law repealing Obamacare. Something you seem to have missed in your studies of School House Rock videos.

IF my aunt had wheels, she'd be a tea cart.

If, if if... Awe...

You were wrong when you said this unqualified statement:
""Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

You lost this one, give it up.

HAHA. You're the one still chasing this.
Yes, Congress votes on laws and given the circumstances they create laws. Either with a majority vote and a presindetial signature or a 2/3 majority vote over a presidential veto.
I am happy I could teach you something today. You are now a better more informed person for interacting with me. Keep that n mind.

 

[bodecea]

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Ok, I see the problem, you jumped in on a discussion and I mistook one left wing nut for another. Let me make it as simple as I can:

Providing a pizza or a cake, or a cab ride to a customer, is not the same as actively getting involved in a ceremony or activity. The key word is "actively". Walk in, order cake, leave with cake, no problem. Walk in, order cake with two plastic men or women on top, demand that it be delivered, problem. Demand that a photographer coordinate the wedding photos, problem.

There is a huge difference and though it may be discrimination, Americans should have their right to practice their faith trump the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Clear?

And who is being held to "actively" participating in a wedding? After all....who brings food to wedding anyways? Isn't the food for the reception? A reception is AFTER the wedding, isn't it? Not part of the wedding, is it?

 

[Stephanie]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

What I dont get is why gays are fixated on giving money to people who fundamentally disagree with their values? Is it masochism? I always said homosexuality was a mental illness. I think we see that now.

They do it knowing that a controversy will ensue. It's their activism. Most gays I know would just go elsewhere. I mean what gay person doesn't know someone who can arrange flowers, or bake a cake? I mean pizza? At a wedding? It's bull shit.

Anybody with an ounce of sense would want to spend their money with someone who wanted their business. That's why I think gays are mentally disturbed.

yet they want us to leave them alone and stay out of their bedrooms. they want their cake (lol) and eat it too. it' won't stop with this. This is nothing more but Fascism and trying to make Homosexual a protected class of citizen in the country. then they can really hit us over the head

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

You are right...no one is FORCED into participating into a particular business. However if one CHOOSES to get into a particular field of business, there are legal obligations that go along with the business license. No one is FORCED to have a bathroom in their business...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. No one is FORCED to provide a safe environment for workers...but if you want that license, you have a legal obligation. And so on and so forth.....business is FULL of legal obligations....and suddenly it's "involuntary servitude"?

None of those other things violate someone's first amendment rights do they? No they don't. Participating in a gay wedding violates the first amendment rights of those people.

Huge difference.

"Forcing participation in the pretense of marriage by the sexually deviant" violates the 1st amendment ... mere participation does not violate the 1st amendment, it merely demonstrates delusion.

 

[paperview]

"Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

Now, as expected, the Rabbit moves his goalposts.

I showed how that was the case. You are merely butthurt because you arent smart enough to have figured out I was correct. Congress creates laws by voting on them.

So why doesn't Congress write a law repealing Obamacare?

I mean, that should be easy, right? They have the majority in both Houses, right?

They have written laws repealing Obamacare. They currently lack the 2/3 necessary to over ride the expected veto. But if they did have the 2/3 they could vote to implement the law repealing Obamacare. Something you seem to have missed in your studies of School House Rock videos.

IF my aunt had wheels, she'd be a tea cart.

If, if if... Awe...

You were wrong when you said this unqualified statement:
""Being voted on by Congress makes it a law"

You lost this one, give it up.

HAHA. You're the one still chasing this.
Yes, Congress votes on laws and given the circumstances they create laws. Either with a majority vote and a presindetial signature or a 2/3 majority vote over a presidential veto.
I am happy I could teach you something today. You are now a better more informed person for interacting with me. Keep that n mind.

"Yes, Congress votes on laws ..."

Wrong again.

Congress votes on BILLS.

You can't help but fail, kenya?