Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[TemplarKormac]

People used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws. Were they bigots or not?

Sure they were, but not because they misquoted the Bible. Are you now trying to claim that the Bible and Christianity are bigoted?

They didn't misquote it, they interpreted it differently...just as some Christians are doing now with homosexuality when they interpret it to support anti gay bigotry. History will look no more kindly on them than they do on the racist bigots of yesteryear using the same bible.

But here you are "interpreting" it. Your answer in no shortage of words is, "Yes, Christianity and the Bible are bigoted."

 

[orogenicman]

People believe what they believe. Why do you want the government to mandate what people are allowed to believe?

Yes, the culture is changing, why not just let in happen and keep the fricken government out of it?

This has already been cleared up.

I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.

The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

The proposition was unconstitutional - twice. Not the judge's fault.

 

[Article 15]

People believe what they believe. Why do you want the government to mandate what people are allowed to believe?

Yes, the culture is changing, why not just let in happen and keep the fricken government out of it?

This has already been cleared up.

I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.

The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's nice.

If "the people" of many States back in the day voted on the Civil Rights Act it would have been shot down too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A&E has an absolute right to lose hundreds of millions of dollars on principle. They have a right to lose sponsors and the whole network to make GLAAD happy.

It's up to A&E to weigh how profitable one course or another will be. One thing that has recently occurred to me is that there are alot of liberals who typically enjoy watching this show. From the discussions I've had with people at times there seems to be alot of people who watch because they like laughing at the "ignorant" people show, or they like being exposed to a micro-culture that they're not familiar with, or they just want to see what these people are going to say next.

Point is that A&E probably has a good reason to be concerned that Robertson's comments might create sufficient ill will such that the company might experience a net loss if they don't admonish him.

Money can't buy respect. A & E did the right thing. And I believe that mainstream America knows that, just as they knew it when NBC got rid of Alec Baldwin for the same reason.

Money can't buy respect, nor can you demand it. You earn it. You liberals and Homosexuals still on the other side of the fence on this issue are demanding respect, while advocating a gay rights group using the bully pulpit to shame a man for having an opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This has already been cleared up.

I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.

The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's nice.

If "the people" of many States back in the day voted on the Civil Rights Act it would have been shot down too.

Likewise, should the people have voted to instill communism, we would be communist. Let me guess, you would agree with that, right?

 

[Seawytch]

People believe what they believe. Why do you want the government to mandate what people are allowed to believe?



Yes, the culture is changing, why not just let in happen and keep the fricken government out of it?

This has already been cleared up.



I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.



The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's what happens when you pass unconstitutional laws. (Think Heller)

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me repeat myself if I must:

Okay, you liberals and gays think Christians are oppressive to Homosexuals, let me demonstrate how wrong you are.

LGBT Rights and the UN:

Green (Support): Countries which have signed an LGBT rights Declaration in the General Assembly, sponsored the 2011 LGBT rights resolution in the UNHRC, or both (94 member-states)

Red (Oppose): Countries which had signed a statement opposing LGBT rights in 2008; initially 57, but 3 countries switched to supporting LGBT rights (54 member-states)

Gray (Neither): Countries which have not officially opposed or supported LGBT rights in the UN (46 member-states)

Now, overlay those countries with the predominant religion present in their region.

According to what I have presented, what religion is intolerant of homosexuals? You decide.

(Images and descriptions borrowed from LGBT in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Seawytch]

Sure they were, but not because they misquoted the Bible. Are you now trying to claim that the Bible and Christianity are bigoted?

They didn't misquote it, they interpreted it differently...just as some Christians are doing now with homosexuality when they interpret it to support anti gay bigotry. History will look no more kindly on them than they do on the racist bigots of yesteryear using the same bible.

But here you are "interpreting" it. Your answer in no shortage of words is, "Yes, Christianity and the Bible are bigoted."

Bigots used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws...just like bigots are using it today. Do you understand now? The bible hasn't changed...nor have bigots.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL...

I love how I'm being avoided now. Wonderful.

World doesn't revolve around you, TK.

If you add anything interesting or mockworthy, (more likely the latter), people will be happy to comment on it.

 

[Redfish]

This has already been cleared up.

I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.

The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

The proposition was unconstitutional - twice. Not the judge's fault.

Culture is not a legal issue.

Gay marriage is not about equality, fairness, or joint tax returns. All of those RIGHTS can, and should, be afforded to gay couples without the use of the word marriage.


The gay agenda on this is not about equality, its about forced social acceptance of gay coupling as equivalent to a man/woman marriage.

A few of them are truthful enough to admit it, but zealots like wytchey will never admit what the rest of us know.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This has already been cleared up.



I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.



The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's what happens when you pass unconstitutional laws. (Think Heller)

Question:

If a law was passed banning the supposed "religious intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals" you claim exists, would you support such a law?

 

[Article 15]

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's nice.

If "the people" of many States back in the day voted on the Civil Rights Act it would have been shot down too.

Likewise, should the people have voted to instill communism, we would be communist. Let me guess, you would agree with that, right?

This is quite possibly the dumbest question anyone has ever asked me.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me repeat myself if I must:

Okay, you liberals and gays think Christians are oppressive to Homosexuals, let me demonstrate how wrong you are.

LGBT Rights and the UN:

Green (Support): Countries which have signed an LGBT rights Declaration in the General Assembly, sponsored the 2011 LGBT rights resolution in the UNHRC, or both (94 member-states)

Red (Oppose): Countries which had signed a statement opposing LGBT rights in 2008; initially 57, but 3 countries switched to supporting LGBT rights (54 member-states)

Gray (Neither): Countries which have not officially opposed or supported LGBT rights in the UN (46 member-states)

Now, overlay those countries with the predominant religion present in their region.

According to what I have presented, what religion is intolerant of homosexuals? You decide.

(Images and descriptions borrowed from LGBT in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

All that says is that the Chirstian world is more secularized than the Islamic world... not that both religions aren't equally backwards on this shit.

We are more sensible DESPITE Christianity, not because of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thats what you don't get. Having religious beliefs and expressing them is not bigotry. Bigotry is punishing someone for expressing beliefs different from yours.

Robertson does not want to punish anyone, he will let God be the judge.

But bigots like you think that you have the RIGHT to punish anyone who dares disagree with your Godless, statist, socialistic view of life.

People used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws. Were they bigots or not?

They were. But in this case, you have one side insisting that the other is bigoted, while engaging in public acts of bigotry and intolerance.

 

[Redfish]

This has already been cleared up.

I don't want the government to "mandate" what people are allowed to believe. Anyone can believe whatever they want.

The government, however, plays a role as culture changes when it passes legislation like the Civil Rights Act which supplements the cultural change in the country. You are seeing it right now as more and more States are passing legislation that allows gay marriage.

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's nice.

If "the people" of many States back in the day voted on the Civil Rights Act it would have been shot down too.

Thats not true, the civil rights act was passed by a majority of both parties.

Remember, we decide things in this country by majority vote, not minority preference.

 

[orogenicman]

It's up to A&E to weigh how profitable one course or another will be. One thing that has recently occurred to me is that there are alot of liberals who typically enjoy watching this show. From the discussions I've had with people at times there seems to be alot of people who watch because they like laughing at the "ignorant" people show, or they like being exposed to a micro-culture that they're not familiar with, or they just want to see what these people are going to say next.

Point is that A&E probably has a good reason to be concerned that Robertson's comments might create sufficient ill will such that the company might experience a net loss if they don't admonish him.

Money can't buy respect. A & E did the right thing. And I believe that mainstream America knows that, just as they knew it when NBC got rid of Alec Baldwin for the same reason.

Money can't buy respect, nor can you demand it. You earn it. You liberals and Homosexuals still on the other side of the fence on this issue are demanding respect, while advocating a gay rights group using the bully pulpit to shame a man for having an opinion.

WTF are you babbling about. If you are talking about CLAPP, I expect that vast majority of people discussing this issue don't even know who they are. I certainly didn't until you right wing nutters brought them up. This is not about CLAPP, the First Amendment, or anything else other than a
Louisianna redneck who wears his bigotry on his sleeve, and who got suspended from his job BY HIS BOSS for being an asshole. Do try to stay on topic.

 

[Article 15]

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's nice.

If "the people" of many States back in the day voted on the Civil Rights Act it would have been shot down too.

Thats not true, the civil rights act was passed by a majority of both parties.

Remember, we decide things in this country by majority vote, not minority preference.

Majority of both parties in a national level legislative body. Now go look at how each legislator voted by State (remember you brought up California) and say that it wouldn't have been shot down in a whole lot of States.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Culture is not a legal issue.

Gay marriage is not about equality, fairness, or joint tax returns. All of those RIGHTS can, and should, be afforded to gay couples without the use of the word marriage.

The gay agenda on this is not about equality, its about forced social acceptance of gay coupling as equivalent to a man/woman marriage.

A few of them are truthful enough to admit it, but zealots like wytchey will never admit what the rest of us know.

I think you miss the point. YOu really can't have "equality" or "fairness' with "We won't call it marriage" certificates. By definition, you've established "Separate but equal", which history has proven never really works.

 

[Luissa]

He doesn't have to imply something everyone knows is true.

You guys are soooo the party of tolerance.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what of you?

I don't tolerate homophobes and bigots. Pretty simple.
Call me intolerant all you want, I don't tolerate people who use their religion, Christian, Muslim, etc to judge a certain lifestyle.. Or even they just judge them because they are simply a bigot.
Clear enough?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

uhhh, right, the PEOPLE of California voted against it twice, but the govt overruled them------correction, one judge overruled them.

That's nice.

If "the people" of many States back in the day voted on the Civil Rights Act it would have been shot down too.

Thats not true, the civil rights act was passed by a majority of both parties.

Remember, we decide things in this country by majority vote, not minority preference.

That isn't entirely accurate.

"If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."

--Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America

The Founders believed in natural rights theory, which holds that rights come from nature or from God, and cannot justly be taken away without consent. Therefore, the majority has no legitimate power to vote away or otherwise abridge the natural rights of political, ethnic, religious, or other minorities.

The Founders had great respect for the will of the majority, but also understood that, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

Bill of Rights Institute: Majority Rule versus Minority Rights | Bill of Rights Institute