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

[JoeB131]

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?

In a heartbeat.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Why am I even entertaining this nonsense? This is a giant waste of my time.

 

[Redfish]

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.

might have, who knows? Robert KKK Byrd (D) fillibustered against it. LBJ said "this will guarantee that we get the votes of the ******* for the next 200 years".

How about if we discuss history using historical facts?

 

[Redfish]

[

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.

Thats Bullshit, and you know it. Forced social acceptance is what you gays are after, not equality or fairness.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

This is probably where the thread will end, but how is it intolerant of a group of people to not expect that others are going to maim and kill them on the street because they like people of the same sex, or just call them names and threaten them with eternal damnation for being different? If that is the kind of intolerance you are referring to, yeah, they are intolerant - a lot like women are intolerant of rape. A lot like brothers and sisters SHOULD be intolerant of incest. A lot like blacks are intolerant of slavery and discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What about A&E's rights to run their business as they see fit?

That dumb hick or southern rural retardedness has no rights to be on A&E.

A&E was completely within their rights as a network to terminate him.

The question is not whether it was legal. That was never the issue.

Never the issue? Apparently you haven't heard rightwingers in the media going on about free speech/1st amendment rights. And for that matter, the author of this thread makes it a legal issue.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

In a heartbeat.

So would I. And just for the record, I'm as heterosexual as they come.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Why am I even entertaining this nonsense? This is a giant waste of my time.

you are free to leave at any time that you think you are either defeated or unable to compete.

 

[orogenicman]

What about A&E's rights to run their business as they see fit?

That dumb hick or southern rural retardedness has no rights to be on A&E.

A&E was completely within their rights as a network to terminate him.

The question is not whether it was legal. That was never the issue.

Never the issue? Apparently you haven't heard rightwingers in the media going on about free speech/1st amendment rights. And for that matter, the author of this thread makes it a legal issue.

They've made it an issue because, as usual, they don't understand the Constitution.

 

[Article 15]

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.

might have, who knows? Robert KKK Byrd (D) fillibustered against it. LBJ said "this will guarantee that we get the votes of the ******* for the next 200 years".

How about if we discuss history using historical facts?

That quote quote isn't a historical fact but the vote is.

Bringing up Robert Byrd only cements my point. Thanks.

 

[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.

Thats Bullshit, and you know it. Forced social acceptance is what you gays are after, not equality or fairness.

1) Sorry, dude, I'm straight.

2) LEGAL equality is what I think is the right thing to do.

3) Yes, I do want a point where homophobic bigots are hiding their bigotry in shame until it all but vanishes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

This is probably where the thread will end, but how is it intolerant of a group of people to not expect that others are going to maim and kill them on the street because they like people of the same sex, or just call them names and threaten them with eternal damnation for being different? If that is the kind of intolerance you are referring to, yeah, they are intolerant - a lot like women are intolerant of rape. A lot like brothers and sisters SHOULD be intolerant of incest. A lot like blacks are intolerant of slavery and discrimination.

What? Are you insinuating that we would "maim and kill" homosexuals on the street? How barbarous. You insist that we SHOULD be tolerant of homosexuality, while instilling no such standard in regards to Christianity amongst yourselves.

 

[Gadawg73]

All this over a family of ZZ Top wannnabees.

 

[Redfish]

What about A&E's rights to run their business as they see fit?

That dumb hick or southern rural retardedness has no rights to be on A&E.

A&E was completely within their rights as a network to terminate him.

The question is not whether it was legal. That was never the issue.

Never the issue? Apparently you haven't heard rightwingers in the media going on about free speech/1st amendment rights. And for that matter, the author of this thread makes it a legal issue.

As I see it the question revolves around whether Robertson was removed by A&E for a contractual violation or due to political correctness.

Since none of has access to his contract, we are unable to address that.

this whole thread is about political correctness and its ramifications on our culture, and whether that is a positive or a negative.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Why am I even entertaining this nonsense? This is a giant waste of my time.

you are free to leave at any time that you think you are either defeated or unable to compete.

This isn't a competition lol.

What a clown.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

In a heartbeat.

Such a law is unconstitutional. Simply because it bans the opinions you deem as "religious intolerance and bigotry." You can't pass laws stopping people from having an opinion. There can be laws against putting those opinions into deleterious action, but otherwise, it would be an egregious overreach by our government. How natural of you to support something like this.

 

[Redfish]

All this over a family of ZZ Top wannnabees.

Velcrow fly
shart dressed man

 

[midcan5]

Given the examples of heterosexual marriage in our society it would make sense to ban hetero-marriage as it doesn't last, it hurts lots of children, it causes abusive behavior, and all it does is jam up our legal system with divorce, custody battles, and restraining orders. Consider the amount of money saved, judges would then be free to help corporations rip off more Americans than they do now. Wake up people ban heterosexual marriage, it doesn't work most of the time anyway. Makes sense doesn't it.

And another question is was anyone born heterosexual? And if so, what made them heterosexual? If it is learning then we can learn anything. If it is genes then could genes be different in some. So in the end you face a quandary. So do something I suggest often, switch hit, and see how cute his/her butt is and if that holding hands and hugging her/him is your style. Good luck and report back soon.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html

"Despite how straightforward and commonplace it may appear today, the heterosexual/homosexual juxtaposition was actually less to the fore in premodern times and, in effect, was not universally observed. Equally, heterosexual love-however natural it may appear today-was seen in those earlier societies not so much as a rejection of homosexuality but rather as an alternative to nonsexual male-to-male relationships and, for that matter, the love of God advocated respectively by chivalric and religious practices and codes of conduct... There is today a clear need to rethink our attitude to heterosexuality...." 'The Invention of Heterosexual Culture' Louis-Georges Tin

 

[Redfish]

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.

might have, who knows? Robert KKK Byrd (D) fillibustered against it. LBJ said "this will guarantee that we get the votes of the ******* for the next 200 years".

How about if we discuss history using historical facts?

That quote quote isn't a historical fact but the vote is.

Bringing up Robert Byrd only cements my point. Thanks.

maybe I didn't get the LBJ quote ver batim, but the meaning is the same. What Byrd did is history, and its fact that he was a democrat. Its also fact that the civil rights act would not have passed without republican support.

 

[bravoactual]

And here I thought all you ConJobs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists were about the "Free Market" System.

A&E, as a Corporation ("Corporations are people my friend") has a right to decide unto themselves what an Employee of their Corporation can say, all about that Corporate Image right?

What this nitwit said offended the Corporation, and therefore the Corporation has a right to muzzle what him.

Corporate Rights and all that.

If you say something your boss does not like, he has the right to shut you up/suspend you/fire you.

A&E is only doing what any Corporation would do.

You guys love Corporations.

Suddendly you dont'.

Hypocrite Much?