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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
No, Corporations are only people when they want to get up in their employees Lady Parts.
They aren't people when they want to fire homophobic hillbillies.
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.
Oh, but we can pass such laws, hate crime legislation is punishment for thoughts.
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.
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.
1. sure you are, so is Elton John
2. legal equality should be provided, the word marriage does not convey legal equality
3. so you do want govt mandated thought control---thanks for confirming.
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.
Oh, but we can pass such laws, hate crime legislation is punishment for thoughts.
As they should be.
BEcause usualy hate crimes are a lot more malicious than crimes over property.
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.
Oh, but we can pass such laws, hate crime legislation is punishment for thoughts.
As they should be.
BEcause usualy hate crimes are a lot more malicious than crimes over property.
Really
case 1------ someone puts a bullet in your head in order to steal your money and cell phone
case 2------ someone puts a bullet in your head because he doesn't like gays.
either way you are dead and the guy is a murderer. Why is one worse than the other?
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
Oh, but we can pass such laws, hate crime legislation is punishment for thoughts.
As they should be.
BEcause usualy hate crimes are a lot more malicious than crimes over property.
Really
case 1------ someone puts a bullet in your head in order to steal your money and cell phone
case 2------ someone puts a bullet in your head because he doesn't like gays.
either way you are dead and the guy is a murderer. Why is one worse than the other?
I had a feeling this might have been a set up from the beginning. That's exactly what it was. A&E colluded with GQ to set the whole thing up with a network representative at the interview to make sure it went according to plan.
