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.
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
Why would they have to do that?
With you in a sobbing pile in the corner. Again.The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.
The left is intolerant of Big Government RW fundies trashing the Constitution.
You want to use religion to rule government. Religion belongs in churches, not in government.
The left can go to hell and take their slimy disgusting practices with them.
Sorry but the US Constitution is here to stay.
Deal with it.
Ahahaha I hope the freaks keep pushing I know how that will end.
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
Sure, Syriusly, in both cases let the residents decide democratically and by consensus.
If there happens to be a gay church in the area, why not allow that church to display a gay scene?
They could agree to localize this to each church or neighborhood having the display those members agree with,
so it is fair.
Why not?
Why preclude all displays because you don't trust people to work things out themselves in a reasonable fashion.
How can they ever learn if you ban them from even having these options available?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Yes the establishment clause applys
So a local town putting up a nativity scene is Congress establishing a region or prohibiting free expression of religion?
Emily nailed you with this one. You have this ridiculously contorted standard for this where anything any level of government, even local, does involving religion in any possible way is Unconstitutional, you kill it all.
Then with gay marriage where being gay doesn't change who you can marry, you want the courts to say well that's not fair, let's override that because we can and save leftists the trouble of convincing anyone
How did you possibly not get that?2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]
Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.
Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.
Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.
I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.
And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.
??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?
Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?
No- I am not.
Are you saying that allowing gay people to marry means that Christians should be allowed to marry ponies?
Or should we address my actual post rather than hysterical fictionalized speculation?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
Sure, Syriusly, in both cases let the residents decide democratically and by consensus.
If there happens to be a gay church in the area, why not allow that church to display a gay scene?
They could agree to localize this to each church or neighborhood having the display those members agree with,
so it is fair.
Why not?
Why preclude all displays because you don't trust people to work things out themselves in a reasonable fashion.
How can they ever learn if you ban them from even having these options available?
Any church is welcome to put up any display it wants on its own property or any private property with permission.
If the city is going to allow displays on public grounds- then the government has to do so fairly to anyone who wants to put up displays on public grounds- no allowing Christian displays but denying Hare Krishna displays.
As an atheist, I don't have a problem with that solution- though some would. Personally I think that the shit will hit the fan the first time the locals Wiccans want to put up their display....
What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.
Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'
It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'
Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.
Look clown do you have a link to a conservative being awarded $135k because they offended some gay drama queen over a $20 cake? No you don't. Frankly it reeks of the left's 'get mine' attitude.
Do you deny gays are out there now intentionally targeting Christians attempting to entrap them? Hoping for a payday? Celebrating forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs? I dare the left to keep pushing this issue its going to blow up in their face huge.
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
Why would they have to do that?
How could they prevent it? No establishment of religion means that no religion can be given any preference- Chrisitians don't get special "Religion of America" status.
Personally I think that banning religious displays on public grounds is better for those who are religious- because if you are a Christian do you really want every religion under the sun shown on the public square- or even worse- the government deciding which religion is good enough for the public square?
What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.
Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'
It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'
Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.
Look clown do you have a link to a conservative being awarded $135k because they offended some gay drama queen over a $20 cake? No you don't. Frankly it reeks of the left's 'get mine' attitude.
Do you deny gays are out there now intentionally targeting Christians attempting to entrap them? Hoping for a payday? Celebrating forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs? I dare the left to keep pushing this issue its going to blow up in their face huge.
Sure I deny it.
In the case of the cake there is zero evidence that this baker was intentionally targeted. The baker was asked to bake a cake. State law said bake a cake. The baker refused to bake the cake, and broke the law.
Lesson- the law applies to Christians in just the same way the law protects Christians.
How did you possibly not get that?Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.
Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.
Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.
I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.
And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.
??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?
Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?
No- I am not.
Are you saying that allowing gay people to marry means that Christians should be allowed to marry ponies?
Or should we address my actual post rather than hysterical fictionalized speculation?
Even though I'm not saying those works,
my proposal still works in extreme cases:
that "Christians can marry ponies in a private ceremony and so can gays" (as long as nobody is doing anything
illegal such as abusing ponies or abusing people)
And neither has to be imposed as endorsed or implemented through the state.
As for your argument, you were saying that by OPENING THE DOOR to nativity scenes in public,
then can gay scenes be displayed. So you were saying NO BELIEFS AT ALL in public.
1. by your way, beliefs about gay marriage should not be in public either! If you are going to ban
any beliefs that not everyone shares, then gay marriage is not something everyone believes in endorsing publicly either
2. by my way, people can agree on their own what to do in private and how much to allow in public.
So if they don't agree to have gay marriage or have nativity scenes or whatever, they decide by consensus
how to resolve the conflict. And if you are going to say nativity scenes or gay scenes can be displayed in private,
well so can gay marriage, traditional marriage and all marriages be conducted in private and leave just civil unions
and secular contracts to the public institutions. And leave all other beliefs out so that remains private.
How did you possibly not get that?
Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.
Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.
Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.
I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.
And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.
??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?
Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?
No- I am not.
Are you saying that allowing gay people to marry means that Christians should be allowed to marry ponies?
Or should we address my actual post rather than hysterical fictionalized speculation?
Even though I'm not saying those works,
my proposal still works in extreme cases:
that "Christians can marry ponies in a private ceremony and so can gays" (as long as nobody is doing anything
illegal such as abusing ponies or abusing people)
And neither has to be imposed as endorsed or implemented through the state.
As for your argument, you were saying that by OPENING THE DOOR to nativity scenes in public,
then can gay scenes be displayed. So you were saying NO BELIEFS AT ALL in public.
1. by your way, beliefs about gay marriage should not be in public either! If you are going to ban
any beliefs that not everyone shares, then gay marriage is not something everyone believes in endorsing publicly either
2. by my way, people can agree on their own what to do in private and how much to allow in public.
So if they don't agree to have gay marriage or have nativity scenes or whatever, they decide by consensus
how to resolve the conflict. And if you are going to say nativity scenes or gay scenes can be displayed in private,
well so can gay marriage, traditional marriage and all marriages be conducted in private and leave just civil unions
and secular contracts to the public institutions. And leave all other beliefs out so that remains private.
Emily- I frankly can't follow whatever it is you think you are saying.
a) religion on the public square- if government allows religious displays on public grounds it must allow all religious- and non-religious displays- the government can set standards(no nudity, no guns, whatever) but cannot say "must be religious" because that would violate the establishment clause'
b) gay marriage on the public square- if marriages are performed on public space than any marriage gay or not must be allowed on public space.
Please stop saying what I am saying- my words are what I am saying- not what you say I am saying.
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property
So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?
Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.
I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?
Why would they have to do that?
How could they prevent it? No establishment of religion means that no religion can be given any preference- Chrisitians don't get special "Religion of America" status.
Personally I think that banning religious displays on public grounds is better for those who are religious- because if you are a Christian do you really want every religion under the sun shown on the public square- or even worse- the government deciding which religion is good enough for the public square?
Okay Syriusly so how can you justify favoring gay marriage established through the state
instead of no marriage through the state and all of the beliefs of marriage left to the private sector?
Ah...there it is.I believe in equality.
Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE
Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.
Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.
You do know that race is not the only thing listed in Title II of the CRA, right?
You do know that the Civil Rights act included a lot of overreach, right?
Tony Perkins SCOTUS won t have final say on gay marriage MSNBC
"Despite support for gay marriage being at a record high, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, is arguing that the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the issue will not be the final say.
“The court is not going to settle this issue. In fact, I think it does a disservice to both sides if the court weighs in on public policy like this,” said Perkins on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “The courts are designed to interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws, not create public policy. When they do that, they create division and they erect barriers to reaching consensus on public policy like this.”
What a cute graphic of the RW viewing audience.So if prolife passes a bill banning abortion, or defense of marriage act banning gay marriage, or slavery or anything of any angle or content gets passed into law, you would accept that as law?
When slavery was sanctioned by govt as property laws, would you have contested that, avoided slavery by choice,
or what?
When segregation was sanctioned by law, would you obey govt and go along with that or would you have contested it?
PaintMyHouse maybe I am asking the wrong questions
Is there any thing that govt could pass as law
that you would contest is in violation and should be revoked?
What and why?
dimocraps
I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.
Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.
Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.
I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.
And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.
??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?
Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?
No- I am not.
Are you saying that allowing gay people to marry means that Christians should be allowed to marry ponies?
Or should we address my actual post rather than hysterical fictionalized speculation?
Even though I'm not saying those works,
my proposal still works in extreme cases:
that "Christians can marry ponies in a private ceremony and so can gays" (as long as nobody is doing anything
illegal such as abusing ponies or abusing people)
And neither has to be imposed as endorsed or implemented through the state.
As for your argument, you were saying that by OPENING THE DOOR to nativity scenes in public,
then can gay scenes be displayed. So you were saying NO BELIEFS AT ALL in public.
1. by your way, beliefs about gay marriage should not be in public either! If you are going to ban
any beliefs that not everyone shares, then gay marriage is not something everyone believes in endorsing publicly either
2. by my way, people can agree on their own what to do in private and how much to allow in public.
So if they don't agree to have gay marriage or have nativity scenes or whatever, they decide by consensus
how to resolve the conflict. And if you are going to say nativity scenes or gay scenes can be displayed in private,
well so can gay marriage, traditional marriage and all marriages be conducted in private and leave just civil unions
and secular contracts to the public institutions. And leave all other beliefs out so that remains private.
Emily- I frankly can't follow whatever it is you think you are saying.
a) religion on the public square- if government allows religious displays on public grounds it must allow all religious- and non-religious displays- the government can set standards(no nudity, no guns, whatever) but cannot say "must be religious" because that would violate the establishment clause'
b) gay marriage on the public square- if marriages are performed on public space than any marriage gay or not must be allowed on public space.
Please stop saying what I am saying- my words are what I am saying- not what you say I am saying.
OKAY
1. since if traditional marriage are allowed then gay marriages should be allowed.
2. And if gay marriage is not approved but contested then all marriage could be removed
from the state so at least all people's beliefs are treated equally, and NONE given preference.
REMOVE ALL marriages or allow ALL beliefs about marriages.
Since people don't agree to include them all, then that's why Oklahoma pushed to have all marriage REMOVED.
Same with removing nativity scenes if you don't agree to have all types up there.
Remove all marriages from the state, then.
Er...no we don't. They have to fill out copious forms and PROVE that they and their beliefs are consistantly against war.....your pet baker would lose in a heartbeat once someone showed they make wedding cakes without a peep for other sinners.Your beliefs are not the law, nor does the law have to accommodate them. You might believe in burning witches but we have laws against such things.
How about the Religious Belief against serving in the United States Military?
We give Conscientious Objectors the benefit of the doubt.
You're just an asshole
and a scumbag
What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.
Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'
It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'
Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.
Look clown do you have a link to a conservative being awarded $135k because they offended some gay drama queen over a $20 cake? No you don't. Frankly it reeks of the left's 'get mine' attitude.
Do you deny gays are out there now intentionally targeting Christians attempting to entrap them? Hoping for a payday? Celebrating forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs? I dare the left to keep pushing this issue its going to blow up in their face huge.
Sure I deny it.
In the case of the cake there is zero evidence that this baker was intentionally targeted. The baker was asked to bake a cake. State law said bake a cake. The baker refused to bake the cake, and broke the law.
Lesson- the law applies to Christians in just the same way the law protects Christians.
And so also did the State endorse property laws that required
that human slaves be returned to their owners as stolen property.
My goodness, you're as cranky as these people, aren't you?I believe that I am perfectly safe driving at 100 miles an hour, but those damn cops keep oppressing my freedom...
What about the other people on the road you stupid bitch
