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.
No one is forcing anyone to tolerate gay marriage or perform or attend gay marriages.
A post of sheer and colossal ignorance. I can name at least two instances where your claim is immediately disproven.
Had Memories Pizza been a catering service and catered weddings... they would have been forced to cater to a gay wedding. Against their religious conscience.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was shut down because they refused to cater a gay wedding.
The common theme here? "Cater gay marriages, or else."
Still waiting for answers to my direct questions posed in Post 1126 and again in Post 1197, I know you've seen them.Liberals certainly have changed. They've gone from being open-minded, curious, tolerant people to something quite the opposite.
Not sure when that happened, but it really is a shame.
Please define "tolerant"?
It certainly shouldn't mean subservience, being steamrolled and SILENCE
Then I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
.
It's clear that you're not going to answer my question, so I'll assume that when you call me a fraud you know it isn't true. And this is why - and surely you also know this - why I have long since given up expecting honest conversation from partisans.Still waiting for answers to my direct questions posed in Post 1126 and again in Post 1197, I know you've seen them.Liberals certainly have changed. They've gone from being open-minded, curious, tolerant people to something quite the opposite.
Not sure when that happened, but it really is a shame.
Please define "tolerant"?
It certainly shouldn't mean subservience, being steamrolled and SILENCE
Then I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
.
You keep hiding behind those same issues. Please tell my why the only people you are critical of are liberals? You say you (somewhat) support gay marriage, but no matter how vile the right demeans gays, you are silent.
Tolerance does not mean someone should be silent and not stand up for what they believe. This is MY country too.
If you screen name has anything to do with when you were born, you are old enough to have witnessed the changes in America brought about by the conservative era that started with Nixon and metastasized under Reagan.
No one is forcing anyone to tolerate gay marriage or perform or attend gay marriages.
A post of sheer and colossal ignorance. I can name at least two instances where your claim is immediately disproven.
Had Memories Pizza been a catering service and catered weddings... they would have been forced to cater to a gay wedding. Against their religious conscience.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was shut down because they refused to cater a gay wedding.
The common theme here? "Cater gay marriages, or else."
I believe the left merely needs to question Jurisdiction of the right in legal venues regarding morals....in the culture war!
The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!
The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.
1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.
Four truths are emerging:
First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.
Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.
Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.
And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...
2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.
3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.
[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles
In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.
It's clear that you're not going to answer my question, so I'll assume that when you call me a fraud you know it isn't true. And this is why - and surely you also know this - why I have long since given up expecting honest conversation from partisans.Still waiting for answers to my direct questions posed in Post 1126 and again in Post 1197, I know you've seen them.Liberals certainly have changed. They've gone from being open-minded, curious, tolerant people to something quite the opposite.
Not sure when that happened, but it really is a shame.
Please define "tolerant"?
It certainly shouldn't mean subservience, being steamrolled and SILENCE
Then I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
.
You keep hiding behind those same issues. Please tell my why the only people you are critical of are liberals? You say you (somewhat) support gay marriage, but no matter how vile the right demeans gays, you are silent.
Tolerance does not mean someone should be silent and not stand up for what they believe. This is MY country too.
If you screen name has anything to do with when you were born, you are old enough to have witnessed the changes in America brought about by the conservative era that started with Nixon and metastasized under Reagan.
Still, I will be happy to answer your question, even though you refuse provide me the same courtesy.
It's my humble opinion, based on quite a bit of observation here and the in the "real world", that hardcore lefties are more likely to be dishonest, nasty and narcissistic. And, based on my own personal set of beliefs and standards, I find that more objectionable than the hardcore righties' higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead. Perhaps this is because I agree with the Left on more issues than the Right, who knows. But that's my opinion. And yes, it's entirely possible that I'm off-the-rails nuts, stipulated.
And - just to nip a potential straw man argument in the bud here - notice I said "more likely" and "higher likelihood". There are no absolutes.
There. I answered your question to the best of my ability.
.
So you're going to equate naivete with lying. This is the type of dishonesty I constantly see, and it comes naturally to you.It's clear that you're not going to answer my question, so I'll assume that when you call me a fraud you know it isn't true. And this is why - and surely you also know this - why I have long since given up expecting honest conversation from partisans.Still waiting for answers to my direct questions posed in Post 1126 and again in Post 1197, I know you've seen them.Liberals certainly have changed. They've gone from being open-minded, curious, tolerant people to something quite the opposite.
Not sure when that happened, but it really is a shame.
Please define "tolerant"?
It certainly shouldn't mean subservience, being steamrolled and SILENCE
Then I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
.
You keep hiding behind those same issues. Please tell my why the only people you are critical of are liberals? You say you (somewhat) support gay marriage, but no matter how vile the right demeans gays, you are silent.
Tolerance does not mean someone should be silent and not stand up for what they believe. This is MY country too.
If you screen name has anything to do with when you were born, you are old enough to have witnessed the changes in America brought about by the conservative era that started with Nixon and metastasized under Reagan.
Still, I will be happy to answer your question, even though you refuse provide me the same courtesy.
It's my humble opinion, based on quite a bit of observation here and the in the "real world", that hardcore lefties are more likely to be dishonest, nasty and narcissistic. And, based on my own personal set of beliefs and standards, I find that more objectionable than the hardcore righties' higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead. Perhaps this is because I agree with the Left on more issues than the Right, who knows. But that's my opinion. And yes, it's entirely possible that I'm off-the-rails nuts, stipulated.
And - just to nip a potential straw man argument in the bud here - notice I said "more likely" and "higher likelihood". There are no absolutes.
There. I answered your question to the best of my ability.
.
I don't believe any group of people are as nasty as the people on the right. Referring to the death of Freddie Gray as "taking out the garbage", or calling homosexuals "faggots" and other demeaning names.
But never a word from you...
Even your reply reveals you are a fraud...you say liberals are more likely to be dishonest, then turn around and say righties' (have a) higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead.
Being naive and easily mislead means you don't know the truth. Liberals are generally not dishonest and have a more informed knowledge of the truth.
It's clear that you're not going to answer my question, so I'll assume that when you call me a fraud you know it isn't true. And this is why - and surely you also know this - why I have long since given up expecting honest conversation from partisans.Still waiting for answers to my direct questions posed in Post 1126 and again in Post 1197, I know you've seen them.Liberals certainly have changed. They've gone from being open-minded, curious, tolerant people to something quite the opposite.
Not sure when that happened, but it really is a shame.
Please define "tolerant"?
It certainly shouldn't mean subservience, being steamrolled and SILENCE
Then I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
.
You keep hiding behind those same issues. Please tell my why the only people you are critical of are liberals? You say you (somewhat) support gay marriage, but no matter how vile the right demeans gays, you are silent.
Tolerance does not mean someone should be silent and not stand up for what they believe. This is MY country too.
If you screen name has anything to do with when you were born, you are old enough to have witnessed the changes in America brought about by the conservative era that started with Nixon and metastasized under Reagan.
Still, I will be happy to answer your question, even though you refuse provide me the same courtesy.
It's my humble opinion, based on quite a bit of observation here and the in the "real world", that hardcore lefties are more likely to be dishonest, nasty and narcissistic. And, based on my own personal set of beliefs and standards, I find that more objectionable than the hardcore righties' higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead. Perhaps this is because I agree with the Left on more issues than the Right, who knows. But that's my opinion. And yes, it's entirely possible that I'm off-the-rails nuts, stipulated.
And - just to nip a potential straw man argument in the bud here - notice I said "more likely" and "higher likelihood". There are no absolutes.
There. I answered your question to the best of my ability.
.
I don't believe any group of people are as nasty as the people on the right. Referring to the death of Freddie Gray as "taking out the garbage", or calling homosexuals "faggots" and other demeaning names.
But never a word from you...
Even your reply reveals you are a fraud...you say liberals are more likely to be dishonest, then turn around and say righties' (have a) higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead.
Being naive and easily mislead means you don't know the truth. Liberals are generally not dishonest and have a more informed knowledge of the truth.
So you're going to equate naivete with lying. This is the type of dishonesty I constantly see, and it comes naturally to you.It's clear that you're not going to answer my question, so I'll assume that when you call me a fraud you know it isn't true. And this is why - and surely you also know this - why I have long since given up expecting honest conversation from partisans.Still waiting for answers to my direct questions posed in Post 1126 and again in Post 1197, I know you've seen them.Please define "tolerant"?
It certainly shouldn't mean subservience, being steamrolled and SILENCE
Then I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
.
You keep hiding behind those same issues. Please tell my why the only people you are critical of are liberals? You say you (somewhat) support gay marriage, but no matter how vile the right demeans gays, you are silent.
Tolerance does not mean someone should be silent and not stand up for what they believe. This is MY country too.
If you screen name has anything to do with when you were born, you are old enough to have witnessed the changes in America brought about by the conservative era that started with Nixon and metastasized under Reagan.
Still, I will be happy to answer your question, even though you refuse provide me the same courtesy.
It's my humble opinion, based on quite a bit of observation here and the in the "real world", that hardcore lefties are more likely to be dishonest, nasty and narcissistic. And, based on my own personal set of beliefs and standards, I find that more objectionable than the hardcore righties' higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead. Perhaps this is because I agree with the Left on more issues than the Right, who knows. But that's my opinion. And yes, it's entirely possible that I'm off-the-rails nuts, stipulated.
And - just to nip a potential straw man argument in the bud here - notice I said "more likely" and "higher likelihood". There are no absolutes.
There. I answered your question to the best of my ability.
.
I don't believe any group of people are as nasty as the people on the right. Referring to the death of Freddie Gray as "taking out the garbage", or calling homosexuals "faggots" and other demeaning names.
But never a word from you...
Even your reply reveals you are a fraud...you say liberals are more likely to be dishonest, then turn around and say righties' (have a) higher likelihood of being naive and easily mislead.
Being naive and easily mislead means you don't know the truth. Liberals are generally not dishonest and have a more informed knowledge of the truth.
And I can always depend on partisan ideologues on both sides to convince themselves that they have a vice-like grip on The Truth.
You asked, I answered. Now you know.
.
Oscar Wilde was an idiot queer. Furthermore, liberals are the ones who want others to live as liberals wish them to live. I personally don't give a damn how you wish to live, so long as you don't inflict it on me.You are correct that I want no rules that don't benefit me personally. Those are the only rules the government has legitimate authority to enforce
Perfect...another 'keeper'...
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. -Oscar Wilde
What?
Selfishness, in your case, is demanding that others accept and condone a way of life they find sinful. If they resist, people of your ilk vilify them, demean them, berate them, or even target them for destruction. That my friend is the epitome of selfishness. People of your ilk cannot stand for one instant that there are people opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, or for that matter, standing up for their religious beliefs to avoid being part of them.
And if we are going to start quoting people, try practicing what you preach:
"Intolerance is a form of egotism, and to condemn egotism intolerantly is to share it."
-George Santayana
No one is requiring you to LIVE a different lifestyle or even "condone" it. But selfishness is demanding other live like YOU. So, YES, ACCEPTING that others live a different lifestyle that has no effect on what you do is call US-selfishness.
So are adults but not children, which explains you Bripiss.Welcome to the real world my pissing infant, which has rules and sometimes serious consequences if you break them.Based on the actual definition of the term as used, the former is the case. Someone who supports communism is not a conservative.
More leftists horseshit. Anyone who claims leftists aren't authoritarians is automatically a sleazy lying POS. Do you think fining a business $135,000 for declining to bake someone a cake isn't authoritarian? Do you think speech codes on campus aren't authoritarian? Do you think telling people what kind of light bulbs they can buy isn't authoritarian?
That's what every Nazi says. They're big on rules.
Mature adults believe in leaving people alone unless they are violating your rights. Goose-stepping authoritarian assholes like you, on the other hand, support every single rule no matter how onerous or unjust it is.
Mature adults don't believe in using insults and vulgarity when they can't seem to get their point across - unlike you.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. -Oscar Wilde
What?
Selfishness, in your case, is demanding that others accept and condone a way of life they find sinful. If they resist, people of your ilk vilify them, demean them, berate them, or even target them for destruction. That my friend is the epitome of selfishness. People of your ilk cannot stand for one instant that there are people opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, or for that matter, standing up for their religious beliefs to avoid being part of them.
And if we are going to start quoting people, try practicing what you preach:
"Intolerance is a form of egotism, and to condemn egotism intolerantly is to share it."
-George Santayana
No one is requiring you to LIVE a different lifestyle or even "condone" it. But selfishness is demanding other live like YOU. So, YES, ACCEPTING that others live a different lifestyle that has no effect on what you do is call US-selfishness.
You have perfectly described a typical liberal.
Anarchy is not an option my little infant. Like it or not, there are rules. I know, children hate rules so you abhor them. Rules, not children that is.Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. -Oscar Wilde
What?
Selfishness, in your case, is demanding that others accept and condone a way of life they find sinful. If they resist, people of your ilk vilify them, demean them, berate them, or even target them for destruction. That my friend is the epitome of selfishness. People of your ilk cannot stand for one instant that there are people opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, or for that matter, standing up for their religious beliefs to avoid being part of them.
And if we are going to start quoting people, try practicing what you preach:
"Intolerance is a form of egotism, and to condemn egotism intolerantly is to share it."
-George Santayana
No one is requiring you to LIVE a different lifestyle or even "condone" it. But selfishness is demanding other live like YOU. So, YES, ACCEPTING that others live a different lifestyle that has no effect on what you do is call US-selfishness.
You have perfectly described a typical liberal.
No one is forcing anyone to tolerate gay marriage or perform or attend gay marriages.
A post of sheer and colossal ignorance. I can name at least two instances where your claim is immediately disproven.
Had Memories Pizza been a catering service and catered weddings... they would have been forced to cater to a gay wedding. Against their religious conscience.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was shut down because they refused to cater a gay wedding.
The common theme here? "Cater gay marriages, or else."
The bakery broke the law.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that although Oregon law provides an exemption for religious institutions, it "does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion."
He added, "The bakery is not a religious institution under the law."
Two more of our inventions. You have ideology, faith, and dogma.So are adults but not children, which explains you Bripiss.Welcome to the real world my pissing infant, which has rules and sometimes serious consequences if you break them.
That's what every Nazi says. They're big on rules.
Mature adults believe in leaving people alone unless they are violating your rights. Goose-stepping authoritarian assholes like you, on the other hand, support every single rule no matter how onerous or unjust it is.
Mature adults don't believe in using insults and vulgarity when they can't seem to get their point across - unlike you.
Liberals are immune to facts and logic, so ridicule is the only means to influence them.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. -Oscar Wilde
What?
Selfishness, in your case, is demanding that others accept and condone a way of life they find sinful. If they resist, people of your ilk vilify them, demean them, berate them, or even target them for destruction. That my friend is the epitome of selfishness. People of your ilk cannot stand for one instant that there are people opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, or for that matter, standing up for their religious beliefs to avoid being part of them.
And if we are going to start quoting people, try practicing what you preach:
"Intolerance is a form of egotism, and to condemn egotism intolerantly is to share it."
-George Santayana
No one is requiring you to LIVE a different lifestyle or even "condone" it. But selfishness is demanding other live like YOU. So, YES, ACCEPTING that others live a different lifestyle that has no effect on what you do is call US-selfishness.
You have perfectly described a typical liberal.
Has a date been set for your gay shotgun wedding?
Two more of our inventions. You have ideology, faith, and dogma.So are adults but not children, which explains you Bripiss.That's what every Nazi says. They're big on rules.
Mature adults believe in leaving people alone unless they are violating your rights. Goose-stepping authoritarian assholes like you, on the other hand, support every single rule no matter how onerous or unjust it is.
Mature adults don't believe in using insults and vulgarity when they can't seem to get their point across - unlike you.
Liberals are immune to facts and logic, so ridicule is the only means to influence them.
Yes, the moral argument in this case is Equality. A damn shame they included that in the Constitution right my little infant?No one is forcing anyone to tolerate gay marriage or perform or attend gay marriages.
A post of sheer and colossal ignorance. I can name at least two instances where your claim is immediately disproven.
Had Memories Pizza been a catering service and catered weddings... they would have been forced to cater to a gay wedding. Against their religious conscience.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was shut down because they refused to cater a gay wedding.
The common theme here? "Cater gay marriages, or else."
The bakery broke the law.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that although Oregon law provides an exemption for religious institutions, it "does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion."
He added, "The bakery is not a religious institution under the law."
Yeah, we know what the law says. The point is the law is wrong. Whenever queers can't support the case with moral arguments, the invoke the law. And when the law isn't on their side, they start invoking moral arguments.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. -Oscar Wilde
What?
Selfishness, in your case, is demanding that others accept and condone a way of life they find sinful. If they resist, people of your ilk vilify them, demean them, berate them, or even target them for destruction. That my friend is the epitome of selfishness. People of your ilk cannot stand for one instant that there are people opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, or for that matter, standing up for their religious beliefs to avoid being part of them.
And if we are going to start quoting people, try practicing what you preach:
"Intolerance is a form of egotism, and to condemn egotism intolerantly is to share it."
-George Santayana
No one is requiring you to LIVE a different lifestyle or even "condone" it. But selfishness is demanding other live like YOU. So, YES, ACCEPTING that others live a different lifestyle that has no effect on what you do is call US-selfishness.
You have perfectly described a typical liberal.
Has a date been set for your gay shotgun wedding?
What would be the motive for a gay shotgun wedding? They can't have children. You just gave a classic example of why the notion of "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
